What is the best horror movie franchise?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Autbot_Benz

Evil Dead/Ash Vs The Evil Dead.

Those are kind of... horror-comedy. Less so the very first one (and definitely the remake is), but that's definitely overall not a straight up horror series.

[Leo656]

I thought the remake was surprisingly good. I wanted to dislike it but they did a good job.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I thought the remake was surprisingly good. I wanted to dislike it but they did a good job.

Yeah, they went straight up horror and scary with it. I wouldn't mind a part 2 at all, which the new one coming out may or may not be ("Evil Dead Rise").

[Shark_Blade]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Those are all terrible.

The Conjuring 2 is 80% fresh on rotten tomatoes (81% by general audience). So, no.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_conjuring_2

[Leo656]

RottenTomatoes scores are as relevant as polka music.

[newfan]

Just trying to think how many fall under the Conjuring Universe, did the Nun count? (I didn't care for that) I think the 2nd Anabelle movie might have been the strongest of those for me, other two were not so great. Conjuring was okay, re-watched that yesterday as it came up Netflix. I liked the Insidious movies.

Even though they have continuity all over the place and some bad sequels, I am always up for a new Halloween Movie.

Edit: I watched the Saw movies due to watching with someone else, I wouldn't usually choose human torture but the stories were well written, this run was successful.

[Andrew NDB]

Of that "universe" I've only seen the first Annabelle. Absolutely terrible... it's probably the worst horror movie I've ever seen.

[Leo656]

Worse than "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2"? OUCH!

So far that's my pick for worst. I confess, though, unlike some people I don't habitually watch bad movies for yuks. So there might be worse ones but I wouldn't know on account of I got better things to do. If I wanna torture myself I'll at least do it in ways that can potentially induce orgasm, intentionally or otherwise. Watching bad movies doesn't cut it.

[Shark_Blade]

Originally Posted by Leo656

RottenTomatoes scores are as relevant as polka music.

The RT reviewers yes I don’t really care for them. The audience’s score however is worth noting tho.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Of that "universe" I've only seen the first Annabelle. Absolutely terrible... it's probably the worst horror movie I've ever seen.

Annabelle is pretty weak I reckon but The Conjuring 2 is better.

The Grudge 1 & 2 are okay but a lot better if watched in their original Japanese versions (Ju-On: The Grudge 1 & 2).

The rest is mid tier, not terrible but still okay tbh.

[Leo656]

Nah, people change their minds too much for any of it to ever mean anything. Reviews and even box office ultimately have very little to do with objective quality.

All any of those things are, is a snapshot of how someone felt on a very specific day. Ask the same people how they felt about the same movie a week, a month, a year, or 10 years later... they'll generally not feel the same. They might, but might not, or at least not as strongly.

I've mentioned X-Men 3 before - and I know some people appreciate it for its attempts at grand spectacle, ANDREW - but at the time it was released a lot of people praised it as being "The way all comic book films should be made." Not even two years later, it was already being derided. Now it's considered Bottom 3 of its entire franchise. So it's a really good example how something can be Beloved on a Monday and Scorned by Friday, figuratively speaking.

More apt for the subject, "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me". Scorned upon its release by fans and critics. "Too dark." "Too bleak." "Too weird." "Too joyless." "Too cruel." "Not Twin Peaks-y enough." "Not popcorn entertainment." "Who'd ever make this? Who'd even WATCH this?" And so on and so on.

25+ years later, it's a whole new song and dance. Most of the critics who reviewed it Then have admitted they were wrong and done a 180. Same with Twin peaks fans. It very quietly graduated from being "trash" to "Cult Classic" to plain and simple "A Classic, but ignored upon release." Just because people change their minds a lot. The movie didn't change. People just watched it when they were in a different mood, or had more context, or whatever. It'll never be universally beloved - it's FAR too much of a David Lynch movie for that to ever happen - but most people who had a strong opinion on it once upon a time have taken it back.

That movie's a big reason why I laugh whenever people say, "If you tell people 'They didn't get it', you just can't admit you made a bad movie." Well... what about all the critics who have openly said, about that or any number of other films, "Yeah, we totally Didn't Get It"? Sometimes you don't get it. It happens.

All reviews both Positive and Negative are subjective. They're just data, information. They don't state anything conclusive, nor can they, because People Change Their Minds A Lot. "Is this movie good? The reviews say..." Well, if you go by that, you'll never really know. You'll only know how people tell you to think, but you won't know your own opinion until you find out for yourself. Consensus exists, but it's by no means definitive.

It can't be. because People Change Their Minds A Lot.

I really like reading reviews, but for me it's just entertainment. Food For Thought. Often, I'll find an intriguing point of view I hadn't considered that reframes my own thoughts on the subject. Sometimes, I just see someone talking out of their ass. Sometimes it's even very obvious that the person either didn't watch the movie they're reviewing, or missed the entire point of it.

I like reviews. Quite a lot, actually. But they don't ultimately matter to me. They're all just hot air, really. Good, bad, indifferent... it's just words. Sometimes they have substance, sometimes it's someone talking to be heard.

So when people say, "The reviews say..." I just dismiss it. It's data, sure, but nobody should care so much about what other people say that they use that as a flag to carry into "battle" every time there's a difference of opinion. That's silly.

Same for the dollars-and-cents argument, honestly. Lots of movies that make billions of dollars also cause brain damage.

All you can ever ascertain from these things is what the cultural temperature was on that specific day and time. None of it has anything to do with how Good or Bad any movie is or isn't

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Worse than "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2"? OUCH!

I found things to like in Blair Witch 2. And 3 was great.

[Allio]

3 was pretty crap. And I say that as someone’s favorite “worst” sub-genre is found footage. Sometimes you’re in the mood for a ****** film and Found Footage never fails.

[frank_one]

It's Alien for me, as I love the sci-fi/horror mix. I honestly have never thought about Psycho as an horror.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

I found things to like in Blair Witch 2. And 3 was great.

I haven't seen the third. I remember two seconds of tits in Blair Witch 2, after that it just makes me angry. Can't recall anything good except for that, honestly.

I haven't seen them all but I mentally equate the Alien franchise with action/sci-fi more than horror, except for the original. Is that wrong?

Originally Posted by Allio

3 was pretty crap. And I say that as someone’s favorite “worst” sub-genre is found footage. Sometimes you’re in the mood for a ****** film and Found Footage never fails.

Well that's unfair. Have you seen "The Poughkeepsie Tapes"? That's one of the best horror movies I've ever seen in any genre. I agree, as a whole that kind of filmmaking is rather annoying but sometimes you find a good one. That one's a real gem.

Spoiler:

Especially the part where he cuts the husband's head off and implants it into the wife's womb while she's sedated, then wakes her up to film her reaction. That was awesome.

That movie stayed with me for a couple of days. No shame.

[newfan]

The footage type movies aren't my first choice though a good story would still be a good story. I did watch the first Blair Witch movie in the theatres, not watched the sequels.

I've also not watched any of the Paranormal Activity movies, 4th just popped up on Netflix, am I missing out? I guess they did okay seen as there are a number of them, just not something I have thought to watch.

I often see Alien more as Sci-fi even though it is both, like that franchise.

I like Poltergeist from that list too, not so much the 3rd one. Kinda sad knowing that the little girl was unwell during that and died not long afterwards. (also sad knowing that the actress who played Dana was beaten to death by her BF, I think after the 1st movie which is why no mention of her in the 2nd) My only little gripe with the first movie is right after everything they had been through and they are told 'this house is clear' it was like normal, kids back in that very room and mom just taking a bath, no sign on being shaken by any of that (till it all kicked off again anyway)

[Leo656]

I think I have a hard time seeing Alien as horror because I saw them out of order, missed a few, and most of what I've seen was definitely more "action movie" stuff than horror stuff.

First one was, sure. But I don't know if I'd label it a "horror" franchise any more than I'd label Terminator a "horror franchise". That series also started with a straight-up horror movie but most certainly isn't a horror "series", as it were, despite the very first film most definitely being That.

The criteria is very flexible on these things.

[Voltron]

I'm confused. Does it have to be straight horror? If there's shlock, then it's a no go? B movie stuff won't make the cut? Like Re-Animator or Killer Klowns from Outer Space?

If not, I'm going to throw Godzilla in there.

[Leo656]

I think the original Gojira can definitely be viewed as straight horror with a strong science fiction bent. But only that one. Other kaiju movies, though, certainly. Many of those were played "straight" by the standards of their day and are only hokey with the hindsight of a modern lens.

If there was NO "ha-ha" allowed then most things wouldn't even be on that list, like the Chucky ones, which got pretty hokey at one point. It's definitely a flexible criteria.

I mean, Evil Dead (and the remake) are pure horror. Evil Dead 2 is more absurdist. Still horror, but strong comedic elements. "Army of Darkness" is pure comedy. "Ash vs. Evil Dead" has one foot planted firmly in both horror and comedy. SO. How to rate the franchise? It's mostly horror, but the fact that the most well-known and oft-quoted movie in the series is a straight-up comedy with zero "pure" horror elements almost disqualifies the entire series from the conversation, whether that's fair or not.

It's all worth discussing. But in any case it's tough to apply a strict criteria or half of these films wouldn't even be under consideration.

[The Deadman]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Those are all terrible.

You called all those terrible but listed Amityville in the poll, there's been 2 good movies in the entire Amityville franchise, that being the original and the remake.

Do we really consider Gremlins "horror"? Mm.

IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes seem to think so.

[The Deadman]

Originally Posted by newfan

Just trying to think how many fall under the Conjuring Universe, did the Nun count? (I didn't care for that) I think the 2nd Anabelle movie might have been the strongest of those for me, other two were not so great. Conjuring was okay, re-watched that yesterday as it came up Netflix. I liked the Insidious movies.

The Nun does count, it's the demon that showed up in The Conjuring 2 and it shows up in a picture in Annabelle Comes Home.