The most disturbing horror movie ever?

[ctc]

>those are scary and disturbing films for ALL the wrong reasons

I prefer to think of 'em as fodder for Mystery Science Theater FOUR Thousand.

Don C.

[Bo8a_Fett]

Yeah ctc especially the glut of awful awful movies usually shown on sci fy channel over here such as 'Mammoth', 'Bigfoot', 'Mega Pirahna', 'Mega Shark v Mega Octopuss', Pteradactyl' and the like...same story/cast/effects/music in a lot of cases...I shudder over the even worse ones about the end of the world..or cash in ones such as 'Titanic 2'..shudder...now those are scary and disturbing films for ALL the wrong reasons

[ctc]

Hmmmm....

We really have gone back to the 50's moviewise.... with so many flicks coming out; most of which are almost INTENDED to be disposable. (Disappearing from collective consciousness and completing the theater/home/gone cycle in a few months.) I think for horror (and a lot of the more nerdlier films) that's why you see more gore and such: it's easier to sell technological advancement and SFX quality than story. And names.... hence the same six people being in every film....

Don C.

[Bo8a_Fett]

True mazinz, they can get away with more these days, and I too have not enjoyed a majority of the horror movies that have come out in the last 20 years...there have been exceptions and the odd stand out film but in general they tend to be all the same and yet trying to outdo each other at the same time...if that makes sense. I think another problem is that there is just so many films coming out these days...you hardly have a chance to anticipate a movie and watch it before a sequal is out or you attention is diverted because another movie is out soon...I know I watch trailers or hear about a movie that i'd like to take a bit more interest in..(maybe even watch lol) but by the time it is out i've forgotten about it because there are so many others fighting for your attention (wait..maybe the forgetting part is just my getting old). It seems there are more movies coming out per month than there were per year nowadays.
I know that remakes, sequals and tv shows made into movies are moneymakers and hollywood doesn't want to risk bucks for something that might not work. I actually saw a movie in blockbusters (Hatchet) that had the tagline 'It's not a Sequal, it's not a remake, it's not a japanese film' which I thought was quite funny...and interested me untill i heard that a sequal was in the making...which kinda enforces my point.

[mazinz]

I think there is a huge difference between 'shock' movies and 'horror' movies...in days gone by such as much of the old universal classics the reliance was on the building up of suspense and creating an atmosphere rather than out and out gore/shock value....this way of making movies in the genre has pretty much died out....compare Halloween and Friday the 13th...Carpenter uses little gore and creates a much better horror movie with atmosphere and the steady building up of suspense whereas 13th goes for the 'pow..didn't see that coming' gore filled effect heavy set piece. One is a true horror film and the other just goes for the shock value. Depending on your values and personal discomfort different people are disturbed by different things such as rape, torture, war and animal cruelty, I know my values changed when I had kids and found films i'd previously watched with little or no real opinion became more intense and uncomfortable due to having children such as 'Pet Cemetry' and 'Don't Look Now'.
Horror much as most films nowadays rely of a formulatic principle, with some exceptions, most have to have set pieces thrown in at regular intervals because the industry believes it must keep the audiance constantly entertained rather than build any suspense or create an affinity with characters. Yes there are exceptions to the rule..the original Dawn of the Dead is a great example of this because the balance between set pieces and characterisation is spot on...you really care what happens to the main cast and as the film heads towards its final 15 you do get that 'I wonder what happens..will they survive...I hope they do' feeling and therefore have an emotional response to the ending rather than 'meh' it was an ok film. Nowadays with the advent of 'we've gotta have more gore/shock in this' than any other film being made the idea of actually telling a story is left behind. It becomes a shock for shock's sake, or more gore...there is a difference however in what is realistically portrayed compared to shlock (sic) horror...'10 Arlington Place' is creepy because it is based on a real life story..the gors in say a 'monty python' film is acceptable because you KNOW it's not real (for example look at the 'zulu war' sequance in 'meaning of life'...if it was a proper war film you'd think it was gross).'Come and See' is traumatic because of the change that overcomes the young boy in the movie due to the horrors he witnesses and we see it with him...a great anti war movie. I'd much rather be watching a good suspensful build up movie to a set piece film every time and i'd feel much more comfortable watching made up stuff than re-enactments of real life killers or torture...THAT is what I find disturbing..even the documentries on tv about real life stuff.

you really summed up why I do not like a good majority of the so called horror films that come out these days. Another reason you also see more extremes now than then is because they can actually get away with it and with little to no mpaa involvement. It was rare back in the 80's (and films from the 70's and in the US) to get an unrated video release to see what was cut from the theatrical. Nowadays an unrated release containing more is the industry standard, but as you stated and it is true- they left story and character development behind in exchange for more flashy colors across the screen

[Bo8a_Fett]

True about the universal stuff ctc, but even then the fomula then was to build up gradually throughout the film and rely on suspense rather than pepper the film with worked out set pieces at times regulated to peak audiance interest. The spatterhorror films of the 50/60, the explotation movies from the 70's, video nasties and snuff movies from the 80's are all sub genres rather than a whole. You make a good point about the earlier films becoming benign...lets face it with sci-fi we call most of the movies made pre 1970 as B-movies. Gore can be effective as can the most simple of effects or direction...it just seems that nowadays the formula seems to be 'we have to have more than the other film' or the audience will get bored if nothing seems to be happening.

[ctc]

>Horror much as most films nowadays rely of a formulatic principle

I don't think that's just nowadays though. I think technology and mores play a part: even the old Universal monster films were SUPPOSED to be shocking and disturbing.... check out how they're sold on the posters.... but they seem almost benign to us. Partly 'cos in the 70 years hence we've developed effects to the point where we don't have to cut away from the gruesomeness for it to be effective. (Check out the early splatterhorror films of the late 50's/early 60's to see what I mean.)

Don C.

[Bo8a_Fett]

I think there is a huge difference between 'shock' movies and 'horror' movies...in days gone by such as much of the old universal classics the reliance was on the building up of suspense and creating an atmosphere rather than out and out gore/shock value....this way of making movies in the genre has pretty much died out....compare Halloween and Friday the 13th...Carpenter uses little gore and creates a much better horror movie with atmosphere and the steady building up of suspense whereas 13th goes for the 'pow..didn't see that coming' gore filled effect heavy set piece. One is a true horror film and the other just goes for the shock value. Depending on your values and personal discomfort different people are disturbed by different things such as rape, torture, war and animal cruelty, I know my values changed when I had kids and found films i'd previously watched with little or no real opinion became more intense and uncomfortable due to having children such as 'Pet Cemetry' and 'Don't Look Now'.
Horror much as most films nowadays rely of a formulatic principle, with some exceptions, most have to have set pieces thrown in at regular intervals because the industry believes it must keep the audiance constantly entertained rather than build any suspense or create an affinity with characters. Yes there are exceptions to the rule..the original Dawn of the Dead is a great example of this because the balance between set pieces and characterisation is spot on...you really care what happens to the main cast and as the film heads towards its final 15 you do get that 'I wonder what happens..will they survive...I hope they do' feeling and therefore have an emotional response to the ending rather than 'meh' it was an ok film. Nowadays with the advent of 'we've gotta have more gore/shock in this' than any other film being made the idea of actually telling a story is left behind. It becomes a shock for shock's sake, or more gore...there is a difference however in what is realistically portrayed compared to shlock (sic) horror...'10 Arlington Place' is creepy because it is based on a real life story..the gors in say a 'monty python' film is acceptable because you KNOW it's not real (for example look at the 'zulu war' sequance in 'meaning of life'...if it was a proper war film you'd think it was gross).'Come and See' is traumatic because of the change that overcomes the young boy in the movie due to the horrors he witnesses and we see it with him...a great anti war movie. I'd much rather be watching a good suspensful build up movie to a set piece film every time and i'd feel much more comfortable watching made up stuff than re-enactments of real life killers or torture...THAT is what I find disturbing..even the documentries on tv about real life stuff.

[TrueDave]

Maybe I'm just too old for these kind of movies. Just saw Shutter Island and I think it's the most disturbingthing I have seen. Yet good.

Gore, Rape, Cruelty and all that garbage is for teenagers. Always has been.

Most of the gore films I like are from when i was a teen, or before.

Shutter Island was rated R because you would have to be an adult to understand it.

I know why was Hills Have Eyes 2 is rated R. Can't explain it to make sense though.

I think a broader catagory should be made for torture ( orig Chainsaw Mass) , rape ( Hills have eyes), revenge ( spit on Grave) , or just sick ( Devils rejects)

theyre Cruelty movies.

[Brazoo]

I DO believ that Horro Movies promote violence. I know they do. I would like to drag the freak who wrote the "breastfeeding" scene in Hills Have Eyes remake out in the street and beat him till he/she stops giggling.

You are what you feed yourself. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell something.

We've had this discussion before in the comics thread.

Basically I'm a horror fan - I've never been a violent person - I think freedom of speech works just fine and I think the facts are on my side.

[ctc]

>I DO believ that Horro Movies promote violence. I know they do. I would like to drag the freak who wrote the "breastfeeding" scene in Hills Have Eyes remake out in the street and beat him till he/she stops giggling.

I think you just proved your point....

I dunno: I can watch the most offensive, perverse, gruesome stuff and not flinch 'cos I know it's not real. That's me, and I can understand people not wanting anything to do with some of the more blatant, awful stuff out there. On the other hand; I can't watch shows like "The Real World" 'cos the selling point is the (proported) suffering, fighting and stupidity of real people. THAT I find disturbing: the kick being that all the misery is real.

Don C.

[TrueDave]

Well - horror movies in general are not for everybody, and everyone's got their own threshold for horror. Just as you think "Saw" is going "too far", there's someone who thinks "Dawn of the Dead" is going "too far" as well.

Fiction is fiction, horror is horror, and we all just have different tastes. I see no harm.

I feel harmed by watching the last Saw movie. It had been years and I forgot.
Reminds me of a question somebodty asked the Punisher: " When do you have enough revenge?"

My Gore Hound buddy keeps saying he wish he could unwatch some of the stuff he has seen. But on he goes.

Heck in 15 years we'll all chuckle about these little films when " Hammer Smashes Newborn Baby Hamster in 3-D part 6 " comes out.

I thought Alien Vs Predator ( I THINK 2) was bad. Having the Aliens cacooon all the women in the maternity ward and ( double?) impregnate them was harsh. Predator Vison aside. It was too graphic an idea.

The baby Zombie in the Dawn of the Dead remake was good becaue it was evolving the story, new feelings, questions answered. It was harsh but not cruel for the sake of it.

I DO believ that Horro Movies promote violence. I know they do. I would like to drag the freak who wrote the "breastfeeding" scene in Hills Have Eyes remake out in the street and beat him till he/she stops giggling.

You are what you feed yourself. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell something.

I think I need to watch teh Muppet Movie and take a strong bath.

[mazinz]

I just watched it online because you guys mentioned it, and that's what blew my mind. As dumb as he is, Sheen must kinda know how a movie is put together, why would he think an actual snuff movie had multiple camera set-ups, dissolves and a music score? Hel-arious.

He was probably high, but really if I made a snuff film I would want it to look like it was shot and not really snuff (expect for the "effects"), this way I would be able to do it again down the road.

Take the average joe who has had no real "initiation" into extreme horror other than technically now PG rated Friday the 13th or Nightmare on elm and then show that person the guinea pig series and watch the reaction. They will do a double take to make sure what they saw was not real

[megowgsh]

Kickin' It Old School or Balls of Fury

Both very disturbing

[samurainoir]

Most of Takashi Miike's stuff gets pretty extreme, but Audition takes the prize.