The Grudge!

Bubba

:eek:

Just wondering has anyone seen it and what they thought of it. ive just finished watching it, pretty scary but kinda stupid. the ending sucked aswell, i cudn't believe it was over wen the credits came up. Plus, i didn't have a clue wat was going on the whole way through. Just these scary faces appearing!! Pretty jumpy but good fun.
What u think?

Fysh

There's already a thread about it

I thought it was a bit crap and didn't build enough tension to be genuinely creepy, althoug I've yet to watch the original which allegedly suffers from the same problem. Not really worth my time, in the end.

garred

Thoroughly enjoyed it, was'nt expecting much, never saw the original...maybe thats the trick. Same with the ring, enjoyed the American version but not the original. Buffy was good in it, she can be a decent actress and there were enough scares throughout the film. Some people don't agree that horror just denotes being scared, buts that all I want out of them!

Karl Hungus

Never been interested in the American remake, but thankfully the original Japanese film has been released now, so I'm looking farward to that.

ixoy

Karl Hungus wrote:

Never been interested in the American remake, but thankfully the original Japanese film has been released now, so I'm looking farward to that.

Did ya give it a shot? It's not actually a bad remake, probably because they had the same director on board. It's pretty much on a par with perhaps the original being that bit more mysterious and effective..

Karl Hungus

ixoy wrote:

Did ya give it a shot? It's not actually a bad remake, probably because they had the same director on board. It's pretty much on a par with perhaps the original being that bit more mysterious and effective..

What's the point if they didn't even get a different director who might've done things differently? Takashi Shimuza has done 5 versions already (including sequels) and he's got another 2 sequels in the pipeline. Talk about milking things! I can understand wanting to do a proper big screen adaptation, when you've only had the chance to do straight to video before, but sweet jesus, isn't the man happy yet? He must get tired of rehashing the same material over and over.

Beekay

I found it very boring.it just did what most crap horrors do. have creepy music then a shadow or something moving then a noise and someone dies.
not scary after awhile.

secret_squirrel

I have to say that never has a horror film freaked me out as much as the US version of the grudge. Something about it really touched a nerve. Its the only film I have ever seen that I had to fight to sit and watch and not walk out of the cinema. I cant see the advert for the DVD on tv with out flinching slightly. My scariest horror film bar none.

My brother bought me the Japanese version for Xmas but I havent had the balls to sit down and watch it.

Karl - it may or may not interest you to know that Empire thought the US version was actually slightly better than the Japanese version.

pauldeehan

I hate to agree with Empire but I really enjoyed the remake. I felt it was a little more focused than the Japanese films.

Karl Hungus

secret_squirrel wrote:

Karl - it may or may not interest you to know that Empire thought the US version was actually slightly better than the Japanese version.

REALLY!? Well, that changes my entire outlook! :rolleyes:

Crania

I didnt like this film at all. I was bored the whole way through it and I was dying for it to finish and the finish was so bad but i was just happy it was over. Everyone said that it was scary but it wasnt, maybe i didnt think it was scary because I was asleep the whole way through it

skywalker

ixoy wrote:

Did ya give it a shot? It's not actually a bad remake, probably because they had the same director on board. It's pretty much on a par with perhaps the original being that bit more mysterious and effective..

yeah the us version actually wasnt that bad, id say only slightly worse, as its missing one or two of the worst (or best depending on what way your looking at it) scares.

TerrorFirmer

In a genre that relies totally on scare tactics, I think the US remakes are always going to be better, due to the huge difference in FX and such.

REminds me of the Ring and its US remake. Went out and bought the jap "ring", because a load of people said it was miles better, in all honesty probably only because they wanted to be cool and different. It was pretty crap. Not scary at all in comparison to the remake.

So its the same with the Grudge. Like most, I like movies like this purely to be scared, not for the storyline, so in this regard, the US remake walks all over the original.

Karl Hungus

MobileInfantry wrote:

In a genre that relies totally on scare tactics, I think the US remakes are always going to be better, due to the huge difference in FX and such.

REminds me of the Ring and its US remake. Went out and bought the jap "ring", because a load of people said it was miles better, in all honesty probably only because they wanted to be cool and different. It was pretty crap. Not scary at all in comparison to the remake.

So its the same with the Grudge. Like most, I like movies like this purely to be scared, not for the storyline, so in this regard, the US remake walks all over the original.

Idiotic!
Ridiculous!
Presumptuous!
Downright insulting!
Take your pick, that's what I think of your post.

Maybe I'm wrong and you're the biggest genius we've seen on these boards yet, with the uncanny ability to see into other's minds, and assume why they prefered one film over another. But I seriously doubt that, seeing as your entire arguement here seems to boil down to: Bigger FX budget = better film!

Clearly from the Michael Bay school of film making. :rolleyes:

Now as I'm a quite a fan of horror in general, I find this post twice as insulting, when you say this is a genre that relies "Totally" on scare tactics. As many people would argue, the scare tactics akin to the usual "cat jumping out at protagonist" is the mark of the most contrived, lazy film makers there are (See "Michael Bay school of film making" comment) and that falling back on using any kind of "tactics" whatsoever is just an excercise in cliché churning. A real horror film does not use lame tactics, but instead creates suspense, an unsettling mood, atmosphere and an overall sense of unease and intruige. Take a look at Stanley Kubrick's The Shining, the part where the kid is riding his trike through the hotel and finds the two girls, it's absolutely pants-wettingly scary, and Kubrick certainly never relied on any tactics where something contrived jumped out.

clearz

MobileInfantry wrote:

In a genre that relies totally on scare tactics, I think the US remakes are always going to be better, due to the huge difference in FX and such.

REminds me of the Ring and its US remake. Went out and bought the jap "ring", because a load of people said it was miles better, in all honesty probably only because they wanted to be cool and different. It was pretty crap. Not scary at all in comparison to the remake.

So its the same with the Grudge. Like most, I like movies like this purely to be scared, not for the storyline, so in this regard, the US remake walks all over the original.

I agree. I seen the American version of the ring first and found it very scary. I then heard from lots f people that the japanese version is better so I watched that. came to the conclusion that these ppl just want to be different/cool because it sucked. The fx just wasent there and it was in subtitles. So I watched the American version of the Grudge and thought it was good and have no intentions of watching the Japanese version.

Karl Hungus

clearz wrote:

I agree. I seen the American version of the ring first and found it very scary. I then heard from lots f people that the japanese version is better so I watched that. came to the conclusion that these ppl just want to be different/cool because it sucked. The fx just wasent there and it was in subtitles. So I watched the American version of the Grudge and thought it was good and have no intentions of watching the Japanese version.

You're just trying to get a rise out of me, aren't you?

ixoy

Karl Hungus wrote:

You're just trying to get a rise out of me, aren't you?

Seriously though Karl, wouldn't it have worked even better if we had had a few more explosions? And maybe have Vin Diesel in it? I mean it's got to be better than an original - who wants to have to read their movie....*bangs head agains t wall*.

Fysh

ixoy wrote:

Seriously though Karl, wouldn't it have worked even better if we had had a few more explosions? And maybe have Vin Diesel in it? I mean it's got to be better than an original - who wants to have to read their movie....*bangs head agains t wall*.

I think we're all forgetting the simplest way in which this film could have been improved. A straightforward mixture of the words "Sarah Michelle Gellar" and "full frontal".

Well, if we're going to dumb it down we should at least get some eye candy, damnit.

TerrorFirmer

I am not a fan of the idea "better fx makes a better film"

I am a huge fan of Asian films, and I love most of them, but I still stand by my statement that in THIS genre (and this one only) better FX do make for a better horror movie.Even you cannot argue that that is what I in fact said, was intended for this genre only. I was not talking about every genre.

I mean come on how many people thought the jap originals were scarier?? If they were being honest, I think not many. As I said before, this relies totally on scares to get the audience going. And the US versions do a much better job of this.

While on the point of your statement of my state of mind "better fx make a better film", I would like to point out I perfer ALL my asian action films to my hollywood ones, and yeah of course the FX arent as explosive or good (with the exception of battle royale II maybe) but I personally think they are much more stylish, enjoyable and less commercial.

And on the suspence building, sure, the grudge is not a great example of a true classic horror movie, but that does not make it any less creepy, and as the majority of people probably agree with me, I guess whatever makes you happy......BUT, there was one good scene of suspence in the grudge. Where the guys sister is at work, and the lights keep going, you see the girl on the camera, etc etc, when shes home, and the phone rings, and its just that wierd noise, and she answers the door and her brother appears to have vanished....that was a good scene. There was no simple outright scare, there was a great build up to an outright scare!

So there!

And - ioxy - I hate Vin Diesel.

koneko

I couldn't disagree more. The Japanese version of Ring had more tension, and genuine scares than the remake. The remake had some gore, and some OTT effects, blah di blah, the original had a very creepy claustrophobic feel to it.

I didn't think the US version was scary at all. Yeah it had a "ew gross" shot of the dead husband, but that's about it, it failed to deliver for me. Utterly pointless film.

TerrorFirmer

Oh well. Each to his own. Its not like there is an "offical" right or wrong side, so lets all just agree to disagree

In any case, I bought the US remake for €7.99, and it cost me €35 to get the Jap one (I know its cheap now, but when I first got it, it was rare)...I think on a budget level alone i was about 500% more satisfied with the US version!

Lex_Diamonds

The video SUCKED in the American version. Nuff said.

Fysh

MobileInfantry wrote:

I am a huge fan of Asian films, and I love most of them, but I still stand by my statement that in THIS genre (and this one only) better FX do make for a better horror movie.Even you cannot argue that that is what I in fact said, was intended for this genre only. I was not talking about every genre.

Rubbish!

You can count me in among the "jap originals were better" brigade, but my point is that better FX don't necessarily make better horror. Good horror is about tension and atmosphere, which requires good direction and acting far more than it requires swish effects. Crap horror, on the other hand, relies on sudden noises, excess visual gore (or suggestion of), and visual shocks (things jumping out of nowhere, seemingly harmless things suddenly attacking, or even just a flash of light revealing a hidden threat). The point being that it would be quite simple to make an audience jump using the care bears theme tune and the image of Barney dancing, if you followed the slasher-standard techniques correctly.

Making an audience squirm in the way they do by the end of Audition, or making them wonder uneasily about exactly what happened in the room upstairs in Dark Water, or even about what happened to the victims of the tape in Ring, on the other hand....that takes decent direction and an appreciation of how to create atmosphere. Effects can help, but they certainly won't stand alone in doing this.

clearz

Karl Hungus wrote:

You're just trying to get a rise out of me, aren't you?

Your onto me hehe. Seriously but I do find it impossible to enjoy a film that is not in English. Also in the Japanese version of The Ring their faces dident even warp when they looked at the Girl.

A winning combination is A Japanese Idea + American Money = Good Film

Also on a side note the best time to watch one of these films is with a dirty rotten hangover. You are in a very sensitive mood and the film will have 10 times the effect. I had to take a break twice from watching The Ring.

koneko

clearz wrote:

Seriously but I do find it impossible to enjoy a film that is not in English.

Do you have any idea what kind of films you're missing out on, just because they're not in English?

Well said Fysh! +1 mental rep for you

Ebonyks

PLUS the fact that the remake Sadako bears a striking resemblance to the possessed Linda Blair of Exorcist fame. I still get a shiver on seeing the original Sadako, the new one I find a little comical.

Fysh

koneko wrote:

Well said Fysh! +1 mental rep for you

Heh. You realise I'm now trying to imagine a properly scary scenario using the care bears theme tune and barney dancing. Well, apart from the obvious horror this involves...*shudder*

koneko

Now *that's* an idea for a horror flick. Barney and carebears, killing rampage, hmmmmmm.

ixoy

clearz wrote:

A winning combination is A Japanese Idea + American Money = Good Film

*cries*

TerrorFirmer

Well, you are right there, I admit, I was a bit rash in saying that better FX make for a better horror movie.

But I just think that although the jap movies are good ones, they just did not frighten me at all, whereas the US remakes did in fact creep me out.

I think I know something we can all agree on - I HATE the hollywood films like scream, I know what you did last summer, wishmaster, wrong turn etc, that actually have the nerve to call themselves "horror" movies!

Some of the best recent horror movies I have seen, that are a throwback to REAL horror movies are "The Grudge", "the Ring", "Cabin Fever" (this was tongue in cheek horror, it was great stuff. This was not scary in the traditional sense, but just so icky and awful to watch, like the scene where shes showering and her skin starts rotting away, reminded me of the great 80's films out there) and a few others.

Anyone else want to give a list of some great recent horror movies?

And about the asian films - Clearz - Koneko is right. you are missing out on some AWESOME movies. I think I will start a thread on asian movies now, see what people think.

garred

Fysh wrote:

Good horror is about tension and atmosphere, which requires good direction and acting far more than it requires swish effects. Crap horror, on the other hand, relies on sudden noises, excess visual gore (or suggestion of), and visual shocks (things jumping out of nowhere, seemingly harmless things suddenly attacking, or even just a flash of light revealing a hidden threat). .

Sorry but don't agree. For me horror is about plain old being scared, whether that is the sudden noise, hand, etc..(often used in many slasher movies) or the gore (aliens, return living deads, many bloodfest movies). Suppose it depends on your uptake on the genre horror. Some films I would classify as suspense, thriller, chiller, sci-fi others would classify as horror.

Fysh wrote:

[Making an audience squirm in the way they do by the end of Audition.

Making an audience wait over an hour for this scene is not a great example. Was'nt even a good film before this scene, glummy, even the actors look bored. Howver do agree with you about Dark Water, but will look forward to the remake of this.

Point being did prefer remakes of both the ring and the grudge, and debating someones perception on what horror stands for, personally its about the scare and the gore. By the by how would people classify Aliens sci-fi or horror?

TerrorFirmer

Exactly Garred, as long as it scares me silly, then no matter how "lazy" or "simple" the tactics are, if they work, then I personally think its a good horror movie.I go to horror movies to be scared, nothing more, nothing less, and the Grugde Remake gave me everything I wanted!

As for Aliens, Hmmm, for me, I would say Sci-Fi.

Fysh

Question - you know those stupid flash games that people put on the web, where it shows a picture and you're supposed to spot the weird detail in the picture (you know the ones, they get forwarded on with the line "turn your volume up loud for best effect" or something similar) - and then the picture turns to something gory and a loud scream is played on your speakers....do you find that "properly scary"? Because if you do, then you and I have radically different conceptions of what horror is, and you can frankly keep yours because it sucks. See earlier comments re: care bears theme tune and dancing purple dinosaurs. I guarantee you that anyone who knows and understands the rules of slashers can put something together that would make you jump using that type of material, without doing anything that requires actual directorial or acting ability.

As for audition....well, boo hoo. So it didn't have enough gore to satisfy you - why you bothered watching a film that's all about the headphuck value when you clearly prefer bad slasher flick action is beyond me.

Aliens is sci-fi horror, in my book. I'm not worried so much about the categorisation, though, as to whether it's any good.

TerrorFirmer

Oh man, someone sent that to me at 2am in the morning, and as my parents were in bed, I was straining forward to hear it....nearly had a heart attack, that was freaky.

There isn't one person who couldnt have NOT jumped at that, unless they had the volume off!

I look for good direction, good sequences, and clever techniques in thriller films, action films, whatever. But not so much in horror films. If a movie creeps me out and scares me, then I'm happy, for me it is a good horror movie.

garred

Fysh wrote:

Question - you know those stupid flash games that people put on the web, where it shows a picture and you're supposed to spot the weird detail in the picture (you know the ones, they get forwarded on with the line "turn your volume up loud for best effect" or something similar) - and then the picture turns to something gory and a loud scream is played on your speakers....do you find that "properly scary"? Because if you do, then you and I have radically different conceptions of what horror is, and you can frankly keep yours because it sucks. .

Fraid you let yourself down with a ridiculous comparison there Fysh. But maybe I better answer your question; no I don't find a computer generated cartoon scary and would'nt classify that as horror.

Fysh wrote:

I guarantee you that anyone who knows and understands the rules of slashers can put something together that would make you jump using that type of material, without doing anything that requires actual directorial or acting ability..

Agree its overdone now but how do you explain the success of Friday 13th, Halloween, Scream to a lesser degree. These films all use the same pretext, plot, etc but are classics.

Fysh wrote:

As for audition....well, boo hoo. So it didn't have enough gore to satisfy you - why you bothered watching a film that's all about the headphuck value when you clearly prefer bad slasher flick action is beyond me...

Thats where we differ cause I would'nt classify Audition as a horror more a suspense.

Ps: have to say enjoy this thread, improvement on the usual "what was the last dvd that made you pick your nose" polls.

Fysh

garred wrote:

Fraid you let yourself down with a ridiculous comparison there Fysh. But maybe I better answer your question; no I don't find a computer generated cartoon scary and would'nt classify that as horror.

It's not a ridiculous comparison, the principle is the same - audiovisual shock = "scary" (ie makes you jump). Although I'm glad that we have the same opinion on those games.

garred wrote:

Agree its overdone now but how do you explain the success of Friday 13th, Halloween, Scream to a lesser degree. These films all use the same pretext, plot, etc but are classics.

"Classics"? With the exception of Friday 13th 1 & 6 (I think) and Halloween 1 & 5, most of those films were awfully made slasher flicks, whose popularity was due to the fact that they used gore, which when they started out was a controversial move. If you hope to defend jump-inducing horror by pointing out that there's a bunch of teenage horror fanboys who ejaculate every time you mention their favourite slasher, you're in for a disappointing time. The exceptions I make are for the following reasons :

Friday 13th part 1 - reasonably original, it had a decent enough plot and a nice twist ending (I mean the thing about Jason's mother, not the daft nightmare in the lake)
Friday 13th part 6 - I may be thinking of the wrong one here, but there was a flick in which the kid who killed Jason in part 4 is grown up and in a mental institution, and he starts seeing Jason everywhere. Except that, as the ending reveals, he's actually suffering from a psychological disorder...
Halloween - the original morality slasher flick, and still one of the best-made ones.
Halloween 5 - a similar idea to Friday 13th part 6, this had Michael chasing his niece and trying to kill her, until she

goes nuts and attacks her mum in the same way as michael originally killed his sister and her boyfriend

. The ending pretty much redeemed this for me.

You've also missed off the original Hellraiser, which was reasonably original in its presentation of central characters who were mostly selfish and amoral.

garred wrote:

Thats where we differ cause I would'nt classify Audition as a horror more a suspense.

What? It's very much psychological horror, at least as far as I'm concerned. The entire premise is

that the girl has, through her childhood, never experienced happiness and is therefore incapable of understanding it; so instead she targets people in whom she sees the characteristics of her childhood tormentor and does horrible things to them.[/quote].

And yes, this thread is quite interesting

TerrorFirmer

Speaking of Hellraiser - I have them all, 1 through 6, I love them all.... Although generally up until number 4 they were an excuse for bad effects and excessive violence, number 5 and 6 take on a more meaningful movie feel...

Still, classics without a doubt! Hellraiser is totally unscary, just an enjoyable romp of violence, but the Cenobyte with the chattering teeth, now hes kinda freaky... :eek:

garred

Fysh wrote:

"Classics"? With the exception of Friday 13th 1 & 6 (I think) and Halloween 1 & 5, most of those films were awfully made slasher flicks, whose popularity was due to the fact that they used gore, which when they started out was a controversial move. If you hope to defend jump-inducing horror by pointing out that there's a bunch of teenage horror fanboys who ejaculate every time you mention their favourite slasher, you're in for a disappointing time. .

Classics yes, you've just pointed out the films I listed, all slashers and all classics. Gorey, no, did'nt see much blood gore in any of these, it was all built on the scare/fright factor. There was plenty of killings but not much gore.

Fysh wrote:

What? It's very much psychological horror, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Again you see thats where we differ. I don't need to be stimulated mentally when watching a horror, just plain old scared. You say psychological horror, where is the line drawn; is Hannibal a psychological horror, From Dusk till Dawn a thriller horror, the forgotten a new age horror, Aliens a sci-fi horror. To me horror is plain old simply scare/fright+gore (Ps the Relic sums this up...classic). If I want to be mentally challenged watching a film I'll watch the Matrix and wonder why the hell is Keanu Reeves paid so much.

Fysh

garred wrote:

Classics yes, you've just pointed out the films I listed, all slashers and all classics. Gorey, no, did'nt see much blood gore in any of these, it was all built on the scare/fright factor. There was plenty of killings but not much gore

Classics to slasher fanboys - mediocre (at best) films to the rest of us. And if you don't consider scenes like

Jason's mother being decapitated[/quote] or

that guy getting stabbed through the throat and spraying blood everywhere

(both from friday 13th part 1, although the sequels are ripe with the same sort of thing) or even

the bed scene in Nightmare on Elm street, where Freddy drags someone into the bedmouth and sprays out gallons of blood all over the room

), then I can only assume that by gore you assumed I meant stuff like the Troma Studios films. The "scares" were of the loud noise/look, he's behind you/OMG! I found a body part! variety. But, hey, if you still dig that then that's your taste. But that's not what horror is about, nor is it everything horror should aspire to be.

Looking back at the start of the genre to Nosferatu & Cabinet of Dr Caligari (candidate for my all-time favourite film), there's a lot more emphasis on stylistic direction, acting and storyline than there is on "scares". The slasher market isn't really any different to the sappy rom-com market, in that respect - all it does is serve up clichés and brainless films. Which is fine, if that's what you want. But just because that's all you want of a film doesn't mean that every film that has any horror element should cater to your taste. Film-makers quite often want to tell a story as well as just rake in money.

garred wrote:

Again you see thats where we differ. I don't need to be stimulated mentally when watching a horror, just plain old scared. You say psychological horror, where is the line drawn; is Hannibal a psychological horror, From Dusk till Dawn a thriller horror, the forgotten a new age horror, Aliens a sci-fi horror. To me horror is plain old simply scare/fright+gore (Ps the Relic sums this up...classic). If I want to be mentally challenged watching a film I'll watch the Matrix and wonder why the hell is Keanu Reeves paid so much.

Hannibal was not psychological horror - if it had stuck more closely to the book it would have been; as it stands it was just a thriller, and not a very good one at that. Why you fixate on classifying things to this degree is beyond me - if a film is about atmosphere and direction, it's more likely to be horror. If it's about straightforward jumpy bits it's more likely to be a slasher. Beyond that, what do you gain by sticking extra tags on? I mean, is Aliens described as a straight horror film any different to Aliens described as sci-fi horror?

garred

Fysh wrote:

And if you don't consider scenes like

Jason's mother being decapitated or

that guy getting stabbed through the throat and spraying blood everywhere

(both from friday 13th part 1, although the sequels are ripe with the same sort of thing) or even

the bed scene in Nightmare on Elm street, where Freddy drags someone into the bedmouth and sprays out gallons of blood all over the room), then I can only assume that by gore you assumed I meant stuff like the Troma Studios films.

Hardly classify a few squirts of blood gore. Gore to me would be blood, guts, brains, etc...and no not the comedies that come from Troma, more like american werewolf 1 + 2, zombie movies, living deads, etc.

Fysh wrote:

Why you fixate on classifying things to this degree is beyond me - if a film is about atmosphere and direction, it's more likely to be horror.

Don't as I have claimed in all my postings, to me a horror = scare/fright+gore. Not psychological, satiracal, intense, dark, or any other airy fairy arty farty new age terms.

Guess we will just have to agree to disagree on requirements from a horror film.

Anyway, emm, what is this thread bout....oh yeah, The grudge, liked the remake and not the original

Karl Hungus

garred wrote:

To me horror is plain old simply scare/fright+gore (Ps the Relic sums this up...classic).

...and I think that says it all.

Kernel

Hi Chaps,

I have to say I was really impressed with The Grudge. I wasn't expecting much from it, had never heard of Curse/Grudge jap movies until I watched the US remake. It was scary, in my opinion (and the GFs), and not just in the false starts 'cat jumping out' type scares... most scenes were built up really well in tension and suspense. It also had an interesting lack of hope, in other words, if you entered the evil house, you were cursed, and nothing could save you. I found that to be eery enough. I was pleasantly suprised by the film tbh.

I also like asian horror, and recently thought The Eye was an excellent slow burning horror (recommend it).. the elevator scene.... shudder.

Gore can be good in a horror, but does not necessarily make the horror scarier... Evil Dead is one of my favourites, and Hellraiser / Nightmare on Elm Street, but other films which scared the daylights from me (when I was younger of course.. ahem) were The Shining, IT, Amityville Horror, Poltergeist and the Exorcist.. which don't have an abundance of gore really. Remakes can be good, in that they make the genre more accessible to the mainstream, and can have merit (the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Dawn of the Dead for example), but I do agree that it would be nice to see more original horror productions, rather than endless remakes.

Another comment about Scream, I thought the original Scream was excellent, it was intelligently made, and played on the stereotypes of the genre very well (remember when you first watched it you had no idea who the killer was, due to all the false clues etc), and something which Craven did very effectively in that movie was show the stabbing of Drew Barrymore in a brutal and realistic way (kinda like Psycho in a way). That set the tone that the viewer became more afraid of the killer with the knife, because Craven showed what the knife could do, and it wasn't pleasant! Something that often gets glossed over in horror movies (camera pulls away blood on walls etc).

BTW - Hannibal and The Forgotten I would class as thrillers rather than horror?

I agree that horror isn't made any better in general by great special effects, however, it can be ruined totally by crappy effects, which bring the viewer away from their suspension of disbelief.

Ebonyks

"The Relic"...and classic...in the same sentence LMAO he was quick to edit that

garred

Ebonyks wrote:

"The Relic"...and classic...in the same sentence LMAO he was quick to edit that

Great input ...guess I can be patronising too.

Like I said different strokes, different folks. I'm not looking for much from a horror but I guess others are.

Karl Hungus

The whole debate has been done to death at this stage, but I think you can gleam a little insight on to why the original Ring is far superior to the remake from my post in this thread. Carefull, there's some amount of reading there altogether.

And also, I seriously recommend that everyone here see a real horror film, namely Don't Look Now. ****ing chilling film altogether, unlike The Relic.

garred

Karl Hungus wrote:

The whole debate has been done to death at this stage, but I think you can gleam a little insight on to why the original Ring is far superior to the remake from my post in this thread. Carefull, there's some amount of reading there altogether.

And also, I seriously recommend that everyone here see a real horror film, namely Don't Look Now. ****ing chilling film altogether, unlike The Relic.

Agree totally, hav'nt seen Don't look Now, keep meaning to get it. Fysh, good points and well made, may I suggest we reconvene in a couple of months when the ring 2 is out.