January 14, 2005

You Can't Make A Good PG-13 Horror Movie

Why am I not seeing any great horror movies anymore? The last decent horror movie saw I was the remake of Dawn of the Dead. This lack of delicious viloence is starting to drive me crazy.

Is it to much to ask for that when the monster gets some one, I get to see it bite their head off? Is it to much to ask that when the crazy phsyco hits someone in the head with an axe, I don't have to see some lame silouette? Am I crossing the line by saying the only time I want to see Dakota Fanning in a horror movie is if she is being ripped in half by the creature from beyond?

I don't think so.

What happened to the days where horror movies pushed the limits of what we could stomach to watch, why have they become about being marketed as stylized dumbed down thrillers?

Miles wants Bruce Campbell to go crazy and cut off his hand, then blow off a demon's head with a shotgun, then to top it off I want him to crack wise, dammit.

In fact, I demand it!

Hear that Hollywood? I don't want your dirty "horror" movies unless they adhere to the following recipe:

20% Cool Monster

10% Heaving Breasts

25% Senseless Viloence

5% Story

15% Crackin' Wise

15% Heavy Metal Music Blasting As People Fight With Chainsaws

10% Suprise

Now that equals 100% entertainment you jerks.


Posted by miles at January 14, 2005 02:30 PM


Comments

Bravo!! It needed to be said!!

Posted by: Adam at January 14, 2005 05:05 PM

Agreed. The Grudge, The Ring and one other I can't remember (because it was wimpy horror) would've been improved immensly without the PC-13 watering down (that's PC for a reason, kids).Although it had several other problems, an R-rated Aliens v Predator also would've been far better. There's a precedent to follow from the other Alien and Predator films, and there were some primo opportunities for juicy grossness.

Posted by: wampachow at January 14, 2005 05:20 PM

If I made a horror film, it would probably take place in hell, be rated NC-17 and be banned in numerous countries. I wouldn't break it down into percentages like that though ... I'd just say 100% of everything on that list. And I'd add vomit and crazy people. A good horror film needs vomit and crazy people.

Posted by: Asmodeus at January 14, 2005 05:37 PM

a vs p was ok, the first fight scene was lame, but it picked up after that. I actually enjoyed it thouroughly until the streetwise woman out of her element joined forces with the predator.

and you are right amodeus, where would horror be without crazy people and vomit? the stone age, that is where.

Posted by: miles at January 14, 2005 10:40 PM

I actually spent a couple of sleepless nights trying to figure out how I could make my own AVP cut with the existing footage. If only the streewise chick had died when saving the Predator's life - instead of partnering up and turning the movie into a buddy picture - we would've had some amazing Aliens v Predator and Alien Queen v Predator action.Even with my personal cut, it would still only be a mediocre film.

Posted by: wampachow at January 14, 2005 11:17 PM

John, with that post you're giving away your age. These youngsters don't remember back in the day when most horror films met and even exceeded your requirements. ;-)

That's a post *I* should have written on Screen Rant. :-)

Vic

Posted by: Screen Rant at January 15, 2005 02:06 AM

http://www.horizonica.nl/index2.html

a Dutch, yeah from holland, horror slasher. Only very low budget but hey it's heart is in the right place :)

Posted by: venger at January 15, 2005 08:21 AM

john?!?

it is pure miles, vic!!

and the funny thing is, I am only 22.

Posted by: miles at January 15, 2005 08:48 AM

I agree with everything you just posted 100%

Posted by: thesecretsafe at January 15, 2005 09:34 AM

LOL @ Miles.

My, you are very young!

Posted by: Simone at January 15, 2005 09:43 AM

I wonder who's younger, me being only 17...I think I'd win with that one.

Posted by: Xun Shin at January 15, 2005 04:17 PM

Miles,

Oops. :-)

Vic

Posted by: Screen Rant at January 15, 2005 04:25 PM

vic

don't worry about it, it just lets me know that my writing is of such high quality, it is easily mistaken to be that of a virtuouso such as john.

or somehting along those lines.

and hey, 22 is a ripe old age! god though...if i am this bitter at 22 you don;t want to see me when i am 60.

Posted by: miles at January 15, 2005 04:50 PM

Yes and no.

Yes because toned-down PG13 movies are total crap. If a movie deals with adult subject matter and shows excessive violence, it is supposed to be viewed by adults. It is not supposed to be cut and shown to children.

No because there's nothing much of gore and perversity left to show that hasn't been covered in Salo, Cannibal Holocaust, the Guinea Pig series, Nekromantik, August Underground Mordrum, Faces of & Taces of Death series etc. pp. You get the point - there are simply too many to list and there's nothing new directors can do. It is all limited to the same old gore for the slasher fans and maybe a few new gimmicks like comitting suicide by swallowing a string with fishhooks and pulling it back up in The Isle. (Asmodeus: puke and crazy people? Audition has got to be your favourite film...)

Therefore I actually really like the turn to psychological terror many Horror movies have taken - the terror that your subconscious can awaken is nothing compared to seeing some fake blood. That's also why I find Asian horror so much better that the American remakes (The Ring, The Grudge) that it gets - it doesn't try to scare you with loud bangs and quick cuts but instead slowly crawls under your skin. Works better for me anyways :)

Posted by: Nom de guerre at January 16, 2005 12:01 AM

Midgets.

Your forgot midgets.

All good horror films should be at least 3% terrifying eldritch midgets.

Posted by: tom at January 16, 2005 07:07 PM

Nome de querre,

Great points concerning Japanese horror films. I just saw and reviewed Ju-on: The Grudge and touched on those same points.

Vic

Posted by: Screen Rant at January 16, 2005 07:16 PM

This may be going a little off topic - but my pet hate is the fact that hollywood always takes an idea and overdoes it - theres no such thing as a balanced year in Hollywood - we always get a year where the only big productions are sci fi, or historic adventure or cheesy action or romantic comedy - we never really get a year where we get a well balanced mix.

Ok that sounded a little bit like a mad rant :) I apologize.

Posted by: Hans at January 17, 2005 12:18 AM

But wasn't Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses all about that stuff?

And isn't a part two comin out.

I thought Freddie vs Jason was PG-13, by the way.

Posted by: metalordie at January 17, 2005 03:21 AM

Wait wait wait....can't make a PG-13 movie that frightens people? There was a PG-13 movie a couple yars back that was nothing less than a tour de force of shocking terror which mortified even the hardest film buff, critic and fan.

You have to remeber this one people, scared the living bejeezes out of me...yes, you guessed it: GLITTER, Mariah Carey's life altering tale of unprecedented fear and loathing!

Posted by: Kristopher at January 17, 2005 04:57 AM

Well sometimes though graphic violence isn't always necessary. I think that often filmmakers have the chance to be more creative in their cinematography by allowing things to happen offscreen or allude to events that happened earlier. With the right script, this can create a nice spooky atmosphere.

But yes, many PG-13 horror films suck. Look at "Darkness Falls" and the other one that came out around the same time (name escapes me).

I'm must still dealing with the horrible nightmare I had last night that has me seriously re-thinking my desire to watch any horror films anytime soon. Too much graphic chainsaw violence in that dream - and I can't get my money back! All I'm left with was a crappy night's sleep and I'm feeling groggy today!

Posted by: trysop at January 17, 2005 01:11 PM

Kristopher, you are so right! This is some scary stuff ;) I was also too frightened to go see Britney's Crossroads, it just sounded too violently disturbing. I still want to keep the little sanity I have left...

Posted by: Nome de guerre at January 17, 2005 09:51 PM

Ahhhhh, the PG (PC) -13 problem. I can't bear to actually PAY for horror movies in a theatre anymore without an R rating (at least). May as well wait for them to come out with a (hopefully) director's cut that is non-rated.
What happened to the Cannibal Films, the gruesome self-mutilation films, the wonderful zombie flicks?
The Beyond, Cannibal Ferox/Holocaust, Dawn o' the Dead (the original and, in some respects, the remake), Zombi, Deep Red? DO I HAVE TO RELY ON ITALIANS FROM 3 DECADES AGO GODDAMMIT!!

Very very VERY disappointed. Hollywood...SHAME ON YOU!

Posted by: casserollmeover at January 20, 2005 01:30 PM

What do you need an R rating for? Blood, guts, sex? What does that have to do with thrilling an audience or conjuring suspense? Take it from a filmmaker who has made a horror film, the gore and and the "R" rating are pointless in creating a good horror film. Seriously, think about it. If you're into the gore and tits, lets face it you like gore and titty movies, NOT HORROR films. If you do a little research you will find that there are several horror films with PG and PG-13 ratings. Sure, there are more horror films with R ratings, even some really good ones. However they are probably rated R because they are very disturbing, and not because of gore. And finally I have to say that your percentage scale above indicates to me that you haven't the slightest idea of what it takes to make a good piece of cinema, horror or otherwise. Now I hate working in Hollywood and I agree with what you say about it, but any major studio or production company has better taste in horror cinema than you.

Posted by: Campbell at January 22, 2005 09:54 PM

I definitely agree; you cannot make a good PG-13 horror movie...

There are some pretty disturbing PG-13 rated films out there that were pretty disturbing and made a lot of money as well, but what these studio executives don't seem to understand is that films like "The Sixth Sense" and "The Ring" (both rated PG-13) are not really horror films. They were disturbing, but I would call them, like... thrillers or suspense, not horror. A true horror film is really all about the violence. If there is a bizarre psychotic killer or appauling mutant creature of some kind hacking innocent people to pieces, that's horror. Horror should NEVER be branded with a PG-13 rating because the gore (as well as occasional nudity) is really why most people go see these films. If you have a horror film with no gore why would anyone want to see it? Would they see it for the witty dialogue, or clever character development? No. Horror films are supposed to horrify you, make you appauled. Anyway, the three main reasons a film should never be PG-13 are:

1: You need violence (as I said before)
2: You need to be allowed to say "fuck" more than once
3: Kids really shouldn't be seeing shit like this anyway.

Oh, and as a reminder, boycott all the new dimension horroe films, they're on a PG-13 frenzy. Even Wes Craven's new film, "Cursed" is PG-13. Why are studios going ape shit over this restrictive rating? Why are the weinsteing brothers (Dimension's chairmen) butchering they're films? Who knows. All I can say is fuck the weinstein brothers and fuck the half-assed PG-13 horror films, if you can even call it "horror"

Posted by: thedicator at January 30, 2005 06:28 PM

Look, horro movies dont need all that violent stuff to be good!

i dont know what you people are saying. all you need is an awesome story line and a bunch of freakyn oises and disturbiing images.

WHO CARES ABOUT VIOLENCE!!!!

Posted by: fred at February 4, 2005 02:14 PM

whenever i go out on a date with my girlfriend and see a PG 13 horror movie, i dont want to see a crappy horror movie like Boogeyman we dont get scared it just like "Whens this gonna get scary" I demand scarier PG13 movies. 3 of the 4 scary movies ive seen this 04-05 school year, only one has been remotely scary (The Village, Boogeyman, White Noise, and The Grudge)

Ive got to give it up to the grudge it was a scary movie

Posted by: Steele at February 5, 2005 08:54 PM

you are quite sik..hu wants to see lots of blood and gore?even if they are rated higher so kids cant watch them they will still hear about them and then they wont think death,murder and stuff like that is such a bad thing and that ia wrong. there is no point to lots of blood and gore. good horror films contain scary people/creatures that are set out to kill people but it dont show u the gore..or horrors that will scare u sensless but without the gore. i can think of plenty...the ring 1 and 2,hide and seek, godsend,what lies beneath, that is jus 2 name a few,so i hope u understand by no i disagree with you

Posted by: josie at April 1, 2005 05:06 AM

Agree, All horror movies should be over M15+ or they are not as good. Plus i think that they need some more scary themes in movies

Posted by: Mr poo Poo Fingers at April 18, 2005 01:13 AM

I don't think excessive violence is at all necessary. In fact, there are not ENOUGH movies out that deliver pshycological thrills, real suspense, and minimal violence. All I hear is guts ripped out, heads blasted off...that's the stuff that makes people who understand how to effectively create horror and suspense roll their eyes. It's like some people can't appreciate a movie without ridiculous, pathetic gore being jammed into every other scene.
Excessive gore, no point and no story, make a movie the biggest load of crap to offer.

Posted by: Jenny at May 8, 2005 02:57 PM

I think the best part of a horror movie is that it slips into your subconscious. Violence is predicable, so is sex and actually everything that ya'll are after; it's all predictable! It's the creepy stuff that messes up your sleeping habits that makes a good horror movie. And that's what we need more of... a good psychological freak-out that we all build up our bravado for, only to be taunted out of sleeping because our MINDS can't handle it.

Posted by: SuperGrover at May 8, 2005 08:43 PM

I just googled PG-13+what+is+up. In other words, what is up with all the PG-13 rated movies? I agree, there is something missing in almost all of them. Now, The Grudge, that was one frightening film. Yes, the Japanese original version was good but ,sadly, not quite as frightening. I want to see the gore, the plot, the cursing, the nudity. Everything you would see and hear if it was really happening. Evil Dead II as someone alluded to above was one incredible film noone would have ever seen if there were only pg-13 ratings. Bring back the R's. Hell bring back NC-17's. By the way did anyone understand Josie's post? Almost a different language or something.

Posted by: beatz at August 31, 2005 01:12 AM

i agree almost all pg-13 horror movies suck i compared 2 a while back with about the same plot one being pg-13 and the other r give u one guess which was better i really feel bad 4 my younger sister she's 12 and she can only go see pg-13 because no one will go see r with her and my mom doesnt like renting or buying horror movies but either way pg-13 sucks give me more violence who cares if it doesnt make much sense horror movies arent suppose to make sense they're suppose to scare the crap out of u

Posted by: rock'n'roll at September 30, 2005 04:44 PM