The most influential horror film in the last decade or so?

Karl Hungus

Ok, I've already got a certain film in mind for this, but I thought I might ask, what do you perps think is the most influential horror film in the last decade? I'm hoping this could make an interesting discussion, so please, give details.

Has to be Ringu. No other film has so heavily influenced a genre as much as it.

azezil

The Blair Witch Project, very low budget no scary monsters or buckets of blood, very simple but very effectively done I thought, just all about the atmosphere.

Fysh

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the Japanese version Ring as well. It was, for most people I know who like horror, the breakout film that introduced them to J-Horror and its many glories at a time when Western horror was collapsing under the weight of its own franchise-masturbation crossover projects.

Blair Witch Project I'd disagree with. It had a lot of good ideas that let it work around a low budget and was very effectively made, but ultimately didn't have much of an impact on the genre due to marketing oversaturation.

Creature

Fysh wrote:

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the Japanese version Ring as well. It was, for most people I know who like horror, the breakout film that introduced them to J-Horror and its many glories at a time when Western horror was collapsing under the weight of its own franchise-masturbation crossover projects.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I'd say Ring has introduced a generation to Asian horror and brought about the mass shoddy remaking of these type of films.

qwertplaywert

Monster in Law!

Karl Hungus

Yeah, リング was definetly the film I was thinking of. There truly was nothing like it, and at the time, it was a lot of ironic slasher films like Scream and it's clones that were popular and strangling all the life out of the genre. リング truly was a breath of fresh air, and I don't think anything has made such an impact.

DerekP11

Hang on a minute here. Your talking about a film that was influential right?
Influential on who exactly? Critics? Filmmakers? Mass audience? Investors? Very few, if any, horror films have had influence across all those areas.

In terms of re-igniting the genre amongst a mass audience, it would have to be Blair Witch. I don't like the film, but it did more for the genre than Ringu will ever do. If you think Ringu is the saviour, then prepare for hard times ahead.

Horror films have to appeal to more than horror fans, which is why the successful ones do exactly that. Asian horror in its original form will never endear itself to a cynical western audience. We need successful American product to drive the independent sector.

Fysh

I'm not convinced that Blair Witch did anything for the genre though - sure, it was well-executed for what it was, and it was superbly marketed. But did it deliver? Not really. I know very few people who saw it before the hype started to spread, and those that saw it after the hype hit weren't impressed by it - particularly given that the ending is such that on re-watching it loses a lot.

It was a studio's dream in that the film's budget was tiny, but succesful marketing led to fantastic returns for them. But I don't think it was a good film, and it certainly wasn't enough to reignite an audience-wide taste for new original horror.

Then you look at the crock of rubbish that was Blair Witch 2, where they had a bigger budget and once again went for the ironic approach, and you've got a film that squandered what originality and goodwill it had.

I have to disagree with you completely on Ring. This is a film whose appeal to horror fans when distributed as a video was enough to secure, eventually, funding for the American remake. Which was so succesful they then remade the sequel and, along the way, other studios jumped on the bandwagon with a bunch of other stuff.

Before Ring, horror was largely slasher-flick rubbish (probably related to an existing franchise) or something like The 6th Sense (ie more of an aesthetic tacked onto a film which was basically a thriller). After Ring, we've practically got a subgenre - American Remakes of Japanese Horror. How the hell is that not having an influence on audiences and film-makers alike?

Da Bounca

28 days later. Fast zombies.

Karl Hungus

Da Bounca wrote:

28 days later. Fast zombies.

Nothing new there. Nightmare City and Return Of The Living Dead both featured fast zombies. Don't get me wrong, 28 Days Later was definetly a breath of fresh air in the genre, but it's not original for the reason you outline.

senordingdong

When I saw the thread title I was ready jump in there with 28 Days Later.
Then seeing all these posts reminded me of Ringu....but over much deliberation, I have to stick with 28 Days Later.
It had a big influence on me, and I think the story, ideas, direction and even music had a huge influence on the genre. (shakey camera really comes to mind) Plus...the infected in the 28 series are not necesarily zombies, now are they?

But that's just me.

Karl Hungus

senordingdong wrote:

Plus...the infected in the 28 series are not necesarily zombies, now are they?

No, but they share similar aspects, and the film itself is basically a zombie movie in premise and execution, so whether or not you could call the infected that or not, I would still consider the film a zombie movie. Another example would be The Crazies.

qwertplaywert

Tbh no film has really inflenced[set aside 28 days later] since Scream back in the 90's.

lodgepole

Scream and it's forerunner Wes Craven's New Nightmare were pretty much the template on which the American slasher film has been based since the early 1990's. Ring had a very big influence too, clearly. But it didn't influence Western cinema *that* much. On a purely numbers basis, there are more post modern, ironic, slashers than there are Asian influenced (or remade) horrors.

6th

azezil wrote:

The Blair Witch Project, very low budget no scary monsters or buckets of blood, very simple but very effectively done I thought, just all about the atmosphere.

Have to agree here.

Fysh

qwertplaywert wrote:

Tbh no film has really inflenced[set aside 28 days later] since Scream back in the 90's.

So there hasn't been, say, a glut of Western remakes of Asian horror flicks after the popularity of a certain film about a haunted video tape?

Scream was only "influential" in that its self-referential approach (which was only barely above the level of having a character turn around and wink at the camera) was enough of a breath of fresh air in terms of slasher flicks that it managed to engender 2 crappy sequels and gleefully become exactly the kind of rubbish franchise it was originally mocking.

There have been more slasher flicks made since the Scream trilogy, but I don't agree that Scream has influenced them - and thankfully so, since that self-aware approach gets tiresome very quickly in slasher flicks - since they're mostly going for an approach involving upping the gore and the jumpy scare scenes.

senordingdong

Karl Hungus wrote:

No, but they share similar aspects, and the film itself is basically a zombie movie in premise and execution, so whether or not you could call the infected that or not, I would still consider the film a zombie movie. Another example would be The Crazies.

I would have agreed with you some time ago but after re-watching Days as many times as I have, doing the commentaries and reading all the crap that Danny Boyle wrote...I disagree.
Short of going into epic detail, he inisits he wasn't writing a horror movie, let alone a zombie film.

I see more dis-similar aspects to other zombie movies then I do similar aspects.

faceman

tis a good question karl but it goes deeper on so many levels.

I dont think there is simply not just one film but a few.

Blair Witch i would probably say is slightly more influential than ringu in its premise and to be fair it certainly did capture the imagination of many of us...until we found out it wasnt real. how was it influential, well it breathed new life into the genre. it simply hadnt been done before and sparked a few half a$$ed imitations following its success. it sucked tho.

Ringu. Simply because it was new a take on a traditional tale. Aside from that, it was a damn good film!

I hate to say it but unfortunately i have to as i kinda think that this one takes the biscuit:

Hostel. love it or hate it, it brought gore to the mainstream in a way that hadnt been done before. Granted it was short lived, we still had a few solid years of, well, shoite gorey films. It also sparked the whole torture prawn debate. And as a result of those terrible gore films, we are now seeing hollywood goin back to the drawing board. So maybe hostel has had a bigger impact than first imagined.

senordingdong

faceman wrote:

Hostel. love it or hate it, it brought gore to the mainstream in a way that hadnt been done before. Granted it was short lived, we still had a few solid years of, well, shoite gorey films. It also sparked the whole torture prawn debate. And as a result of those terrible gore films, we are now seeing hollywood goin back to the drawing board. So maybe hostel has had a bigger impact than first imagined.

Meh, Hostel was just gore, and terror.
These things had been seen before in Saw, but with a very good plot etc...

lodgepole

senordingdong wrote:

Meh, Hostel was just gore, and terror.
These things had been seen before in Saw, but with a very good plot etc...

Absolutely, Saw was probably the first really commercially succesful of the current crop of gore movies, and there were plenty in the years before Hostel. The Hills Have Eyes remake came out a few weeks before Hostel even (and was a lot better... I caught them back to back). Hostel actually spelt the the beginning of the end, I think, even though we've had countless Saw sequels and the inevitable Hostel sequel since.

Fysh

senordingdong wrote:

I would have agreed with you some time ago but after re-watching Days as many times as I have, doing the commentaries and reading all the crap that Danny Boyle wrote...I disagree.
Short of going into epic detail, he inisits he wasn't writing a horror movie, let alone a zombie film.

I see more dis-similar aspects to other zombie movies then I do similar aspects.

Yeah, but there's a point after which you have to call Alex Garland a lying gobsh*te if he uses a series of tropes well-established in Zombie films but claims not to have written a zombie film. There's what he wrote, and his opinion on what he wrote - not necessarily the same thing.

Are we talking about a story in which the enemy are perceived as a mindless yet fearsome threat? Yes. Are we talking about an enemy where you can be easily assimilated into their ranks, but where you can't be cured once you've joined them? Yes. Are we talking about an enemy whose spread was sudden and epidemic in nature? Yes.

Well...b*gger me, we're talking about a story that matches the standard themes present in zombie films! It's great that Garland thinks he wasn't writing a zombie flick, I suppose, but that doesn't mean it's in any way true.

Edited to add:

Hostel started the torture porn debate? HAHAHAHA! Good one. No, seriously, go and read about the Video Nasties situation from the early days of VHS and you'll see where the torture porn thing started. Hostel was just the film to reignite it most recently, by virtue of being a mainstream film heavy enough on the gore and lacking enough in the storyline & character departments to be arguably deserving of the term "torture porn"...

faceman

senordingdong wrote:

Meh, Hostel was just gore, and terror.
These things had been seen before in Saw, but with a very good plot etc...

you may be missin my point. Remember the question KH is asking is what was influential - doesnt necessarily mean it was a good flick.

Saw was a good flick. It's intention wasnt to shock with Gore (well not in the first one anyway)

Hostel is an awful film BUT its the film that is credited with starting the beginning of the end. In fact its quite sad that a film like Hostel had the effect it did.

Did Saw create a new influence of clever tense, scary films? No.

i guess however its all open to interpretation and DerekP11's question about who is being influenced is quite valid.

faceman

Lodgepole wrote:

Absolutely, Saw was probably the first really commercially succesful of the current crop of gore movies, and there were plenty in the years before Hostel. The Hills Have Eyes remake came out a few weeks before Hostel even (and was a lot better... I caught them back to back). Hostel actually spelt the the beginning of the end, I think, even though we've had countless Saw sequels and the inevitable Hostel sequel since.

Hostel was first screened to the public in Sept 05. Hills have Eyes was March 06.

ciaran76

I think The Ring too and I am talking about the original.

Also think the Blair Witch has influenced some directors with the shaky camera trick even though it was done before.

Another film I have heard other people class as horror would be the 6th Sense now I don't consider it horror at all but every film after this was made always ended up with kids seeing ghosts etc etc.

lodgepole

ciaran76 wrote:

Another film I have heard other people class as horror would be the 6th Sense now I don't consider it horror at all but every film after this was made always ended up with kids seeing ghosts etc etc.

The 6th Sense is certainly a horror film, and a very good one. We saw a lot of films following it which were similarly paced, some good (The Others) and some not good (Secret Window). It's a shame we didn't see more good ones...

faceman wrote:

Hostel was first screened to the public in Sept 05. Hills have Eyes was March 06.

Well, only a two month difference in US release (the September screening was in Toronto), and the same month here. I do see your point about Hostel and films like it being panned may cause film makers to re-assess what they are making, but we're a while off seeing how that pans out.

beans

Mentioning Scream (and staying in say 1990 -> today) you could say it owes a lot of it's fiction VS reality theme to Candyman...

Blair Witch was a breath of fresh air at the time, kind of stripped down and minimal, and you could say that the likes of Ringu could have taken notes from it... in terms of feel anyway. So if Ringu takes the top spot (and it was the first movie to jump into my head) then you could argue back to Blair Witch instead.

You can always extrapolate back to something else

faceman

beans wrote:

Mentioning Scream ...

...You can always extrapolate back to something else

wow, good one, im surprised none of us thought of that until now! You're dead right though, Scream did inject life into a horror genre literally overnight.

as for your second comment, i cant remember the guys name but there is a theory that there any only 7 possible plotlines possible in story telling. Lucas knew this and used the formula of success to develop the star wars plot. Someone more in the know about lucas might be able to elaborate on the source material.

nyarlothothep

Hostel was so bad it was good, but it went even beyond this, its unintentionally cheesy in being so shocking and gory. I heard recently that there will be a Hostel 3!, Cabin Fever was a great movie too, again it was cheesy but also humourous.

DerekP11

OK. Heres a list that might breath some perspective into this debate. Following is a list of the most successful horror films since 1995.

1995 - vampire in brooklyn
1996 - scream
1997 - i know what you did last summer
1998 - scream 2
1999 - the sixth sense
2000 - scary movie
2001 - the mummy returns
2002 - signs
2003 - scary movie 3
2004 - van helsing
2005 - constantine
2006 - the grudge 2

List based on north american box office and rentals.

Interestingly two films that have been mentioned in this thread, Blair witch and the ring, were both beaten at the box office by the same director, M.Knight Shyamalan, Sixth sense (99)and Signs.(02)

Granted the list is full of piss takes and not so horror type films, but its money that influences. Blair witch may not be on the list, but it bang for buck impact made the didtributor/studio happy. As for Signs...a great movie. But was it horror or sci-fi? And was its original take on a well throdden theme more appealing that the ring?

Cactus Col

It's an interesting debate.

I was going to agree with people that ringu is the most influential film in the last decade. But, it really hasn't given us too much. It introduced some people to asian horror, and some people act as if it's the only style of horror worth considering, despite a lot of it being very formulaic.

Saw I would say has been very influential on the gore side of horror. The acting was slightly dodgy, but still the film was suspenseful, and even had a twist ending. Because of the gore in that film I think it opened the door way for gorier films such as hostel.

Hostel I think was the peak of gore, when that was enough to make a film ultra successful, but I think people started to realise after it that gore aint enough.

Scream might not have influenced a lot of horror artistically ... but I would've thought that it showed studios that decent amounts of money could be made in horror, and opened the doors for a lot of films that followed.
Also, that influence of scream filtered into many other genres and tv shows. No scream ... no buffy.

senordingdong

Cactus Col wrote:

Saw I would say has been very influential on the gore side of horror. The acting was slightly dodgy, but still the film was suspenseful, and even had a twist ending. Because of the gore in that film I think it opened the door way for gorier films such as hostel.

Funnily enough, the bloke who coined Saw said that with shows like C.S.I. and what not on mainstream t.v., censors are easing up on gore but it is now psychological trauma that warrants higher ratings.

Reku

To be quite honest I'm kinda sick of the gore they put in recent horror films, they're nothing more than over the top blood baths and excessive sadism. Think the last "horror" film that in anyway spooked me was probably 'The Grudge' (Ring series, both Japanese and US versions just didn't bother me) or 'Pulse'.
The restrictions on gore are only hurting the horror film industry IMO as the film makers are just using it as an excuse to prop up bad films with blood and guts, when fact is the film itself is not scary. Watching 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning', 'The Devil's Rejects', '2001 Maniacs' I tend to feel I might as well just head to the butchers and watch them carve up a leg of mutton. These films are really just snuff flicks.
Many of the classics had excessive blood and violence in them at parts but they were in no way entirely reliant upon those few scenes and they were rarely the scary bits, quite often they intentionally pushed the blood/violence too far to try and make it farcical to relax you for the next big fright.

thefinalstage

The original version of night of the living dead. Black and White with brilliant actors. Hell Yeah! The original Dawn of the dead was quite good too but day of the dead just sucked monkeys backside.

Karl Hungus

Cactus Col wrote:

Saw I would say has been very influential on the gore side of horror. The acting was slightly dodgy, but still the film was suspenseful, and even had a twist ending. Because of the gore in that film I think it opened the door way for gorier films such as hostel.

I don't think Saw had any influence whatsoever on Hostel, and the fact is, there was very, very little gore whatsoever in Saw. They're vastly different films, with being a straight cut gore movie, Saw has more in common with a film like Se7en, or some of Dario Argento's films. Besides, the films were released within a year of each other.

It's just silly that Saw is being lumped in as a gore film when it's anything but.

farohar wrote:

These films are really just snuff flicks.

No, they're not.

senordingdong

Karl Hungus wrote:

I don't think Saw had any influence whatsoever on Hostel, and the fact is, there was very, very little gore whatsoever in Saw. They're vastly different films, with being a straight cut gore movie, Saw has more in common with a film like Se7en, or some of Dario Argento's films. Besides, the films were released within a year of each other.

It's just silly that Saw is being lumped in as a gore film when it's anything but.

Not really, there was some gore in Saw that was cut from the theatrical release which, while short, was disturbing.

I personally have always looked at Hostel as Saw without the plot. And while it may not be a gore movie, Saw is a horror.

faceman

senordingdong wrote:

I personally have always looked at Hostel as Saw without the plot.

i couldnt disagree more. Hostel was lame film-making. Saw was better thought out, more tension and a better story. If anything I would say that Saw was influenced by Se7en

Karl Hungus

senordingdong wrote:

Not really, there was some gore in Saw that was cut from the theatrical release which, while short, was disturbing.

I personally have always looked at Hostel as Saw without the plot. And while it may not be a gore movie, Saw is a horror.

I've got the DVD, and there still isn't much gore in it at all. And come on man, you really can't compare the 2 films. Hostel was about the idea that there are people out there who'd pay for the chance to murder someone, Saw had a completely different premise.

Yeah, Saw is a horror, but then again so is The Others. You could hardly compare those films.

senordingdong

Karl Hungus wrote:

I've got the DVD, and there still isn't much gore in it at all.

Maybe not, but I don't gorge much on gore so the scenes with the

doctor sawing off his foot and Amanda searching through the guts of that guy for a key

were pretty disturbing.

And come on man, you really can't compare the 2 films. Hostel was about the idea that there are people out there who'd pay for the chance to murder someone, Saw had a completely different premise.

Not on plot they couldn't be compared but watching Saw, and then Hostel nearly a year later, I couldn't help but feel that the latter had been heavily influenced by the former. And pretend that Jigsaw was jerking off the whole time instead of trying to teach life lessons then you've got further similarities.

Karl Hungus

senordingdong wrote:

Maybe not, but I don't gorge much on gore so the scenes with the

doctor sawing off his foot and Amanda searching through the guts of that guy for a key

were pretty disturbing.

How recently have you watched the film? Most of the

leg cutting

scene is focused upon Dr. Gordon's face, and sound effects.

senordingdong wrote:

Not on plot they couldn't be compared but watching Saw, and then Hostel nearly a year later, I couldn't help but feel that the latter had been heavily influenced by the former. And pretend that Jigsaw was jerking off the whole time instead of trying to teach life lessons then you've got further similarities.

I'm not going to pretend that Jigsaw was jerking off, because that wasn't the point of the film at all, and I think that you're really forcing a comparison that isn't there. Jigsaw is certainly sick, but in a very different way to the antagonists in Hostel.

humanji

I would of thought that Saw had the implied gore while Hostel showed it. It that regard they are different, but still focus on the horror of the gore and it's effects on the characters.

faceman

hostel to me was more about cheap thrills than anything else. The death and violence in Saw served a purpose

Karl Hungus

humanji wrote:

I would of thought that Saw had the implied gore while Hostel showed it. It that regard they are different, but still focus on the horror of the gore and it's effects on the characters.

Oh come off it, Saw was more about plot twists and suspense. The focus was most definetly not on 'the horror of the gore' in it.

Reku

Karl Hungus wrote:

No, they're not.

:rolleyes:
While they (the films I mentioned and numerous other recent ones) may not depict actual genuine deaths they are simply films where the writers sat down with only one thought on their minds; "what's the most gory and gruesome way we can kill off the characters?", same point as a proper snuff flick.
Gees, at least in 'Final Destination' they tried to be genuinely creative and keep you guessing as to how the people were going to die and who was next.

Fysh

farohar wrote:

:rolleyes:
While they (the films I mentioned and numerous other recent ones) may not depict actual genuine deaths they are simply films where the writers sat down with only one thought on their minds; "what's the most gory and gruesome way we can kill off the characters?", same point as a proper snuff flick.
Gees, at least in 'Final Destination' they tried to be genuinely creative and keep you guessing as to how the people were going to die and who was next.

Oh sweet Christ, you're going to use Final Destination as an example of creativity? The entire franchise was just an excuse to stage a series of unusual deaths...

As for snuff films, the general point of them, one can only presume, is that they depict real deaths. Whereas gore films are about depictions of faked deaths, and if they're over the top and stylised this presumably detracts from the out-and-out realism (take as an example the scene in which a guy is cut in half in Ichi The Killer).

Reku

Fysh wrote:

Oh sweet Christ, you're going to use Final Destination as an example of creativity? The entire franchise was just an excuse to stage a series of unusual deaths...

More creative IMO than, "oooh, lets have the main guy slowly carve this guy up, then ram a chainsaw into his chest while reving it, leaving the guy flailing and blood everywhere". (as for the franchise of Final Destination, I was only refering to the first one, after that it just got tired and went downhill)

Fysh wrote:

As for snuff films, the general point of them, one can only presume, is that they depict real deaths. Whereas gore films are about depictions of faked deaths, and if they're over the top and stylised this presumably detracts from the out-and-out realism (take as an example the scene in which a guy is cut in half in Ichi The Killer).

Check wikipedia and you'll find that faked deaths are also acceptable to refer to as snuff films if the death was the entire point of the film.

Some possible definitions include a number of acts (killing of animals, faked deaths, suicides and murders)

. Besides you're now just arguing semantics, in my last post I'd said that they had the same point as snuff flicks, in that their only (supposed) entertainment value was gruesome killing.
Also "stylised" my ****, like I said all the writers did was sit in a room trying to think of the most bloody and vicious way to kill people, there's no style in that and all the creativity of a group of ten year olds on a streetcorner. If they even put some thought into a significant plot it might be entertaining but there's usually just the bare bones of such and not much further development (I could sum up the plots for the films I mentioned in one sentence a piece!).

Fysh

farohar wrote:

More creative IMO than, "oooh, lets have the main guy slowly carve this guy up, then ram a chainsaw into his chest while reving it, leaving the guy flailing and blood everywhere". (as for the franchise of Final Destination, I was only refering to the first one, after that it just got tired and went downhill)

Well, sure, I suppose if by creative you mean unconventional. But, well, that depends on what other films you've seen. And FD's "unconventional" deaths are no more likely to save it as a film than the more conventional deaths featured in any other gory horror film so I'm not sure why you make the distinction.

farohar wrote:

Check wikipedia and you'll find that faked deaths are also acceptable to refer to as snuff films if the death was the entire point of the film. Besides you're now just arguing semantics, in my last post I'd said that they had the same point as snuff flicks, in that their only (supposed) entertainment value was gruesome killing.

Funnily enough the first line in the relevant wikipedia entry actually reads as follows:

"A snuff film, or snuff movie, depicts the actual killing of a human being - a human sacrifice (without the aid of special effects or other trickery) perpetrated for the medium of film for the purpose of entertainment."

Intrinsically different, then, to a film wherein you will find extremely gory violence which you know, by virtue of the fact that it has been licensed for distribution and given a rating by the relevant Film Board, contains only faked violence. It may only be semantics to you but it's an important distinction to those of us not merrily hopping on the "gore fans=MURDERERS!/PERVERTS!/FREAKS!" bandwagon.

farohar wrote:

Also "stylised" my ****, like I said all the writers did was sit in a room trying to think of the most bloody and vicious way to kill people, there's no style in that and all the creativity of a group of ten year olds on a streetcorner. If they even put some thought into a significant plot it might be entertaining but there's usually just the bare bones of such and not much further development (I could sum up the plots for the films I mentioned in one sentence a piece!).

Gore movies are far from being the only subgenre affected by this type of thinking. Look at romantic comedies - there's a steady industry dedicated to making films in which people act like they're improbable characters in a Mills & Boon novel and the only creativity injected into the project is around the supposedly funny mishaps that occur along the way to Person A & Person B realising they've fallen in love.

I assume that you're talking about those 3 films you mentioned in your previous post but it's worth noting that 2 of them are Rob Zombie flicks and it's fast becoming apparent that a fascination with lingering scenes of violence and gory content are one of the signatures of Zombie's approach to film making.

The reason I mention this is that while the style of the killing may not strike you as stylised, the way in which it is shown can be. While it may strike you as disturbing or unnecessary, showing a scene in which someone is brutally murdered and specifically showing that scene in a graphic and lingering way, is a lot more uncomfortable than the kind of clean quick kills that action films and the like routinely show.

Out of curiosity, have you seen Ichi The Killer? I've mentioned it before but it's a good example of a film which contains depictions of extreme violence weaved around a very good storyline and some unique characters. I'm curious to know how you react to the violence in a film like this.

senordingdong

Ok....getting back on topic, I just think Hostel was heavily influenced by Saw.

Otis Driftwood

Most influential horror of the last 10 years is easily Scream.
It changed the face of horror movies,albeit for the worse.
How many teeny horror "who dunnits" have been churned out since its release.
Its gone to the stage that I dont bother with new horror movies.
I just buy on ebay or other various websites.
For those of yoy that are sick of the same crappy stuff and want something more extreme heres some suggestions.

August Underground,Mordum,Penance,Murder set pieces,bone sickness,the redsin tower.
These have all been made in the last few years by independant film companies and leave the big budget flicks for dust.

The prowler,maniac,nekromantik,street trash,Thriller:a cruel picture,fight for your life.
These are 70s and 80s grindhouse/exploitation classics that any true horror fan should seek out.

If people stop watching the hollywood tripe with a cast of dawsons creek rejects then maybe real horror will make a comeback.

Finally,checkout www.toetagpictures.com ,the site for the makers of the august underground movies and redsin tower.
They are doing more for the genre than every hollywood director put together.

senordingdong

nedtheshed wrote:

Most influential horror of the last 10 years is easily Scream.
It changed the face of horror movies,albeit for the worse.
How many teeny horror "who dunnits" have been churned out since its release.

How many were churned out before its release?

faceman

senordingdong wrote:

How many were churned out before its release?

the difference being that scream used a very popular tv personality as one of its main characters, killed a mainstream actor in the first 5 minutes (even hitchcock would be proud of the opening) and that aside, was a pretty good film that was a massive success.