Let me guess ... the Rob Zombie remake?
I go much more for subtlety.
Gore and blood does have its place though. Horror films like "Suspiria" and "Evil Dead" pull it off in excess, and do so very well.
And there are films (which aren't strictly horror) such as "Cannibal Holocaust" and the "August Underground" series, which are basically just vehicles to show off gore effects, but it still works for what the film itself is. They're not trying to be scary - shocking, maybe, but not scary.
I fail to find an awful teenage actress's tits covered in blood for a couple of hours particularly scary.
Phalanx Titan said:I agree 105% that the more subtle horror films are the more effective ones in a lot of cases. Showing buckets of blood and gore and so forth leaves nothing to the imagination and after a while just seems pointless. "Psychological" horror is infinitely creepier, as it's just so much more haunting and hugely effective when done right. Especially at times when you don't get to see certain things, and it's left up to your imagination.
Sean Revisited said:I go much more for subtlety.
Words ... cannot ...
the devils reject said:yes lol its better then the first one but i think the second 1 they should have stayed with the little boy from the first halloween and kept with him and not changed him
do u like it?
Sean Revisited said:Let me guess ... the Rob Zombie remake?
The original Ring movie was good. Most movies I don't find scary any more though. If you were to consider Sweeney Todd a slasher, as some idiots I know do, then I would have to say that is the best one to date as that is my favorite movie
© 2012 Created by ADMIN.
