The best/ scariest horror films

Lorelli!

flatty wrote: »

Jaws scared the hell out of me.

And the music..

I also got a genuine fright in Cast Away when he's on the raft in the ocean and a whale comes up beside him

andreoilin

I really enjoyed The Atticus Institute.

Tony EH

flatty wrote: »

Jaws scared the hell out of me.

Still does it for me.

It's a wonder how Spielberg got a PG for that film.

El Duda

I got tickets to Jaws live in Manchester next year. Cannot bloody wait!
The archetypal blockbuster

DvB

Mike Guide 69 wrote: »

The Woman In Black - Not the film, but the TV episode that was shown, on all of ocassions, at Christmas Eve on ITV!!!!!!!! (wtf???), had a pretty crap Christmas after watching that. Terrifying and scary, but it is a classic good old fashioned ghost story, that lingers on in the mind, the play is amazing too....

Have heard a lot about this over the years but never managed to see it, really hope it appears again at some stage.

al87987

Tony EH wrote: »

Still does it for me.

It's a wonder how Spielberg got a PG for that film.

Watched the Spielberg documentary yesterday and the Jaws part was just amazing. He was only 25 at the time. The shark broke on the 1st day of filming too so they had to do without it for the majority of the shoot. Senor Spielbergo made do with barrels/debris to represent the shark and the score also.

Tony EH

Bruce broke and kept on breaking. A shoot of several weeks turned into several months. It was a nightmare. It's through a strong collaborative endevour that involved a lot of improvisation of all the people concerned that the film became a success and gave Spielberg a career. 'Jaws' came very close to being the first and last film with a budget that he worked on.

I've probably watched all the documentaries on 'Jaws' over the years. Its making is just as entertaining as the film itself.

If you haven't done so already, check out 'The Shark is still Working'. It's a making of doc that shipped with the Blu-ray a few years ago.

jpm4

DvB wrote: »

Have heard a lot about this over the years but never managed to see it, really hope it appears again at some stage.

Pretty sure it's on youtube.

Liam McPoyle

Sinead Mc1 wrote: »

Watched Cabin in the Woods last night. Felt so bad for keeping the hubby up. Absolutely awful!!! I mean, really really bad. And if I recall this got reasonable reviews!!!
With the exception of Candyman I think the movies on TV this weekend have been really poor. I actually find this is the case every year for Halloween. It's a pity the channels can't celebrate this time of year a bit more. Surely it wouldn't cost much to air a few good horrors! Some of the best ones are 20+ years old!

Sacrilege!!!

Cabin in the Woods is right up there with Tucker and Dale vs Evil as arguably the best horror comedy ever made.

Both feature countless horror movie tropes and cliches but every single one of them are done with absolute love for the genre.

They are both tremendous fun.

I find James Wan films pretty lame. Horror for the noughties MTV generation, soulless vehicles to generate big bucks.

With horror, go for the classics, Carnival of Souls, Night of the Living Dead, Rosemary's Baby, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the Exorcist, the Shining, the Thing, Silence of the Lambs, Blair Witch Project, Event Horizon, the Evil Dead, Don't Look Now, Picnic at Hanging Rock (more eerie than horror), the Wickerman (obv the original) etc.

Or think of the BBC ghost stories, Oh Whistle and I'll come to You, the original Woman in Black, episodes of Tales of the Unexpected on Youtube etc.

If you've seen them all, and want to go modern, avoid US horrors...though the first Paranormal Activity and first Saw were decent, but generally go Asian for ghost stories like Ringu, the Grudge and of course Audition...you'll never think of cheese wire in the same way again. And think of Europe for the shockers..Martyrs, Calvaire, Funny Games etc.

As for the best? A Tale of Two Sisters.

Sinead Mc1

Business Cat wrote: »

Sacrilege!!!

Cabin in the Woods is right up there with Tucker and Dale vs Evil as arguably the best horror comedy ever made.

Both feature countless horror movie tropes and cliches but every single one of them are done with absolute love for the genre.

They are both tremendous fun.

There in the problem lies.
I was expecting a horror not a horror comedy. And I'd never heard this movie described as such! But yes, defo not suitable for anyone looking for frights! I must do my research in future !

Snake Plisken

El Duda wrote: »

Interesting opinion. I quite like James Wan and th Conjuring films but I don't class them as horror. They are jump-scare films. Jump scares don't have a lasting effect. They are essentially, cheap thrill-ride films that are completely forgettable. Very well crafted, but they will date horribly imo.

Well they are what I class as decent scary movies I have no interest in gorefest movies like Saw or Hostel type films but Wan’s movies bring me back to 70’s/80’s style scary movies..
I saw IT tonight and I was delighted that they made a well crafted adaptation of King’s book it had a couple of good scares one scene in particular had me scream out lol!

mrcheez

Didn't find Rosemary's Baby scary at all... It's more of a social commentary on male domination in a time of growing female empowerment

nix

Last shift was a loada baloney

mrcheez

Surprised noone has mentioned Seed yet, quite possibly one of the most disturbing movies I've ever seen.

Warning, it's pretty horrific.

Not as bad as three guys one hammer but...eh.. Lets not go there


Special mention for Light's Out which actually gave me the chills out of all movies this October, as when the lights went out downstairs I momentarily freaked out. I guess a movie's effectiveness is dictated by your mood

kunst nugget

nix wrote: »

Last shift was a loada baloney

mrcheez wrote: »

Special mention for Light's Out which actually gave me the chills out of all movies this October, as when the lights went out downstairs I momentarily freaked out. I guess a movie's effectiveness is dictated by your mood

I'm surprised nobody else seems to have liked Last Shift. I guess my mood did dictate the effectiveness of that movie. I work in a factory where I end up there by myself doing overtime so I'll be the one turning off the lights and shutting everything down with no one else around. That film had me tweaked for a couple of weeks after when I was leaving work in the dark.

Light's Out didn't do much for me I'm afraid.

I watched IT last night. Nothing particularly scary but still I think it got the spirit of the book across and Pennywise is great in it. Looking forward to Chapter 2.

Speaking of clowns, Clown is a good one to pass the time. It has an utterly daft story about a man that becomes possessed by a demon after putting on a cursed clown suit but it's still worth a gander. It also has Peter Stormare in it which helps.

Tony EH

I thought 'Last Shift' was very good, up to its final third. But, it eventually loses the run of itself.

'Light's Out', though, was very disappointing. Especially coming off the back of the original, effective, YouTube short. It's a nice little idea stretched out well beyond breaking point.

Still haven't seen 'It' yet. Nothing in the trailer or the subsequent hype train enthused me that much about it. Certainly not enough to get up off my arse to go to the cinema for it anyway.

briany

I really liked Sam Raimi's effort with Drag Me to Hell. That was just a rock solid, lots of fun, honest-to-god horror film. It's a given that Raimi will always be in the shadow of Evil Dead, when it comes to horror films, but Drag Me to Hell stands on its own, regardless.

Charlie19

flatty wrote: »

Jaws scared the hell out of me.

I've seen it so many times, I absolutely love it.

It was actually on TV last night and I watched about ten minutes of it before MOTD started.

mrcheez

Saw "It Comes at Night" just now. Brilliant.

yerwanthere123

mrcheez wrote: »

Saw "It Comes at Night" just now. Brilliant.

Was disappointed with that after all the hype it got. It wasn't even a horror either imo, more a psychological thriller?

mrcheez

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Was disappointed with that after all the hype it got. It wasn't even a horror either imo, more a psychological thriller?

Ah I didn't hear about it and missed all the hype, probably helped.

I just watched it not knowing anything about it, not even a trailer. I think this is the best way to appreciate films on their own merits.

branie2

the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers

briany

mrcheez wrote: »

Ah I didn't hear about it and missed all the hype, probably helped.

I just watched it not knowing anything about it, not even a trailer. I think this is the best way to appreciate films on their own merits.

I think this is what happened with me when I watched The Road. I just happened to see the trailer on TV, which painted the film as something of an action-adventure, whereas it's more of a drama/horror where things start out pretty bleak and get worse from there.

mrcheez

Heard good things about Green Room, but not mentioned here, is it worth checking out?

yerwanthere123

mrcheez wrote: »

Heard good things about Green Room, but not mentioned here, is it worth checking out?

Definitely! I'd lean more towards it being a (very violent) thriller than it is a horror, but still a great film.

Cherry13

Green Room is a great one but the type of horror that neo nazis are in and it's also got a fairly good cast, also some catchy toons if yer into yer music

Cherry13

branie2 wrote: »

the 1978 remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers

Classic, Donald Surherland is fantastic! The older one is really good too but I prefer the 78 version

Tony EH

mrcheez wrote: »

Heard good things about Green Room, but not mentioned here, is it worth checking out?

It is.

It's a bit bog standard "nazi skinhead" and full of the usual boring tropes. But, it's worth a look.

kunst nugget

Cherry13 wrote: »

Classic, Donald Surherland is fantastic! The older one is really good too but I prefer the 78 version

Ah, the 1956 one is the version for me. Brilliantly paced bit of reds-under-the-bed style paranoia. 'They're already here! You're next!'

Tony EH

Nah. The 78 version is one of the few examples where the original is completely trounced.

The 50's "reds" thing grows old real fast - even though there are those who say that the original had little or nothing to do with that. I'm not sure whether Siegel ever meant for the film to be viewed in such a manner. In fact, I think he was more inclined to put an anti-McCarthy (Joseph, not Kevin ) slant on the picture. But, people have been seeing what they want in 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' since it premiered.

I like the 50's version, because I like some of the films from that period, like 'Them', or 'It Came from Outer Space'. But, the 70's version is just creepier. One of the greatest sci-fi films ever made IMHO.

It's like comparing the 50's 'The Thing' to Carpenter's 1982 version. There just isn't one to be made.

shazzerman

I prefer the 1956 version too. Apart from the communist scare subtext - which might grow old real fast, but films are of their time, are they not? - some of the brilliantly-composed shots can be read as symbolising the plight of Mexican immigrant labour workers: those high-angle shots of the trucks with the pods in the back. Siegel's shot composition is rarely commented on but this film is full of cleverly arranged and lit shots that tell us more than the unfolding plot does about Miles' growing isolation - there are a handful of shots during the sequence where the body is on King Donovan's pool table that depict Miles in isolation while the other three are blocked in a group. When Jack (Donovan) and Miles move to the pool table, they appear to be separated by the mystery body lying on the table; the mise-en-scène here suggesting that the pods will drive Miles into isolation and noir-like nightmare. There are lots of shots with clocks in the frame to suggest Miles is running out of time. Okay, the remake was able to present a much more bleak ending - and the lighting in the film rivals Escape from Alcatraz in terms of how dark the film looks throughout. Siegel and producer Walter Wanger were compelled to tack on the framing device that shows the FBI making that all-important call (they believe Miles and something will be done about the threat). Two great films, but I prefer the formal beauty of the original.

storker

The Changeling (1980): Some moments that really make your hair stand on end.
The Ring
An American Werewolf in London Plenty of laughs too. The scariest part is the beginning.
Jacob's Ladder: very weird and disturbing and Elizabeth Pena is gorgeous.
Thirty Days of Night
Flatliners (the original)
Picnic at Hanging Rock
Anguish: recent low key low budget movie worth a watch I think
Bram Stoker's Dracula I think this stands up well.
The Redeemer - Son of Satan: Saw this as a B-movie many years ago. It's very like "And Then There Were None" but with the subtlety dialled down and the horror dialed up.
The Innocents (1961): very creepy, some great moments that will stay with you forever.
added...
The Mist: Effective creature feature with an emotionally gutting ending.

Tony EH

shazzerman wrote: »

I prefer the 1956 version too. Apart from the communist scare subtext - which might grow old real fast, but films are of their time, are they not? - some of the brilliantly-composed shots can be read as symbolising the plight of Mexican immigrant labour workers: those high-angle shots of the trucks with the pods in the back. Siegel's shot composition is rarely commented on but this film is full of cleverly arranged and lit shots that tell us more than the unfolding plot does about Miles' growing isolation - there are a handful of shots during the sequence where the body is on King Donovan's pool table that depict Miles in isolation while the other three are blocked in a group. When Jack (Donovan) and Miles move to the pool table, they appear to be separated by the mystery body lying on the table; the mise-en-scène here suggesting that the pods will drive Miles into isolation and noir-like nightmare. There are lots of shots with clocks in the frame to suggest Miles is running out of time. Okay, the remake was able to present a much more bleak ending - and the lighting in the film rivals Escape from Alcatraz in terms of how dark the film looks throughout. Siegel and producer Walter Wanger were compelled to tack on the framing device that shows the FBI making that all-important call (they believe Miles and something will be done about the threat). Two great films, but I prefer the formal beauty of the original.

Siegel wanted a bleaker ending and felt that the studio almost ruined the film. Nobody really cared for it too much either when it was first released. But, it was one of those films that had/has an enduring appeal.

I just prefer the 70's post Watergate and "psychiatry" paranoia of Kaufman's version. Themes of who are we? who am I? who are you? - which were deliberate as opposed to the accidental "Communist" readings for Siegel's. It doesn't suffer from period trappings either, like the 50's version does. Plus, there's an unnerving creep present in the 1978 version that just isn't there in 1956.

It's horses for course I spose and both films are good - I own the two of them (three if you want to count Ferrara's version). I've liked both since I was a kid, it's just when I saw the 1956 version, it was in the early evening in a run of 50's sci-fi on BBC2 and it entertained me, but nothing more.

The 1978 version, I also saw on BBC2, left kid me bewildered, confused, frightened, worried at the end and sort of shocked that the resolution was so desperate. Additionally, there's shots in there that aren't fully explained. Why does the camera linger on Robert Duvall? WTF is up with that dog?

I get more and more out of Kaufman's version and get less and less from Siegel's, the more that I watch them.

Kunkka

A lot of good mentions but I thought the Babadook was the best horror in the last 10 years or so.

branie2

The Sixth Sense - that great line "I see dead people!"

mrcheez

Kunkka wrote: »

A lot of good mentions but I thought the Babadook was the best horror in the last 10 years or so.

The kid drove me nuts though and made it kinda unbearable

Tony EH

Yeh. Ruined for me. I wanted the Babadook to rip him to shreds.

shazzerman

Tony EH wrote: »

Siegel wanted a bleaker ending and felt that the studio almost ruined the film. Nobody really cared for it too much either when it was first released. But, it was one of those films that had/has an enduring appeal.

I just prefer the 70's post Watergate and "psychiatry" paranoia of Kaufman's version. Themes of who are we? who am I? who are you? - which were deliberate as opposed to the accidental "Communist" readings for Siegel's. It doesn't suffer from period trappings either, like the 50's version does. Plus, there's an unnerving creep present in the 1978 version that just isn't there in 1956.

It's horses for course I spose and both films are good - I own the two of them (three if you want to count Ferrara's version). I've liked both since I was a kid, it's just when I saw the 1956 version, it was in the early evening in a run of 50's sci-fi on BBC2 and it entertained me, but nothing more.

The 1978 version, I also saw on BBC2, left kid me bewildered, confused, frightened, worried at the end and sort of shocked that the resolution was so desperate. Additionally, there's shots in there that aren't fully explained. Why does the camera linger on Robert Duvall? WTF is up with that dog?

I get more and more out of Kaufman's version and get less and less from Siegel's, the more that I watch them.

Do you mean that because it was made in the 1950s, it suffers from period trappings? Maybe I am mis-reading your point, but if you are judging films to lack something because they fail to reflect a more contemporary socio-political outlook, then I would say that that is lacking. I think the whole red scare business in the original is just as deliberate as the way post-Watergate paranoia is included in Kaufman's version. It's all built into the mise-en-scène (shot composition, angles, those clocks...) in the original - and I'm a formalist at heart - while in the 1978 version (which I think is superb, by the way) Kaufman relies more on the Richter script and the very low-key lighting to do this kind of work.

I'll definitely pay more attention to the 1978 version next time, in light of your post. The next time you look at the original, I advise you to concentrate on the composition. How about this shot?

shazzerman

A couple of images from the original that (I think) show how its brilliance is tied to its mise-en-scene in a large way.

Tony EH

shazzerman wrote: »

Do you mean that because it was made in the 1950s, it suffers from period trappings?

Period trappings, as in how films were made back then and the restrictions under which a film maker could operate. It's looks and feels like a 50's film, not because it was made then, but because how it was made.

shazzerman wrote: »

I think the whole red scare business in the original is just as deliberate as the way post-Watergate paranoia is included in Kaufman's version. It's all built into the mise-en-sc (shot composition, angles, those clocks...) in the original - and I'm a formalist at heart - while in the 1978 version (which I think is superb, by the way) Kaufman relies more on the Richter script and the very low-key lighting to do this kind of work.

Not according to the actual film makers themselves. Siegel never intended a reading like that and the writer was a left wing socialist (who suffered under the "Blacklist" (or threats thereof), so he is hardly going to be putting any emphasis on such an angle. As said earlier, if there was anything Siegel was interested in commenting on at the time, it would have been McCarthyism, not Communism.

I think the "Communism" thing was later attributed by reviewers and viewers and it stuck, largely because of the political propaganda of the day.

shazzerman wrote: »

I'll definitely pay more attention to the 1978 version next time, in light of your post. The next time you look at the original, I advise you to concentrate on the composition. How about this shot?

Sure, it's well composed. The cinematography looks nice and for a film that was shot in a short space of time, it holds together very well.

I just prefer the 78 version and as I get older it holds my attention more and improves with age.

shazzerman

As you say, horses for courses. The "whole red scare business" I mean to refer to Communism and McCarthyism both, and it also resonates with whart you say about the 1950s restrictions that filmmakers - the good ones, at least - had to work around: the film can - and has - been read as both anti-Communist and and ant-McCarthyism (depending on the interpretation), perhaps because Siegel and Mainwaring's hands were tied. I think Siegel said that he didn't consciously insert any direct references to the whole red scare business (whether Communism itself, or the McCarthyism that "answered" it), but that he felt that the film is inescapably suffused with resonances. It might not be deliberate, in the sense that the filmmakers consciously set out to include it, but I just feel that the whole way in which the film is constructed follows a deliberate pattern and that pattern seems to me to take its cues from the politically-charged mood of the 1950s. Fair enough if anyone comes back at me with the question: But what have clocks and silhouetted isolated figures have to do with Reds Under the Bed? And I will answer that I think all these choices build on the growing paranoia reflected in the film which, in turn, reflects the paranoia of America during that time because of the Red Menace and the McCarthyist reaction.

But, in any case, I don't think that its conscious or unconscious aping of the socio-political situation of its time is why the film is so good. As I said, I love the overall design of the film. It takes a decent script and spins cinematic gold from it. In these two shots, that design is subtle but prime examples of early Siegel cinematic savvy. "Invasion4" shows the isolation of Miles once again. Notice the picture of a plant on the left, and a clock on the right. A brief moment, but the frame is fraught with meaning. And in "Invasion5" we have a very striking shot of the body on the pool table. Notice the cuckoo clock on the top right. When it strikes, the body opens its eyes... Actually, I think Kaufman's remake has a similar shot to "Invasion4" involving a janitor mopping a floor - a very memorable moment in that film, where the static shot is stretched to breaking point (did David Lynch see this, I wonder? Remember the sequence in The Return of the guy sweeping the bar?). One of the differences between the two films is the way Kaufman employs these low-lit and extended static shots to punctuate the film with these subtle eerie moments. That janitor is no more "explained" than Robert Duvall's uncanny moment. It's a totally different and more modern style to tell the same story as the original (but with a different ending).

A similar relationship exists between the two "Things", "Nyby"'s and Carpenter's. Carpenter gets my nod this time (only just), because his concentration on composition and the whole "look" of the film in general is much more attuned to bringing out the extreme and claustrophobic paranoia of the original story than anything even Hawks could bring to the 1951 version.

Walter Bishop

mrcheez wrote: »

The kid drove me nuts though and made it kinda unbearable

He was supposed to be a pain in the arse I thought, helped highlight the trouble she was having raising the kid on her own; lack of a father figure etc.

Tony EH

shazzerman wrote: »

As I said, I love the overall design of the film. It takes a decent script and spins cinematic gold from it. In these two shots, that design is subtle but prime examples of early Siegel cinematic savvy. "Invasion4" shows the isolation of Miles once again. Notice the picture of a plant on the left, and a clock on the right. A brief moment, but the frame is fraught with meaning. And in "Invasion5" we have a very striking shot of the body on the pool table. Notice the cuckoo clock on the top right. When it strikes, the body opens its eyes... Actually, I think Kaufman's remake has a similar shot to "Invasion4" involving a janitor mopping a floor - a very memorable moment in that film, where the static shot is stretched to breaking point (did David Lynch see this, I wonder? Remember the sequence in The Return of the guy sweeping the bar?). One of the differences between the two films is the way Kaufman employs these low-lit and extended static shots to punctuate the film with these subtle eerie moments. That janitor is no more "explained" than Robert Duvall's uncanny moment. It's a totally different and more modern style to tell the same story as the original (but with a different ending).

Sure, it's designed and shot very well. I have no problems with it on that level at all. It also has some nice subtle dialogue that can fly over the head with a casual watch. At one point the stars are told to "Watch out for yourselves" in a take care kind of way that also substitutes for a completely different meaning more suitable to the story.

But, a lot of Siegel's films are well staged and shot. The opening to 'Dirty Harry' is one of my favorites of any film and it just follows Eastwood as he traces the logical line of a gunman's shot. But, the audience is always wondering where he's going. It's merely a walk across the block, but it holds the attention superbly.

There's nothing on how the 1956 film looks that we'll disagree on I think.

branie2

End of Days, with Gabriel Byrne as the Devil

shazzerman

Tony EH wrote: »

Sure, it's designed and shot very well. I have no problems with it on that level at all. It also has some nice subtle dialogue that can fly over the head with a casual watch. At one point the stars are told to "Watch out for yourselves" in a take care kind of way that also substitutes for a completely different meaning more suitable to the story.

But, a lot of Siegel's films are well staged and shot. The opening to 'Dirty Harry' is one of my favorites of any film and it just follows Eastwood as he traces the logical line of a gunman's shot. But, the audience is always wondering where he's going. It's merely a walk across the block, but it holds the attention superbly.

There's nothing on how the 1956 film looks that we'll disagree on I think.

Oh, definitely. And it is a great example of Siegel's control and design. Of course, beyond all the staging and the shot composition, Lalo Schifrin's music too plays an integral part in how that particular sequence works so well.

Burzum

Hellraiser
Phantasm
Dolls
Opera
From Beyond
Perfect Blue

Some of my favorites

Tony EH

shazzerman wrote: »

Oh, definitely. And it is a great example of Siegel's control and design. Of course, beyond all the staging and the shot composition, Lalo Schifrin's music too plays an integral part in how that particular sequence works so well.

True and I had mentioned it in the post before I edited it (the sentence looked awkard). Schifrin's manic jazz fusion stop/start music is a great overlay to the visuals.

yerwanthere123

mrcheez wrote: »

Ah I didn't hear about it and missed all the hype, probably helped.

I just watched it not knowing anything about it, not even a trailer. I think this is the best way to appreciate films on their own merits.

Oh I know, I'd be the same, but at the same time it's difficult not to know something about the movie you're about to watch, so if I've heard from multiple sources that it's supposed to be good I will have some level of expectation. I find it difficult not to be somewhat influenced by hype/word of mouth/critical consensus etc.

mrcheez

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Oh I know, I'd be the same, but at the same time it's difficult not to know something about the movie you're about to watch, so if I've heard from multiple sources that it's supposed to be good I will have some level of expectation. I find it difficult not to be somewhat influenced by hype/word of mouth/critical consensus etc.

had to remember which film you were talking about... for other reader's reference it was this post I put up:

mrcheez wrote: »

Saw "It Comes at Night" just now. Brilliant.