I did, and that is the only thing stopping me from calling it a steaming pile of horseshit.
recommend any good horror flicks?
- Thread starter ownaged
- Start date
I did, and that is the only thing stopping me from calling it a steaming pile of horseshit.
I think that the zombie genre is fascinating, but that especially the movies often miss the fascinating part of it. As you say, a slow zombie isn't scary on it's own. You can outrun it or just hit it in the head with a hammer. Although that's another part of the appeal of the zombie genre IMO; the zombies can be killed by a regular person with a common tool, instead of how many monsters in movies can only be dispatched by a hero with some magical or very powerful weapon. Zombies as a scare will only work if it's a dark scene, and they suddenly appear out of nowhere, but that's really not something to do with the zombies, but more about the surprise moment. (Okay fast zombies and the infected in 28 days later are different and can be scary, but I prefer the slow ones)
What is "scary" about zombies, is the fact that they don't feel pain, they don't have to sleep, and there are so many of them. They won't stop, they can't be threatened or pursuaded to stay away, but will continue to pursue the living survivors, who will have to struggle to find safety and supplies. That's what I have always viewed as the essential part of a good zombie story. The "scare" is a prolonged feeling of hopelessness and despair, in a world where civilization doesn't exist anymore, and everywhere there are endless hordes of hungry corpses.
At least that's what I think of the zombie genre.
My point here Aegis is they would never be many zombies. After all they are that slow they'd be wiped out before more than the odd person was bitten.
Well I'll just go get myself a camera and make my own amateur movie. This was so badly made it lasted 10 minutes on my TV. Hell my nephew aged seven could do better and also write a better script too no doubt.
Seriously I still can't understand what the fuss was over this. I've seen better made wedding videos. Plus was there a story to it. I lasted 30 minutes before I found something better to do. What was it now....oh yeah clean the toilet. I certainly can't believe they made a second either. Everyone I think I know till I saw you post thought the same as me Dave. So all I can say is thanks for sticking up for the little film.
Do you realize that the movie was suppose to be like that on purpose? It was suppose to look amateur and it was suppose to look like a documentary... What you see in the movie is the point of view from the cameras of 3 amateurs trying to shot a documentary... It look just like how it would look if you tried to do a home made documentary with your own camera and its suppose to look like that on purpose. The suspense in this movie is really good without needing any music or anything...The acting is also very good...I don't think you could do that.
You didnt even watched more than 30 minutes from the movie and your able to say that the move was shit and that there wasnt any story?
Hell, there's almost nothing happening in the first 30 minutes... Everything start after.Not trying to be an ass, but Dave liked the movie...You didnt, but it doesnt make people who like the movie tasteless, it doesnt change the fact that some people liked the movie and it doesnt make the movie a 'little' movie.
No it wasn't meant to look amateur. It was amateur. It cost something around 20,000 to make. Seen as a cheap movie cost something around 20 million now days that was no money at all.
Compare it to Evil Dead which was also made on the cheap and it doesn't compare. Evil Dead was both very well made for the cost of it and also scary. Two things The Blair Witch Project wasn't.
dick van cock
Closed Account
As a classic example of a truely disturbing film, Freaks has got to be mentioned.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022913/
No gore at all. This film makes you reconsider your definition of the word "normal". The cripples and freaks are the heroes of this movie, it's the ordinary people who make you cringe. The attractive trapeze artist treats the outcasts with disgust, until they take gruesome revenge.
I have already loved it as a child, because it has a rough texture (with all the odd looking people frolicking about), but like most classic horror movies from the 30ies, it transmits a romantic longing.
Also a perfect 10!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022913/
No gore at all. This film makes you reconsider your definition of the word "normal". The cripples and freaks are the heroes of this movie, it's the ordinary people who make you cringe. The attractive trapeze artist treats the outcasts with disgust, until they take gruesome revenge.
I have already loved it as a child, because it has a rough texture (with all the odd looking people frolicking about), but like most classic horror movies from the 30ies, it transmits a romantic longing.
Also a perfect 10!
True. Logically it would be somewhat difficult for civilization to be destroyed by an outbreak of the slow zombies.
There's a different take on this in various zombie stories. Generally in regards to zombie stories, and many other horror stories, a certain suspension of disbelief is required. You'd either have to believe in some more or less plausible events leading to this, or the story can simple offer an explanation. It could be that the zombie plague doesn't spread by the bite itself, but rather that all dead bodies reanimate and that being bitten is just a quick death. Like in Land of the Dead.
Perhaps it's in a closely populated area, where people are simply unable to stop the zombies, kind of like in Shaun of the Dead. People are simply not prepared for it, so the infestation spreads quickly through the neighbourhood.
I do find though, that an explanation for the zombies is rarely offered, and generally not needed either. Often there's not given much explanation of exactly how the zombie outbreak could turn into such an apocalyptic disaster either. I do like such explanations, but stories can get around it in different ways. Perhaps the story is set many years after the outbreak, and as such focus just on the present and gives only very little detail about how it began. Or it could be done by the story taking place at the moment of the outbreak, and just focusing on the characters and how they try to survive, rather than rationally explain the events.
I don't think that a perfect zombie movie has been made yet. I don't even think that anyone has been close, although there are great zombie movies. It's just that they haven't had enough of what I find to be essential features in a great zombie story. Single movies probably aren't the best media for a zombie story either. I think that a series, following the same story and characters, unlike Romero's movies, would be better. Or perhaps a high budget TV series could be a good choice.
Nor do I really think that a perfect horror movie has been made. Not just from a "scare" perspective, as I probably categorize horror movies as being such, based on their theme and story, rather than whether I actually get scared from watching it. The Thing with Kurt Russel is really a good one though. It has monsters and a nice location for the story, and there's a good deal of focus on the characters and their growing paranoia.
Last edited:
Simple reason: They didnt need that much money. They didnt need big cameras, they didnt need special effects, they didnt need a lot of actors, they didnt need a set, etc... = No need for a lot of money.
Do you even get the point of the movie? I don't think so... Its SUPPOSE to look amateur because what you see in the movie is the point of view from the cameras of 3 amateurs trying to shot a documentary! Its suppose to look exactly like how it would look if you would for exemple decide to film a documentary with your own camera. The purpose of the movie was to make it look real, to make people think that the police really had found some tapes in the woods and that was the result.
It wasnt scary and it wasnt well made in YOUR opinion...That's what you have to understand, but you don't seem to.
Since you didnt reply to my question: You didnt even watched more than 30 minutes from the movie and your able to say that the move was shit and that there wasnt any story?
if u into 70's horror/gore films much alike to "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" or "The hills have eyes" check out Rob Zombie's two movies "House of the thousand corpses" and "The Devil's rejects" which own!!! I kinda liked the "Silent Hill" movie as well
cheers!
Well Texas Chainsaw Massacre(1974) is phenominal and all others mentioned with the exception of hills are in my top 10 favorite movies. Silent Hill makes me cream lol. Mainly cus I love the game and Pyramid Head.
BTW Impious is a Badass band. If thats where you go your name from anyway.
Last edited:
Iamforever
Banned
the blair witch project? sorry dave, but i think that is one of the worst movies of all time. jason x was better. :2 cents:
Iamforever
Banned
thats my point. as bad as jason x is, it still had a few moments. the blair witch project had nothing.
People lose sight of what the point of movies are. Like with Jason X it was meant for a good time. Not to be taken seriously as a epic horror movie that was going to break many barriers. Dont get me wrong its the worst installment of them all. Well Goes to hell was horrid lol. Anyways Blair witch was trash. I watched it pirated before it came out and I heard that it was real. So taking it in that this is really happening can get you going but alas it wasnt real and the whole movie was a huge waste of time and all it did was turn my stomach cus of the shakey ass camera.
hey, that's a good one, what i'm talking about. I would have never thought to mention that one.
Talking about disturbing films?
Cannibal Holocaust
Men Behind The Sun
Salo
I Spit On Your Grave
The Last House On The Left
Thriller: A Cruel Picture
House On The Edge Of The Park
Irreversible
Henry Portrait Of A Serious Killer
Requiem For A Dream
...
:thumbsup:
Cannibal Holocaust
Men Behind The Sun
Salo
I Spit On Your Grave
The Last House On The Left
Thriller: A Cruel Picture
House On The Edge Of The Park
Irreversible
Henry Portrait Of A Serious Killer
Requiem For A Dream
...
:thumbsup:
Simple reason: They didnt need that much money. They didnt need big cameras, they didnt need special effects, they didnt need a lot of actors, they didnt need a set, etc... = No need for a lot of money.
Do you even get the point of the movie? I don't think so... Its SUPPOSE to look amateur because what you see in the movie is the point of view from the cameras of 3 amateurs trying to shot a documentary! Its suppose to look exactly like how it would look if you would for exemple decide to film a documentary with your own camera. The purpose of the movie was to make it look real, to make people think that the police really had found some tapes in the woods and that was the result.
It wasnt scary and it wasnt well made in YOUR opinion...That's what you have to understand, but you don't seem to.
Since you didnt reply to my question: You didnt even watched more than 30 minutes from the movie and your able to say that the move was shit and that there wasnt any story?
Right lets clear this up totally.
The Blair Witch Project only cost 20,000 because that is all they had and could raise. Nothing to do with cameras and all the other stuff you put. It was originally only meant as a amateur project and to be shown in some cinemas. But for some strange reason the teenagers in the US thought it was the best thing since the Beatles. So it went on full country release in the US. Still a mystery it took off even more. So they put it on worldwide release. Here in the UK it flopped. Those who saw it mostly was very disappointed. The others just thought like me I'll wait till it comes on TV. Then realised what a choice that was as they could turn it off whenever they wanted and they'd not wasted money. The critics had a field day ripping it to hell and for about the first time ever I agreed with them.
As I mentioned before compare it to a classic low cost movie. Evil Dead was made on the back of begging, sponsors and just getting your local butcher to help fund it. They had even worse equipment than Blair Witch. More actors was involded and more special effects. This film was also years before Blair Witch. But it still puts it to shame.
I always say the test of time will tell you how good a film really was. The Blair Witch Project hasn't done well on that front. Take a poll from say 100 people on great films in whatever you want to put it in. I bet it doesn't even get mentioned in 10% of the results. Basically because it looked bad, scripted bad and was totally forgotten within a instant. A bit like Titanic there and this had money thrown at it from everywhere.
The start to a film is one of the most important things. You've got to grip your audience in the first twenty minutes or they will turn off. Fact!
PS
What question, you never asked one.
Similar threads
