Jump to content
Brewer Fanatic

Favorite Scary Movie


wisconsinfan47

scary rides at the fair

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/The_Funhouse_%28Film%29.jpg/200px-The_Funhouse_%28Film%29.jpg

 

Actually not a bad movie (1981) from renowned horror director Tobe Hooper, starring a young and quite fetching Elizabeth Berridge, who would go on to fame in Amadeus a few years later.

 

But yes, there's thriller and then slasher /gore versions of horror, and there's a lot to be said about appreciating the former when it's especially well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still like Alien 2 a little more than the original.

 

Saw was good and not overrated, no matter if you saw the end coming or not.

 

I like a number of the early Friday 13th movies.

 

If you're willing to say The Shining (not The Shinning) is a horror, I have to go with that.

 

Candyman always scared me a lot.

 

Baise Moi (spelling/correct name?) and Kids, while neither are horrors per se, are two of the most horrifying (in both a thought provoking and sicking sort of way) movies I've ever seen.

 

Edit: I should add that I enjoyed Hostel (haven't seen the second one yet), but would have enjoyed it much less without the Rick Hoffmann scene. That guy rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Shining was awesome (the best Stephen King adaptation, IMO)

 

If you say The Shining was the best King-related movie -- I won't disagree..

 

The whole idea of Jack going shack-whacky -- was more of a creation of Kubrick than King though. Kubrick had more agnostic views, and had a problem with the super-natural aspects of King's novel.

 

As far as King goes, I got creeped out by Carrie, and Salem's Lot -- especially those kids scratching at the windows....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brewer Fanatic Contributor
The Shining was awesome (the best Stephen King adaptation, IMO)

 

If you say The Shining was the best King-related movie -- I won't disagree..

 

The whole idea of Jack going shack-whacky -- was more of a creation of Kubrick than King though. Kubrick had more agnostic views, and had a problem with the super-natural aspects of King's novel.

 

As far as King goes, I got creeped out by Carrie, and Salem's Lot -- especially those kids scratching at the windows....

 

I agree that the movie version was fundamentally different than the book version. The book (read it when I was 14, and my bedroom was in the basement), was scary in a much different way than the movie was. Still, both were awesome in their own way, and most book-to-movie stuff that's been done with Stephen King's works were pretty bad. Carrie, Christine, Salem's Lot, and Cujo (movie versions) were what I'd call "ok", but most of the rest is plain crap. The problem with book to movie is that a lot of authors develop the persona of their characters in a way that just doesn't translate to the screen. An author is capable of telling the reader what's going through the mind of a character almost all the time, while it's just not possible to convey that level of depth in a movie.

Anyways, something else I wanted to add is that I think how scary a movie is to someone has a lot to do with how old they were when they first saw it. For some extremely misguided reason, my oldest cousin took my little brother and myself (we were 5 and 8) to see Poltergeist at the movie theater. Now, I realize it's not "scary" in the way a lot of people would consider a horror movie scary, but to kids that age, that's nightmare inducing for weeks on end. When I think of that movie, I think of how scared I was of it when I was that age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe, and hopefully Robert will correct me if I am wrong, that Poltergeist was the film that spurred the PG-13 rating. I know that movie scared the bajeebus out of me as a wee boy. So did this one.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/8/8b/200px-Something_wicked_this_way_comes.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If memory serves, Poltergeist was a decade or so before PG-13, so I doubt it.

 

No Kat is right -- Poltergeist was initially rated R, and then changed to PG. It wasn't rated PG-13, but it was one of the first to get the ball rolling -- I am pretty sure that there were PG-13 movies as early as 1985. I do remember a big stink about Raiders being too violent for its PG rating as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Gremlins and The Temple of Doom were both major complaints about the ratings as well. I believe they were kind of the final straw that something needed to be in between PG and R. And from what I remember Red Dawn was the first PG-13 movie, and it came out in 1985 I believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia weighs in on the topic.

 

Prior to July 1, 1984, there was a minor trend of films straddling the PG and R ratings (as shown by the MPAA records of appeals board decisions of the early 1980s). This suggested that there needed to be a middle ground between PG and R. The summer of 1982 featured Poltergeist[/i], which was originally rated R (for intensity and a scene of drug use) but then re-rated PG on appeal. Disney's Dragonslayer[/i] (although PG without appeal, and a co-production with Paramount Pictures) alarmed many parents with scenes of explicit violence and gore. A larger percentage of films were allowed a PG rating despite limited use of strong language (Tootsie[/i], Terms of Endearment[/i], Sixteen Candles[/i], Footloose[/i]) that initially had warranted an R rating until the appeals board changed their ratings to PG (thanks in large measure to precedents set in the 1970s, with All the President's Men[/i] at their forefront). [7][/sup]Its should be noted that if those films were released after 1984 they most likely would have received the PG-13 rating due to the content in the films.

Violent scenes in the 1984 PG-rated films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which Spielberg directed and Gremlins, which he produced, were the final straws. Public outcry about the violence led Spielberg to suggest a new rating called PG-14 to MPAA president Jack Valenti. Mr. Valenti and the MPAA decided instead on PG-13, conferred with theater owners and then introduced the new rating on July 1. The rating still allowed children under 13 to be admitted without a parent or guardian, but it cautions parents about potentially shocking violence or other offensive content, although not as offensive as an R rating. It is the highest unrestricted rating. The first movie to gain widespread theatrical release with a PG-13 rating was 1984's Red Dawn (although the first to receive the classification was The Flamingo Kid). It took a year for the PG-13 logo to shift into its current form. The initial rating, instead of using a line of boldface text followed by explanatory description below, bore the wording from 1984 to 1986:

  • Rated PG-13: Parents are strongly cautioned to give special guidance for attendance of children under 13.

Today the rating reads:

  • Rated PG-13: PARENTS STRONGLY CAUTIONED-Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

With the PG rating still being used without a change, it was unclear to some parents at first whether PG or PG-13 films were intended for older viewers. Until 1990, some of the same content that prompted the creation of the PG-13 rating was still being observed in some PG films. For example Big, Spies Like Us, and Nothing in Common were three late 1980s PG releases that contained more PG-13-rated innuendos (two of which contained the word #@%% in their dialogue.) The ratings board reacted quickly to parental protests, and over the next couple of years, PG-13 films finally outnumbered PG releases, as standards were tightened for PG classification. Around the turn of that decade, standards were also tightened for PG-13 films, at least for violence, as the ratings board became more likely to issue an R rating for violence that involved bloodshed and/or the slaying of policemen. Except for a brief reversal in 1994, the number of PG-13 films has outnumbered the number of PG films ever since, and the proportion of R-rated films (starting with the boom of home video in the late 1980s) has generally increased at the expense of unrestricted films. Only within the last two years has there been an indication that the proportion of restricted films has started to decrease slightly as a trend.

Remember: the Brewers never panic like you do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brewer Fanatic Contributor

I liked the American version of The Ring too (the scene where she climbs out of the TV freaked me out)

 

Halloween

Alien

The Descent

 

I really liked Blair Witch Project too. That was a really original movie and the nighttime scenes had me hiding behind my popcorn.

 

 

And who doesn't like a Santa Claus serial killer?

http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/13/A70-6522

 

 

"Dustin Pedroia doesn't have the strength or bat speed to hit major-league pitching consistently, and he has no power......He probably has a future as a backup infielder if he can stop rolling over to third base and shortstop." Keith Law, 2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evil Dead Trilogy

I'm surprised this is the only mention. I'm not a big fan of the horror genre, but Evil Dead 2 is a one of the few that I enjoy watching (mainly due to Bruce Campbell). The filmmaking, though, is all Sam Raimi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evil Dead Trilogy

I'm surprised this is the only mention. I'm not a big fan of the horror genre, but Evil Dead 2 is a one of the few that I enjoy watching (mainly due to Bruce Campbell). The filmmaking, though, is all Sam Raimi.

Could Evil Dead 2 be considered a sequal? Because if it is, it might be the only sequal that is better than the first.

My favorite scary movies are the ones that I had trouble watching the first time, like Exorcist (I am Catholic though), Descent, Dead End, Ringu, etc. But I also enjoy the tongue in cheek ones like Evil Dead and gore like Hostel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evil Dead Trilogy

I'm surprised this is the only mention. I'm not a big fan of the horror genre, but Evil Dead 2 is a one of the few that I enjoy watching (mainly due to Bruce Campbell). The filmmaking, though, is all Sam Raimi.

Could Evil Dead 2 be considered a sequal? Because if it is, it might be the only sequal that is better than the first.

 

Bride of Frankenstein says hello.

 

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I am definitely not a scary movie guy, unless i watch with other people. I recently watched Slither, and it's more suspense/gore, than horror. It's credited as being a horror-comedy, which there are some parts in the movie that I laughed at, but about 80% of the movie was stupid. The scariest movie I ever watched is Stephen King's "It". I watched it when I was younger (about 7 or 8) and it haunted me for years. I couldn't even look at the movie cover without cowering a bit. Now that I'm a teenager, I'm almost curious to watch it again, to see how it's like now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Twins Daily Caretaker Fund
The Brewer Fanatic Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Brewers community on the internet. Included with caretaking is ad-free browsing of Brewer Fanatic.

×
×
  • Create New...