What is the best horror movie franchise?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Especially the remake. Brrrrrrrr. Finally a good horror remake and "all" it took was some dizzy broad hacking her own face off. Nice. Nice.

Yeah, the Evil Dead remake went for straight up scary and bloody.

Originally Posted by neatoman

So since there was some discussion about Amityville being Public Domain, would you consider Night of the Living Dead to be as well?

Not the real Night of the Living Dead movie series (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead, Diary of the Dead, Survival of the Dead). Even if The Matrix became public domain tomorrow and I made a new edit of it and shot new footage for it... that doesn't mean the original version by the Wachowskis ceases being the original version.

The first movie is quite literally considered Public Domain and Return of the Living Dead, Night of the Living Dead 3D, Night of the Living Dead: Darkest Dawn, Mimesis: Night of the Living Dead, Night of the Living Dead: Resurrection as well as Zombi 2 are all derivative movies that don't involve Romero or anyone else from the original production staff nor under license by anyone.

The Return of the Living Dead movie series (which I think goes up to 5?) would count and would be on the list if it "made the cut." Those other movies are just their own things.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Leo656

How were Evil Dead 1, half of 2, and the remake "not at all scary"?

Granted, the poor production values on 1 and 2 hurt them, but c'mon. If you suspend disbelief even a little bit that sh*t's positively nuts.

I've had people get up and leave the room on me during the first one. Granted, they're pussies, but still. Some people get all whiny about chicks getting raped by trees. Feh!

Only reason I don't entirely count the series is that, as stated, the most well-known movie in the series is a straight-up comedy flick and that breaks the consistency and "flow". But I can't take horror points off of the rest of the series.

Especially the remake. Brrrrrrrr. Finally a good horror remake and "all" it took was some dizzy broad hacking her own face off. Nice. Nice.

I didn't say not AT all scary ( though I never found them scary save for the tree rape) but that they are NOT ALL scary- ie, first one was, second was a deliberate spoof of the first, and third was straight up camp.

[Leo656]

Alright, I see you are in fact correct, and I misread "not all scary" as "not at all scary". I owe you some beef jerky.

I think the second one is still PRETTY scary if one allows it to be. To some, the parts where it tries to be funny only add to the surreal horror of it all. I definitely laugh, but I'm also definitely shook by some of it. It's just such an awful situation.

The way my brain works is that when I watch or look at something, my mentality is "This is real, this is happening". Which definitely helps me when I'm wrestling, for example, given the non-reality of it all. But yeah, even a "funny" horror movie like Evil Dead 2... yeeeeeesh, it wouldn't be "funny" AT ALL if you were the one dealing with it!

I remember the second time I saw it, I showed it to a buddy of mine who also likes horror movies. We'd been up all night drinking coffee and were all buzzed and sleep deprived, and for some reason he hadn't seen it. So we watched it, and when the thing with the f*cking moose head happened, he just shook his head and was like, "This is the most f*cked-up movie I think I've ever seen." Granted, we were 18, but it was like, a recognition that all of this came from a brilliant but twisted mind.

At one point loooong ago, I was so impressed with the series that I started writing a "Part 4" fanfic. Then not only did the internet discover those movies, and thus literally everyone who'd ever watched them did the Exact Same Thing, but also about a million comic books came out which continued the story in a very satisfactory manner. So I ultimately abandoned the project as being utterly, utterly pointless. But it should speak to how high on my Personal Favorites list they all are.

I have a few friends who loved 1 and 2 but completely and thoroughly disown and ignore "Army of Darkness", though. That makes me sad. It's absolutely not horror but it's SUCH a great movie. I can't even get them to watch the "Ash vs. Evil Dead" show because it's got a little bit of the same humor. *I* think the show did a GREAT job of marrying the pure horror elements of 1 and 2 with the comedic elements of the third film (and parts of 2). But to them, "If it tries to be funny, I'm not interested." I can't force anyone to do nothin', but it's so frustrating when I KNOW for an almost certain fact that if they gave it a chance, they'd like it a lot.
-----------------

Off the movie topic and to deviate a bit: I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I recently started reading the comic series "Crossed" and it's thoroughly addicting despite also being truly sick. I thought Garth Ennis was pushing it almost "too far" at times with "Preacher" (which I love but haven't finished yet... terrible, I know, but I'm busy!), but this book is like... OOOF. It is by far the "worst" thing I've ever seen in my life, and I don't shake easy. Like "Walking Dead" times a hundred. Like it makes "Walking Dead" seem like it's for little kids by comparison. I can't really recommend it, because it's explicitly graphic beyond almost anyone's imagination and breaks every single taboo there is or could be thought of... but I do really like it. And if someone is of the "I can't be shook" mindset, well... there's your homework. Get through the "Family Values" arc and come tell me that nothing shakes you. That's a dare.

Shockingly, the issues Garth wrote are actually TAME compared to most of the others I've seen, which is no mean feat if you know Ennis's work. I haven't even gotten close to the ones Alan Moore worked on, which came way later on; I can only f*cking imagine.

I guess I have to say it's my "favorite" horror comic ever, on account of it managed to do something none of the others I've read ever came close to: It legitimately made me uncomfortable. Anything else I've ever read was "just entertainment" but this is truly gut-churning stuff. Mileage Will Vary on whether it's just "gore porn for edgelords" but I'unno, I think it's well-done for what it is.

I thought I knew what I was getting into when I saw "Garth Ennis" and "Published by Avatar". I had NO idea. Every single person who worked on these books never had a kitten. OR, they did and when they were little they must've seen said kitten fed to a wood chipper. That's all I can figure. Had to be one or the other.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I have a few friends who loved 1 and 2 but completely and thoroughly disown and ignore "Army of Darkness", though. That makes me sad. It's absolutely not horror but it's SUCH a great movie. I can't even get them to watch the "Ash vs. Evil Dead" show because it's got a little bit of the same humor. *I* think the show did a GREAT job of marrying the pure horror elements of 1 and 2 with the comedic elements of the third film (and parts of 2).

Army of Darkness does take a bit of a turn. And "Ash vs. Evil Dead" was amazing. Some of those episodes have the grossest stuff I've seen in anything. Like him getting his head stuck in the butthole of the corpse, with a dick flapping around with a big ring in it? lol...

Looks like more RLM talk about Friday the 13th sequels:

[Leo656]

That "Jason Takes Manhattan" unmasked Jason head is the worst f*cking thing I've ever seen.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Heh, I kind of feel the same way as you about the trilogy as a whole, EXCEPT that while I agree about the humor of AoD, I DO feel it is horror, simply due to some of the bizarre and straight up "horrific" things Ash encounters. Like having the evil duplicate slowly splitting off of his own body, or getting sucked into the book, and the mirror image shattering into a bunch if tiny, vicious doubles. (Or, assuming you've seen the alternate ending- that.) Granted, many of those scenes are played for laughs, but like you said about 2, the situations themselves, if you were in them? Yikes! (And the tree rape in 1 or 2 is still one of the most horrifying things I have ever seen in concept. The remake did a GREAT job of showing just how terrifying that would be.)

Regarding Ah vs ED, I've only seen the first season, but I loved it! Great continuation of the movies. And the inclusion of Lucy Lawless, both as a nod to their previous work together on Xena, and as a wink at the comic crossover, was purely inspired.

[Leo656]

I originally was gonna post this in the "Latest Watched" or whatever thread, but since it's horror, and it's Halloween, I figured I'd put it here instead. It's long, so Two Parts. Sorry in advance, I have a lot to say.

My wife and I watched the two Rob Zombie "Halloween" movies - Unrated Cut of the first and Theatrical cut of Part II. Full disclosure, I've seen the original Carpenter one maaaybe twice in my life and absolutely none of the other ones. We just got sick of having the Zombie ones sitting on the shelf without watching them. I was waiting for another box set to come out so I could watch the original series all in order before moving on to the remakes, but all the DVD and Blu-Rays are stupid expensive so we just said "f*ck it" and decided to just watch these already.

Having said that, I know for a fact that my perspective on them is going to be entirely different from a "real" fan of the franchise. I've only seen "Alien", for example, and never seen the direct sequels, and thus I like "Prometheus" and "Alien: Covenant" a lot more than people who are balls-deep in that series, as well. These things are unavoidable. When you're on the outside coming into a series, the very specific "These movies don't honor what the franchise is SUPPOSED to be" criticism simply doesn't apply, and that can be a good thing because it's a lot easier to be objective and take something for what it IS versus what it Is Not. You simply can't be objective about ANY movie, especially a remake, when you have eight other movies in a series in your head going into it, it simply isn't possible. So for what it's worth, I AM glad that I saw these more or less in a vacuum.

Most of my friends who are horror buffs hate these movies predominantly on the grounds of, "They're not 'Halloween' movies, they're just Rob Zombie movies called 'Halloween'." And that's fine, but I always hate that type of criticism. So while the original plan WAS to watch all of the films in release order, having seen them, I'm honestly glad it didn't happen that way. Just for the sake of being objective.

Having said that... really mixed feelings. On the whole, I liked them more than I didn't, and I will watch them again (we already ordered the Director's Cut of Part II). More than anything, they reinforced my opinion that Rob Zombie has ONE thing that he does really well, and that he doesn't do a lot of other things very well. Competently, but not exceptionally.

After watching Part II, I commented to my wife that Rob Zombie's directing style is akin to someone pressing your face against a hot stove, and then just pressing HARDER for two hours. There's no subtlety, no build-up, no real sense of suspense or climax... there's just violence and more violence until finally, it's over. And again, that's his style and he does it very well, but it's exhausting, sometimes. And from what I understand, it's pretty much the polar opposite of the original series films, which were all about the build-up of dramatic tension. One could argue he shows too much, too soon, and then just doubles- and triples-down from there for the remaining running time. I'm not one to say the movies are "bad" because of that, but I respect that criticism, absolutely. So much of what makes horror movies "horror movies" is in what you DON'T see as much as what you do. With Zombie's films, you see EVERYTHING, and immediately, so it's like opening a wrestling match with a finisher when you still have 20 more minutes to fill. What now? Where do you go from there? His stuff is less aptly called "horror movies" and more like watching a fabricated snuff film.

Which isn't to say that I didn't like them. I thought they were "okay". My wife is a HUGE Zombie mark, so to her they're fantastic, but I can't really agree. There's a lot here that could have been better, especially the second one. Put simply, I liked both of them more than people repeatedly and firmly told me I would, BUT less than I expected or wanted to - again, especially the second one. I definitely don't even think Part II is a "bad movie", but if people want to make that case I really can't fight them too hard. There's a lot of case to be made. My counter argument is, I've seen a TON of movies that legit make me never want to see them again and a few that even made me angry, and this one doesn't come close to that. If people want to say it's thinly-written, that's fine. If people want to say, "This isn't 'Halloween'," then that's also fine, they'd certainly know better than I would. If people want to say it's a flat-out "bad movie", I might give them a really long list of "actual" bad movies that this movie is much more watchable or at least more entertaining than. But I wouldn't lose my voice trying to change their mind. It really doesn't deserve a strong defense. If you like Rob Zombie movies then it's pretty okay, that's about it.

I really don't have a LOT of problems with the first one, other than again, due to the way Rob makes movies you pretty much get the whole hog early on and everything afterwards is simply escalation. *I* don't really have an issue with that, other than, again, there's no real sense of build-up or suspense and everything is as subtle as a brick to the face. BUT, I'm always willing to meet a director halfway and acknowledge what their style is. BUT, I'm aware of the criticisms in comparing it to the original film(s). Having not seen them all, the most I can say is, "I see where that comes from, absolutely". But it doesn't really sway MY opinion one way or the other. Objectively, in a vacuum, it's a pretty entertaining bloodbath movie about an abused kid who grew up to be a psycho killer.

Part II, I have a few more problems with. Specifically, Rob Zombie tried SO HARD to channel David Lynch, and make a David Lynch movie, without really understanding what makes Lynch's stuff "click". For example, it can't JUST be surrealism and weird imagery and all that all the time. I completely "got" what Rob was trying to do with the White Horse and the hallucinations between Michael and Laurie and all that, I just didn't think it worked very well because of bad execution. For one thing, the new kid playing Kid Michael was AWFUL, and so was Rob's wife, who I actually thought did a pretty good job in Part I. Here, both her and the kid felt like they were in a goddamn high school play, or a really sh*tty straight-to-DVD horror movie. It just felt really "off". Really campy. Given how serious the rest of the movie was, and also how much better those characters were portrayed in the previous film, I was cringing pretty hard at times whenever they showed up. Again, I was intrigued by the concepts, the execution just brought it down.

Much has also been said about Rob Zombie's complete inability to write likeable characters, and how almost everyone in any of his movies is a scumbag you almost want to see get killed. Now, I did like some of them, but in both films 99% of the on-screen characters were there to get mulched and there wasn't even a point in giving them names, and that's the exact sh*t I hate in Jason movies and other slasher films. There were some good exceptions in the main cast; Sheriff Brackett, I liked a lot, and while Loomis was a pretty big sh*tbag by the end of things I thought MacDowell played it great, so I enjoyed whenever he showed up. And I generally liked Laurie, although by the end of Part II I was kind of over her. Although I will say that Rob did a good job in portraying a victim of a traumatic experience in a very realistic way... to a POINT.

That's another thing, is that Part II tries to be this weird blend of hyper-realism and surrealist fantasy, and it just doesn't come together all the way. The whole "mental link" between Laurie and Michael stuff, while intriguing, just wasn't done very well and kind of came out of left field in the middle of all the hyper-realism of the first film and most of the second. It was this weird mash-up of Zombie and Lynch and it was just very jarring. It's a very flawed piece of work. It definitely has its moments, though. I did mostly like it, and I will watch the Director's Cut, and then after that I'll probably end up seeing it a few more times in years to come, but even trying to meet Zombie halfway on what he was trying to do, I just didn't like it as much as I wanted to.

On the whole, I like them both fine as movies, I think the first one is better, and I think the second one had ambition that was far beyond Rob Zombie's particular grasp to execute. I didn't hate either one, and I do think that much of the "they're terrible" criticism simply comes from being wedded to the originals. I don't think they're terrible, but they are very flawed and much of one's enjoyment rests on their tolerance for Rob Zombie's entire filmmaking style.

(Cont.)

[Leo656]

As to whether or not they're "good remakes"... well... honestly, I can't really say without having seen the original in a long time or having seen the others, period. What I WILL say, is that I'm very aware of the "These movies simply are not 'Halloween', therefore they're awful" criticism. To that, I have to say that I'm VERY sympathetic to what Zombie was trying to do with these. When something is as iconic as the original "Halloween" film, and then you have like 8 other movies in that series, IF you have to do a remake, you're mostly left with two options: Re-do the first one shot-for-shot, beat-for-beat, and end up with an almost Xerox copy, OR, do something that's entirely different. It's obvious which direction Rob decided to go in, and for that, I honestly think it was a good call. I don't think he's a good enough director to really justify ALL of his creative choices, but I admire that he went off of nobody's template but his own.

Like, many people flat-out hate all the time spent on Michael's family history, his origin, the roots of his "evil" being in his abused childhood, simply because that wasn't Carpenter's intent and was never a factor in the original series in any way; he was originally JUST a mysterious, unstoppable killing machine without rhyme or reason, and that's fine. BUT, as I said, after 8 or 9 movies... what CAN you do, except pretty much exactly what Zombie tried to do? To many, giving any reason at all for Myers's killing sprees is blasphemous; I understand that, but I simply don't see it that way. I pretty much see it as necessary, if they HAD to do a remake. Whether or not they indeed DID have to do a remake in the first place, well... that's a conversation that will never end regardless of what movie we're talking about. But I really can't say I would have made a very different "Halloween" remake than what Rob Zombie did. I probably would have made some of the exact same creative choices, at least on the first one.

Most of what I was told would bother me about Part II, didn't bother me much. What bothered me was that the characters were mostly cardboard cutouts and only Laurie and Brackett had any depth whatsoever, and that the acting in the more surrealist moments was so hokey that it took me out of the experience when I was really trying to be invested in it. Again, I really LIKE that kind of artsy-fartsy crap, when it's done WELL. But I don't think it was done particularly well, here, and so much of the movie rests upon it that it has to be a point off.

From my neophyte's perspective, I guess I'd say that "just" as movies and comparing them to absolutely nothing, and also keeping in mind that I'm generally more forgiving than most, I'd say the first Zombie Halloween gets an A and the second one gets a B. I sort of expect to like the Director's Cut of II better, since I usually do, but we'll see. And again, if they're an "F" in the eyes of "real" fans of the franchise, that's entirely your prerogative. I'm just looking at them as movies, and judging how I see them entirely on their own merits. I'm quite sure that there's all kinds of reasons to take points off if you're a "real" fan of the franchise. But as I said, for the sake of objectivity, I'm kind of glad I saw these before doing a deep dive on the rest.

I'm glad they knew when to call it quits, and didn't do the proposed Part III with Laurie as the killer. That would have been stupid, and frankly I thought the ending of II was already kind of silly to begin with. Abandoning the "reboot series" after Part II and leaving it there was probably the smartest thing to do.

[Leo656]

Just got done watching "The Devil's Rejects" and "3 From Hell".

Like I said, I like Rob Zombie movies in general but goddamn, they're exhausting. I haven't seen Rejects in over 10 years and this was the first time we got around to watching 3 From Hell. They're both good but not something I'd wanna watch very often. Although they definitely fit right in with stuff like "Last House on the Left" and other things they're sort of based on, as far as that goes. Rob certainly is not shy about paying homage to his influences.

It's just so odd in how he works SO hard to make the heels into the babyfaces, especially in "3 From Hell". Since I'm a human being with a functioning moral compass (I know, I KNOW, but trust me, it's skewed but it's there ), I just don't buy it. Like just after the motel scene in "Rejects", for instance, I don't care how charismatic the characters are, they more than earned a very violent retribution and it was cathartic seeing them get tortured and brutalized the same way they'd done to so many other people. "Live by the sword," etc. I'm rather Old Testament in that way. Like, these are not good people. Charismatic, yes, but seriously, they're garbage. Yet these movies try SO hard to get you to root and cheer for the cannibal, rapist, corpse-f*cking redneck serial killers that it's kind of f*cking insane.

And then, in 3 From Hell, of COURSE they get away scot-free with everything. Like holy sh*t, man.

I suspect the "real life" reasoning is, in great deal, that most of Rob Zombie's other movies don't get a lot of attention, so he "needs" these characters alive so he can do another movie every time he's strapped for cash. Which is pretty much why he weaseled out of the ending of "Rejects" without anything by way of explanation. I get it, it's just a little frustrating to me, personally, to see characters who unrepentantly do so much f*cked up sh*t get away with it all. That happens enough in real life.

Good movies, though. Just don't know when I'll feel like watching them again. Maybe next year. But probably not before then.

[Last Ronin]

I'm a Friday kind of guy. But not much into the horror genre to be honest. Chucky started great but then just became a damn comedy. Halloween is very much up there especially the first movie.

[Leo656]

I was very shocked when I discovered that the series creator was the same guy who was behind "Bride" and "Seed of Chucky". When I first saw them, I wasn't paying much attention to the credits and was like, "Wow, this sucks, this is exactly what happens when people who don't understand a franchise get their hands on it and crank sh*t out for a fast buck." Then I found out that they came from the original creator, and that made it even WORSE. Like "Yeah, I guess when you're hard up you gotta just milk that cow until the tits fall off, but it'd be better to NOT do that."

I don't remember much about the newer ones, but they did a good job of getting things back on track. Much better than expected, anyway. Didn't see the remake yet. But it's pretty surprising that they COULD even get things back on track after Bride and Seed. I get why they have a camp appeal for some folks, but to me they're just shining examples of not knowing when to call it quits.

[Last Ronin]

Yeah dude, it was like a serial killer just found his comedic side in death. But to have the original creators go that route is astounding.

[Leo656]

I'm willing to bet it was one of those cases where the studio was gonna make more movies anyway, and so the guy was like, "If anyone's gonna bludgeon my baby to death, it's gonna be me." I can see that.

Doesn't excuse or forgive it, but I get the logic, sure. It's pretty much why Craven kept dipping his toe in the Elm Street pool every now and again. "So this is IT, though, right?" "Sure, Wes, sure." And then they do the best they can under the circumstances, despite their hands being figuratively tied.

I kinda have a love/hate thing with horror franchises for that exact reason. So many of them just weren't even MEANT to be franchises, and so even though the sequels are what makes them "iconic series", the side effect is lots and lots of bad movies.

[Last Ronin]

I agree with everything there, especially the "blugeon my baby it's gonna be me" thing. I would too to be honest.

[Shark_Blade]

Watched the old Halloween & Friday the 13th for the first time. They should re-categorize as comedy instead of horror cause they’re just terrible lmao.

[Andrew NDB]

Rewatched the Poltergeist trilogy. This time it was really jarring for me seeing the pretty drastic drop in quality between 2 and 3. Even the music, previously memorable and eerie, now is like elevator music. Also, I get that Cain/the Old Man actor died after 2... but being afraid of showing the replacement actor's face for longer than a split second is pretty weird.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Rewatched the Poltergeist trilogy. This time it was really jarring for me seeing the pretty drastic drop in quality between 2 and 3. Even the music, previously memorable and eerie, now is like elevator music. Also, I get that Cain/the Old Man actor died after 2... but being afraid of showing the replacement actor's face for longer than a split second is pretty weird.

Huh, I had no idea that was a trilogy, I just watched the first one for the first time a few weeks ago.