Overrated Horror

Scream
The Blair Witch Project
Friday the 13th
Blade II

That's me aswell, I hated that movie so much.
I'd also vote The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, both bores for me.

I didn't hate the Shining , I loved Jack Nicolsons (sp?) descent into madness.

Friday the 13th - sucked always hated it
Scream 2-3 - Sucked ass
Dawn of the Dead - Sorry it was a Zombie cheese fest HORRIBLE Zombies

Bloodsucking Freaks? Never heard anyone rant and rave over that.
I'd also agree on The Others, another movie I found to be a bore.

Have to agree with Fett about the Blair Witch. I read the newspapers believed the hype, was psyched. Imported a region 1 vhs of it then proceded to watch 3 muppets fuck around in the woods listening to scary noises.
Stuff I used to do every day as a kid, except I built tree houses not little stick figures, nor did I make a movie out of it.

Another for me is Poltergeist - I liked it, I didn't love it.
There are plenty of old super gory horror films I got my hands on over the years that were long banned here in the UK that dissapointed me as well.

As far as The Shining goes, I can understand people not liking it. Its sort of slow and does look dated. But thats just the creepyness of it to me. The use of music and pacing for tension is brilliant. The twins and the river of blood is still one of the scariest things I've ever seen.

Blair Witch Project
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

I agree on rosemarys baby, the shining, and blair witch, but texas chainsaw massacre????? I thought every horror fan loved that one! To each his own, i guess im guilty of not liking the Omen or the Howling.

The only two I can really think of are The Shining and The Exorcist.

Friday the 13th, I fail to see how this movie could have spawned one sequel let alone nine.

And the Exorcist, #1 horror move my ass. I was watching the great Joe Bob Briggs on monstervision a couple of years ago show the Exorcist, I had seen it before but I didn't like it so I thought Joe Bob would do what he always did and make the movie he was commenting on better. But the Exorcist still did nothing for me. I remeber him talking about how he was scared by the time Regan looses the contents of her blatter on the carpet. For me nothing. The movie sucked and the parts that should have been scary came off cheesy. I was laughing out of boredom by the time the film ended.

The Birds - Never understood what was supposed to be so scary about this one. Hard to believe the same guy did the masterpiece that was Psycho.

Rosemary's Baby - I had forgotten this one as well. Easy to see why. A couple of years ago I thought I'd give the source work a try. At least I know why the movie was so boring. In spite of the fact that the book was DEFINITELY not a page-turner, I also read the sequel. Even more boring than the first. Guess that makes ME pretty stupid as well...

The Exorcist. Love the movie, but it's very overrated by the mainstream.

For me? Easily "Carnival of Souls". What a damn bore-fest in my book. And I have an affinity for the older stuff too! This one just puts me to sleep every time and fails to send a chill down my spine.

The Wolf Man

(I prefer the modern werewolf stuff)

Paging Scott Standridge, paging Scott Standridge...your bludger is awaiting collection.

Overrated ? I can appreciate that, but it seems this all comes back to the argument about critical perception and who's right and who's wrong and who latches onto those particular subjective ideas.

The fact is, genre pictures are arguably more susceptible to this phenomena, if only for the fact they are a more niche genre of cinema meaning less people have actually seen the picture in question. I'd argue tht in horror, much more of a picture's reputation is based on second hand recommendations and hyperbolic frothing of how scary/gory/depraved they are. And this way only disappointment can lie.

Ironically, in a genre where they say that the imagination can conjure up a specimin more spicey than any special effect could ever muster, it is this very thing that leads to ultimate disappointment: the anticipation caused by telling us how uniquely scarifying or gruesome something is can never be matched by a filmmaker, no matter how great his capacity for horror.

This in turn leads to the sad state of affairs where the disappointment is so acute based no expectations, that any marginal respect for a film turns to actual loathing of it. Which I find a bit disturbing. But that's cinema today all over, I guess.

I think I can count the pictures I truly hate on one hand...Each one of the pictures mentioned here has at (the very) least one sequence or shot or supporting performance or music cue that makes it worthwhile for me. Even The Blair Witch Project, even Dog Soldiers.

So overrated, maybe, but by whom ?

I find it deeply sad when films like The Shining, The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby are written of as "boring" and "slow".

Truth be told, I find none of those films scary, but each of them is a superbly made, brilliantly acted and intelligently written horror film and I'd swap any one of them for ten of what often passes for "horror" these days. Just because they don't neccesarilly make people jump any more, doesn't make them "over rated".

My personal bugbear has always been Friday The 13th. I've never understood the love this series gets, or how it's lasted so long. It must be some kind of record for a film series to reach ten entries without having a single decent movie? I guess the appeal is in the variety of kills, but that's hardly something unique to Jason, and in my opinion has been done better and more interestingly in other slasher series. Even Jason himself is a lumbering characterless rip-off of Michael Myers.

As much as I absolutely LOVE these movies, EVIL DEAD 1 and 2 are two truly overrated Horror films. They are basically just very gory comedy films. I think there have been other good horror-comedies since, but these 2 were truly original tongue-in-cheek films(even though they are both basically the same film), which to me makes them overrated horror movies because THEY ARE NOT SCARY AT ALL.

Ok Johnny B you need to put Strax and Dans comment on the main page.
They have to be the most insightful and well argeued points for 'horror' that ive read in recent years let alone days.
And guys i wholeheartedly agree with you both.
Its ben a long time since i was last 'scared' by a movie but thats not the main reason i enjoy horror anyway
For me IMO (most) horror is written/made by people who genuinely have a love for the genre and not just how mauch money it can make or if its the 'genre' of the month and this comes through in the final product.
I love Halloween because of the things i said above and i dont like Friday 13th because it was a direct rip off and just came across as a cash-in flick.

I disagree, Evil Dead and Evil Dead II are not the same. ED2 is way much of an overt comedy, while ED1, while still having the streak of humour Raimi retains in most of his movies, is a horror, plain and simple.

The Exorcist
The Others
Rosemarys Baby
American Werewolf in London
Texas Chainsaw Massacre II

Scream
Slumber Party Massacre (My friends thought this was so cool... I just thought it was shitty soft core porn with a killer)
The Shining i agree with, i do like it at certain times, but there's alot of elements in the film that bored me. Maybe it's just bc i read the book 4x before i ever saw the movie.

Burial Ground - So many people recommended this movie to me, so i found an old VHS copy in a video store and proceeded to rent it..... What a piece of shit. The dark scenes were wayyyy to dark to the point where you couldn't make out (At all) what was on the screen.

The Others
Jeepers Creepers
The Dreamworks version of The Ring

All crap.

The Exorcist
The Shining
Rosemary's Baby

Don't get me wrong, these films were well made, but I put them in the suspenseful drama category rather than horror.

Ghost Ship - I didn't get the plot.
Eight Legged Freaks - More of a comedy.
Saturday The 14th - Ditto.

I thought about it, but you just can't reason with people like that once such a statement has been made. No amount of baying at the moon on my part will help a person like that "get it." Just like someone who doesn't "get" the subtlety and shock of Rosemary's Baby will never get it, b/c they're too distracted by passing bunnies and shiny objects.

I used to feel anger when people didn't get the old Universals and disrespected them to get a reaction. Now I just pity them. They're missing out on real treasures.

IMHO, naturally. wink

Let's be honest: every horror movie made before 1988 is complete shit. Heck, every movie before 1988 is complete shit. I don't understand how people can watch all that crap.

This is completely retarded. These threads make Chud look teen-time playhouse. I love how people can make these threads that basically amount to "look at me, I think all the classics are stupid, I can gain no insight into movies that are in the least bit thought provoking and am offended by production values that appear to pre-date my own adolescence, which is the obvious starting point of all that is worthwhile."

Let's go into the Literature forum and make fun of T.S. Elliot and James Joyce, they're books are like so dumb.

How about one for the music forum, we can tell them all how the impact of artist's from John Coltrane to John Lennon is completely imagined and that they were boring, and that there was nothing to "get" simply because we're fourteen years old and too fucking stupid to appreciate it.

Sorry, but ignorance is offensive, so man-up and at least be honest. The movies aren't lame, you are.

which specific horror film listed above do you hold equivalent to a T.S Eliot or a John Lennon?

Okay, I'll be honest: I have a short attention
span, I lack the patience to digest the older
films, and listening to you whine cracks me up!

I wouldn't put much in the same category as T.S. Elliot, but I dare say that The Shining is easily as masterful a work of art as some of Lennon's finer stuff. Rosemary's Baby, while dated due to the, oh I don't know, existence of time itself, is also a terrific work. Ditto for The Exorcist.

All this reminds me of is those long days in school where some of us had to suffer some bolt-brain going off about how The Wasteland is stupid when it couldn't be any more obvious that they didn't understand a single line in the whole damn thing. Hell, few people do. I can't even read the thing without the notes of an expert.

Don't hate.

[quote]Nick Luskmonster:
Bolt-Brain: What's The Wasteland?

Has anyone else noticed this sudden trend of newbies coming on here and posting threads that are essentially "____ sucks ass!" or "____ is overrated!". I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you're starved for a good way to get a lot of Chewers mad at you, come on and bash movies that are almost universally loved at the Corner.

It's basically the "Citizen Kane" of the poetry world. It's an epic poem written by T.S. Elliot (edited by Ezra Pound) that has probably had a more profound influence on poetry than any other poem. Well, at least since it was first published.

Poetry isn't really my thing, but a writing partner who I wrote a short horror film with is very much into poetry. He's a valuable resource since he knows a great deal about it and can help with the decoding. The Wasteland in particular, because the entire thing constantly references obscure and not so obscure works of art, history, etc.

It is mind-numbing that he was able to write it. The mental dexterity and sheer volume of knowledge needed to conceive it is staggering.

"feardotcom"? Oh my god, that was the biggest let down I've had since I spent 3 bucks to rent "Freddy Got Fingered"... oh course "Freddy" was the worst movie of all time, and I actually consider it horror, as it scared the crap out of me that someone gave Tom Green money to make that shit, but that's a different topic I guess.

As for the people that think "The Shining" is overrated and all the classics are overrated... I feel sorry for you, you've been decensitized (sp?) by the blood and gore of today's "horror" and have lost any sense of imagination. Imagination is what made those movies and other older movies so good. Or maybe I'm just making no sense and sounding stupid, it's like 3:30 am and I'm online so no telling what I've just ranted about.

Strax, please don't ever stop posting ... Just when the threads themselves become scary, your points are always a sight for sore eyes ...

Yes, Strax is awesome.

Although I still haven't got a date with his sister yet...

Go over to johnbarrowman.com and ask her on the messageboards....I believe that's all I have to say about that.

Merci pour le kind words. I like to think myself, the ever gregarious Fett and super-Dan are successfully putting the crooked-toothed, pale, weak-chinned stereotyped vision of UK manhood to bed.

*tee hee, I said manhood*

Texas Chainsaw Massacre- why because every stupid person I had known that was older then me said it was "disturbing and bloody" I found it to be not to disturbing and had very little blood. Plus I just didnt care to much for it. Although Ed Gein...made me have a little more taste for the movie...but I still dont like it enough to buy it.

It- I hated the whole second half of this movie.

Most people who say Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the most disturbing and bloody movie ever probably haven't even seen the damn thing. They're just posers, trying to sound cool in front of their friends, who probably haven't seen it either. It is a disturbing movie, but yes there isn't very much blood at all. People who tell you otherwise are just making shit up.

Two words: Shakespeare.

Okay, maybe not two words, but it should have the impact of two. One of my writing professors in college challenged us to come up with a basic storyline that had not been done by Shakespeare. We lost. Turns out just about every basic story and theme can be found in his works. Insane how on top of shit he was. Anyway, reading Shakespeare is a total chore for almost everyone. However, the stuff is still classic (and timeless) because we're still doing it over and over again.

I wouldn't say that Shakespeare is my idea of "entertainment" the way that Asia Argento's "Scarlet Diva" is really my idea of some good entertainment. When I was college I couldn't even watch crap like that and now I actually have an appetite for it, so who knows. There are people that like Troma films while I still find them to be completely unwatchable. Completely.

Some of us obviously have a bigger tolerance for the aesthetic of old, and I myself think that I developed it over time. Hell, most of it just comes from being old enough to remember it from "back in el diaz." It's cool.

There are enough instances of revenge being sought and/or perpetrated in Shakespeare's plays to easily make that one possible.

Hey! I'm not dissing all the classics, just saying I didn't like the Shining, pretty much the only classic I didn't like. I do enjoy TCM, Exorcist and the rest, just really didn't like The Shining.

Deep Red

/shrug

Well bunny, if you're thinking of this:" target="_blank">http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000065LV.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg]this:[/url]</a>

I could well agree

And if we reeeaaalllllly wanted to get bogged down in everyone's favourite wanky Film Theory pastime, I'm sure we could whip up a storm comparing the folkloric/tragic-poetic subtexts that bubble under perhaps every horror picture of ther last 50 years. Certainly the same storytelling ideals that Shakespeare explored in his (for his day) pulp plays.

I agree with your sentiments Caustic and to a certain extent you're absolutely right. But the "taking it seriously" part is where you need to take it a step further, I would argue.

On a base, impactful level, some of these films, based solely on their staggering reputations-preceeding-them could well be seen as underwhlming to the average neophyte genre fan.

But to take it that little bit further and see where the indignation exhibited by the lovers of these pictures stems from is to entirely "take it seriously" and look at what lies beneath. Context is all, even when "all" that appears to be there is schlocky grue and the odd dirty pillow.

If we profess to be more than just MTV Movie News kids here, then we must be prepared to delve that little bit further and have opinions challenged. Just like with Shakespeare, classics are classics for a reason. Their reputation is based on palpable evidence of merit. If subjectively, a picture still doesn't float your boat even when you've found out the directors wank fantasy the day that he shot the coolest shot in the picture and you've meditated on its impact on the drama and it still blows goats, fair play. But to say you can without question declare something is overated end of story with qualifying either way is not why we're here. That doesn't make you a fan, it makes you a faceless, box ticking consumer. Which we're all above here, I hope.

Have to disagree. I love The Shining despite the fact that Jack is clearly half way to crazy before the opening credits. It's a majestic horror film with many great moments. The sense of isolation and dread is done perfectly in my opinion. I'll take it over the faithful miniseries (only watched 2/3rd of) and the book. This is probably the only King movie I prefer over one of his novels.

I don't have much to say about what horror films are overrated, since I don't consider myself a horror fan at all. But wait a minute; reading this thread reminded me of how much I liked and was scared by The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, and The Birds. Maybe I just have an "affinity for the old stuff", as RRotten mentioned. Kirby Drummon and Dan Whitehead also.
A couple of scenes from The Birds came to mind, one where the woman comes running out of the house after she sees the man with his eyes pecked out. Her mouth is gaping open, and she tries to scream, but she can't. In the process, she is horrible, in a way, herself. It's frustrating for me sometimes that I know nothing about film theory, because I would like to understand why this scene is so unforgettable to me, and to give the technique a name. Is it stylistic irony? Any film students here?
Another scene, of course, is where Tippi Hedren sits down for a cigarette we see all the crows gathering on the play equipment behind her. This is basic, I know, where the audience can see what is happening when the characters cannot. What is this called? Damn, it was beautifully done.

Anne, it's the audience being in a priviledged position narratively and just utilizes a much more objective camera.

Whereas, conversely, what you love so much about your great observation of Hedren's discovery of the old man scene is that it is done very subjectively: the jagged snap-edits right up to the old man's eyes, the stiffling of Hedren's unrealized screams that feels intensely uncomfortable to us, making us empathize more with the physical sensation she is having that wuold be uncomunicable unless she was telling someone about it later. Masterful use of cinematic language by Hitchcock as ever as each situation demands.

Don't worry about terms of film theory, that's all just window dressing. It's that fact that you connected with that and expressed it like the intelligent viewer you obviously are -that's what's important.

Resurrecting this old thread because I feel like taking some films down a peg or two...

The Ring US- Sadako lite. Confusing, not particularly scary, Watts shouldn't parade around in her underwear in front of her son like that, didn't deserve to make so much money.

Dagon- the cinematic equivalent of a really really bad fucking film

Cemetery Man a.k.a. Dellamorte Dellamore- utter nonsense, as to be expected from Michele Soavi (the only thing he's done even approaching halfway decent is the slasher Stagefright)

28 Days Later- not a bad film, but also not as good as some make out. Impression I get is that it seems to be more popular among highbrows who "like the music" and hang out at bistros drinking cafe au soy dream, than it is among the the real blue collar horror diehards.