Good new horror films

[Arn X Treme]

24 minutes ago, amc said:

VHS 99 was utter garbage and didn't think much of Barbarian either. Going to give Pearl a whirl.

 

It was ok, I watched worse this weekend past.

 

I enjoyed the Flying Lotus & Joseph Winter segments. 

 

I've not watched Barbarian yet but I'm hoping it lives upto to the hype.

[glb]

Didn’t mind V/H/S/99 either. Enjoyed it more than the last one, and thought a couple of the later segments are well done, if a bit disparate.

 

Will watch Barbarian at some point over the weekend, looking forward to that.

[Nobuo's Organ]

Barbarian was sadly not a "don't read anything about it!" hype-worthy movie.

[Scribblor]

X was an interesting setup with an intriguing first act that just squanders everything for a so-standard-it-hurts second half.

 

Really, really disappointing that the premise and some really striking and assured direction just flat out stops and becomes utterly bland, derivative, boring immature crap.

 

It's like two different directors worked on two different films, and they took the first half of the good one and the second half of the shit one and stuck them together.

[Timmo]

Anyone watching Cabinet of Curiosities? Enjoyed the first episode!

[ImmaculateClump]

Yes! It's a little bit naff, but very comfy so far. Exactly what you want from an anthology show like that.
I've seen the first two. Second one is loads of fun

[Monkeyboy]

Watched Terrifier. Thought it was complete shit.

[cassidy]

16 minutes ago, Monkeyboy said:

Watched Terrifier. Thought it was complete shit.

Yeah but it's good shit, shit. 

 

It has a frankly terrifying villain. 

The worst acting you have witnessed in a long time. 

With some of the most violent kills I've seen since Anthropopagus the beast. 

 

I'm watching the sequel. 

[Silent Runner]

On 26/10/2022 at 00:42, Dark Soldier said:

Barbarian 

 

Fuck yes what a movie just go into it read and watch nothing. 

 

4.5/5

 

I was so hyped for this and kept it to watch with a few beers after work tonight and had an absolute riot with it. My favourite horror film of the year I think - fucking loved it. 

[hmm]

On 27/10/2022 at 19:17, Nobuo's Organ said:

Barbarian was sadly not a "don't read anything about it!" hype-worthy movie.

 

No, not really. It was fine, but nothing more for me.

 

Spoiler

When the cut to AJ in the middle happened, I thought that it might go somewhere interesting, but not really. Some slightly heavy-handed #metoo-ing later, we resume pretty much the exact same scene in the house, except with much of the tension and atmosphere stolen away by the segue to random guy breezily driving his convertible.

 

I'd say that almost every film is improved by going in knowing little to nothing about it, and I think in this case that's largely papering over the cracks of something slightly mediocre. I suppose that the misdirection with the tense, odd scenes with Keith are aided by not knowing the plot, but then it doesn't turn that into something very interesting, just fairly standard tropes. I would have much preferred it take a swerve into something like, say, the way that Borderlands goes (which I know was divisive but I loved personally).

 

Slight contrast to the above post! Wish I'd found it as compelling.

 

[cassidy]

I'm be watching this tomorrow and I expect to be disappointed

 

[Stig]

1 hour ago, cassidy said:

Yeah but it's good shit, shit. 

 

It has a frankly terrifying villain. 

The worst acting you have witnessed in a long time. 

With some of the most violent kills I've seen since Anthropopagus the beast. 

 

I'm watching the sequel. 

 

We just finished the sequel. It's even worse.

[cassidy]

Just now, Stigweard said:

 

We just finished the sequel. It's even worse.

Im all in. 

 

[Stig]

I truely hated it, I have no idea how it's reveiwed so well. Yeah, sure it's over indulgant gore, but is that honestly enough to have this at 87% on RT? Really? What's the fucking point of it, especially at over 2hrs. Everything this film was trying to do could have been done in a tight 80 minutes.

[Monkeyboy]

2 hours ago, cassidy said:

Yeah but it's good shit, shit. 

 

It has a frankly terrifying villain. 

The worst acting you have witnessed in a long time. 

With some of the most violent kills I've seen since Anthropopagus the beast. 

 

I'm watching the sequel. 

 

I thought it was shit shit. I don't know if it was the way it was directed but the villain wasn't scary at all. Honestly one of the worst horror movies I've seen, and I've seen Strippers vs Werewolves.

[disperse and recoagulate]

I enjoyed Barbarian but so much of it was too dumb to just ignore.

[hmm]

I did think they tried a bit to balance self-aware characters with the kind of bad decisions that are largely necessary to make horrors work - most would end up real dull if the characters just did the sensible thing. Sadly, I found it ended up being quite irritating when they had

 

Spoiler

the main character very specifically ’nope’-ing out of one situation but then walking and/or driving headlong into various others. They either forgot all about it or were attempting some meta comedy, but it didn't work for me either way. My wife in particular was rolling her eyes most of the way through at Tess's choices.

 

[ImmaculateClump]

Yeah, I found that jarring as well. Don't make any character in a horror film ever say "nope". It's not cute, it's not endearing, it's not relatable. It makes me want to strangle the writers.

To make a thing of that and then to have her minutes later doing the daft shit anyway, that's just doubling down on the idiocy.

 

I'm more than happy to suspend my disbelief, believe that the character is giving another character the benefit of the doubt, or trying to do the right thing or whatever, but don't make that hard for me by calling too much attention to it.

 

I think you're right, they might have been trying to do some meta winking with her going from "nope" to "for the plot!" in the space of a minute, but it didn't really work.

[Stanley]

20 hours ago, Monkeyboy said:

Watched Terrifier. Thought it was complete shit.

I thought it was brilliant! Really liked the effects work in it, really grimy, and I like the silent anti hero types like Michael Myers, he’s like a cross between him and Freddy. 

[yakumo]

Terrifier really depends on you're taste level. For me I can respect the FX , but its just ventures into "torture porn"  where its just trying trying to be edgy and try hard. However, my online friends loved it, so what do I know?.

[Silent Runner]

Thought Pearl was good. Finally answering the question 'what if Douglas Sirk made a slasher movie.'

[Loik V credern]

Really liked Barbarian. I knew nothing going in other than there is a buzz around it, didn't know the plot, had not seen the trailer. One of the few films I've seen where instead of looking how long is left that I have to endure i was looking to see because I didn't want it to end and it didn't seem like it would have enough time to go further. But that is as much about how it keeps shifting character, so every time it has to rebuild the tension, I do prefer just sticking with a character in a situation in all the incidents, it was engrossing enough for that. Sometimes I watch something and just get tired from their plight and kind of get bored of their struggle. Like Crawl. 

The Big Picture podcast had an interview with the director, if you skip on in the episode to the end where the interview is you might not notice when it's on as the director sounds exactly like one of the podcasters, open, loud, funny, happy to talk. I can't imagine horror directors in the 70s and 80s being so unguarded, it's like he's talking to a mate and while I've heard other friend of the podcasters directors talk, like Dan Trachenberg on the filmcast, there's still that professional doing a job vibe about it even when they're like 'how does it feel to direct a Predator film??' and he's like 'I know..it's surreal'.

Like listen to the director explain how to talk to actors and how not to do it, he's very engaging and the timing of his phrasing is almost like a stand up routine. He mentioned a few interesting things, like how big action scenes in films bore him and how he prefers tension, I'm with him on that. He thought the first two thirds of Speak No Evil was sublime but was less keen on how it ended, saying if he could match that level of tension he'd be happy. I agree it's tense but Barbarian is not far off it.

 

He said he's writing a horror film that's far weirder than Barbarian and a script about Gotham City that isn't about Batman that he's most excited about which he thinks he'll never be allowed to make. I wouldn't be so sure, we've seen directors who have only directed bland average stuff to be given things like Jurassic World, or the Russo brothers who had even less than something bland and average be given a superhero film. With the success of The Batman, perhaps they think a film about Gotham can be sold when the appeal of that film and Joker I think was the dark gritty cinematography which is an antidote to the bright flat malaise of marvel films.

He said other interesting things, like convincing the lead actress by saying; 'if a horror film is really good it will be seen, that's just how it is, because so many are bad, so I think you'll get something out of this, you just have to trust that it will come out good'.

Also said Skarsgaard is not a fan of horror films even though he's in loads and doesn't enjoy that he plays the villain. The director thinks he only took it because he was reading it in bed and his wife kept asking 'so what happens now?' every 15 minutes, so he knew it had something.

I don't like horror films really, I am easily spooked by dungeons and forests and pitch darkness but it's a genre that has its tricks so obviously on show that it can seem like they take over in a repetitive way and lack substance in other areas, so if you're not unnerved then you're left wanting. But it seems like it's one of the few genres where new films can create the buzz I want from films, when new directors can surprise with an idea, shot on a low budget, make a lot of money, and kick start a career.

 

And it seems like people being nonplussed about it expected a masterpiece that redefines the genre but I don't think anyone is saying that. It's just a lot better than most horror and most films and something I'd recommend in that 'you have to see this!' kind of way. I seem to watch a lot where I think..there is nothing here to even talk about. Don't Worry Darling is like that, it's so predictable in every moment it barely registers and that has all the ingredients to shock. 

Barbarian and Speak No Evil are the two best films I've seen released in 2022. I don't know the director, an actor a part of comedy, Jordan Peele is thanked in the credits. Podcasters are joking 'we should let all comedians make horrors!'. Always been a link between comedy and horror, I didn't laugh at the measuring scene but audiences have been. I don't think Peele does horror well, I've never been unsettled in his films, the tricks are all there but I always find the humour and some performances in moments more successful. 

 

Spoiler

The 'nope!' thing..yeah I agree, I kept yelling 'you owe him nothing!' When he doesn't respond to her calls, she should have seen that as confirmation he's responsible for everything and is luring her in. Not that he'd need to, he could lock her up at any point but maybe he was playing. You think all that as opposed to 'huh not answering eh, he must have fallen over unconscious or discovered some other door' which wasn't likely. 

 

[Stanley]

13 hours ago, yakumo said:

Terrifier really depends on you're taste level. For me I can respect the FX , but its just ventures into "torture porn"  where its just trying trying to be edgy and try hard. However, my online friends loved it, so what do I know?.

I think the whole point of it is that it’s tasteless. It’s camp and outrageous, and objectively no one is ever going to think of it as a great movie. I wouldn’t describe it as ‘torture porn’ though. That term started being used around the time Saw and Hostel became popular, movies that took themselves seriously and revelled in suffering and misery, well Hostel anyway, the first Saw is a great film. I think Terrifier is just too fantastical to be taken seriously in that way. 

[ImmaculateClump]

If there was any truth to the reports of people swallowing their own chins in fright, then it could be like with new years eve when people are starting fights after four pints, maybe you get part timers going out to the pictures around halloween time, knowing that the movie studios are expecting a wider audience, expecting things will be a bit more toned down and ready for prime time.
Not expecting Casper the ghost, exactly, but certainly not something as gory.

 

Even something as small as the film grain effect, that's immediately conveying something to the audience, even if it's just subconsciously.
The purposefully over the top, bad acting. The colour of the blood.

 

That kill in the middle with the salt and the bleach.
If you're up to date with the vocabulary of modern horror, and you've seen, for example, the french nasties like Martyrs, À l'intérieur and Haute Tension, that scene feels like a parody, and then you've got the mothers ridiculous reaction and Art's silent mocking laughter.
Enough to soften the blow, but maybe if you're out of the loop, that'd all just feel like it was mocking your visceral reaction, and then you'd just be left with the shocking horror of the scene.

 

I wouldn't describe it as edgy, try hard, or torture porn, personally.
I think Stanley is more on the money. It's camp, knowingly excessive. It's like a drag queen at halloween, instead of sequins, they're just throwing more corn syrup blood and pink jelly up their outfit.

[Stig]

On 29/10/2022 at 14:34, ImmaculateClump said:

Yeah, I found that jarring as well. Don't make any character in a horror film ever say "nope". It's not cute, it's not endearing, it's not relatable. It makes me want to strangle the writers.

To make a thing of that and then to have her minutes later doing the daft shit anyway, that's just doubling down on the idiocy.

 

I'm more than happy to suspend my disbelief, believe that the character is giving another character the benefit of the doubt, or trying to do the right thing or whatever, but don't make that hard for me by calling too much attention to it.

 

I think you're right, they might have been trying to do some meta winking with her going from "nope" to "for the plot!" in the space of a minute, but it didn't really work.

 

I just thought it was a case of her curiosity taking over

 

Spoiler

and despite her trepedations, she couldn't help herself entering the hall. I thought it was mimicking her choice to enter the house in the first place despite not knowing the dangers it may present going in there with an unknown man.

 

She was trying to nope out of that situation too but gave in. Same here.

 

[Stig]

13 minutes ago, ImmaculateClump said:

If there was any truth to the reports of people swallowing their own chins in fright, then it could be like with new years eve when people are starting fights after four pints, maybe you get part timers going out to the pictures around halloween time, knowing that the movie studios are expecting a wider audience, expecting things will be a bit more toned down and ready for prime time.
Not expecting Casper the ghost, exactly, but certainly not something as gory.

 

Even something as small as the film grain effect, that's immediately conveying something to the audience, even if it's just subconsciously.
The purposefully over the top, bad acting. The colour of the blood.

 

That kill in the middle with the salt and the bleach.
If you're up to date with the vocabulary of modern horror, and you've seen, for example, the french nasties like Martyrs, À l'intérieur and Haute Tension, that scene feels like a parody, and then you've got the mothers ridiculous reaction and Art's silent mocking laughter.
Enough to soften the blow, but maybe if you're out of the loop, that'd all just feel like it was mocking your visceral reaction, and then you'd just be left with the shocking horror of the scene.

 

I wouldn't describe it as edgy, try hard, or torture porn, personally.
I think Stanley is more on the money. It's camp, knowingly excessive. It's like a drag queen at halloween, instead of sequins, they're just throwing more corn syrup blood and pink jelly up their outfit.

 

Which is fine and I'm fine with the gore, it's very cool to see just how outlandish it'll go, its just everything around it that was utter shit. The whole thing about

Spoiler

her dad and the sword was awful, especially when it brought her back to life. They didn't even explain why her dad did what he did other than he was "sick".

 

Like I said, you could easily get the gore and cheesy stuff done and still condense it to an 80-90min film with a serviceable plot.

 

I'm surprised how many people are taken in by this film just because of the gore as it's 2.5hrs, which is just unnecessary, especially when there are huge gaps between deaths where the film just grinds to a halt.

[Timmo]

15 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

 

Which is fine and I'm fine with the gore, it's very cool to see just how outlandish it'll go, its just everything around it that was utter shit. The whole thing about

  Hide contents

her dad and the sword was awful, especially when it brought her back to life. They didn't even explain why her dad did what he did other than he was "sick".

 

Like I said, you could easily get the gore and cheesy stuff done and still condense it to an 80-90min film with a serviceable plot.

 

I'm surprised how many people are taken in by this film just because of the gore as it's 2.5hrs, which is just unnecessary, especially when there are huge gaps between deaths where the film just grinds to a halt.

It has very cool music, it’s very funny both intentionally and unintentionally, and the gaps between the ultra violence make it all the more shocking. Contrary to everyone else I thought the pacing was good, although I did watch it in two sittings and I found the non-violent stuff really entertaining in a super schlocky way. 
 

I’d give the first film a 1/5 but the second a 4. It was great fun. 

[ImmaculateClump]

25 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

I'm surprised how many people are taken in by this film just because of the gore as it's 2.5hrs, which is just unnecessary, especially when there are huge gaps between deaths where the film just grinds to a halt.

 

Yeah, the sword and the wings and stuff, that's all cheesy 80s horror pastiche. Naff, but knowingly so.

and yeah, the film has it's flaws, but a lot of them work in it's favour.
The indulgent, loose feel where scenes just keep going too long works to begin with, though you're right, it doesn't work for the whole film, and it does need tightening up a lot, but again, it's part of the loose grindhouse feel, and you have to be careful you don't spoil something by sanding off it's rough edges.

 

It's not a film I'd defend to the death. I only rated it three stars, but it's a lot of fun and there's a plucky underdog spirit there that carried it through.

 

Guy playing the clown is great. This popped up on my youtube the other day.

 

 

[Stig]

14 minutes ago, Timmo said:

It has very cool music, it’s very funny both intentionally and unintentionally, and the gaps between the ultra violence make it all the more shocking. Contrary to everyone else I thought the pacing was good, although I did watch it in two sittings and I found the non-violent stuff really entertaining in a super schlocky way. 
 

I’d give the first film a 1/5 but the second a 4. It was great fun. 

 

Yeah the music is great and I do like thay 80s filter it has but that and the gore isn't enough for me because I just hated everything else around it.

 

I prefer the first.

[ImmaculateClump]

I've downloaded the first one again, gonna go back and give it another try soon.
I couldn't stick with it when it came out as it bored me rigid, but I'm curious enough to see it all the way through this time.