The State of Horror Cinema

pixelburp

Hey, it seems apt given the time of year so humour me. I started this thread after watching Carrie this evening - the original that is, not the remake - and while enjoying it a thought struck me. Has Horror Cinema lost its way a little and gone a bit down the toilet?

Ok, hyperbole aside - at least I got your attention - I got thinking about how the golden age of Horror cinema, much like in general, seems to be the 1970s bleeding into the 80s. When you look at some of the names that contributed to that genre it becomes something of a Who's Who of legendary & A-list directors: off the top of my head you got Friedkin, Kubrick, Polanski, Ridley Scott, Spielberg (I'm including Jaws and the rumours about directing Poltergiest), DePalma, Landis, Roeg, Carpenter (before he was replaced by an evil, talentless clone) and so on. Stretch back further and you get to include people like Powell or Hitchcock (though you could make the arguments theirs were more Thrillers than Horrors). Not only that, but studios seemed broadly willing to bankroll and support big-ticket, intelligent Horror. Actors too were more than happy to jump onboard a production, which naturally helped make these films a bit more bankable.

OK, genres flit in and out of fashion all the time (step forward Westerns and, latterly, Superhero flicks), but Horror has always been an important mainstay of the cinematic landscape. Horror cinema is as old as the medium itself if you go all the way back to things like Nosferatu, with that indelible image of Max Shreck part of the history of cinema itself (hand on heart - when I googled the right spelling of his name, I was still supremely creeped out by that makeup. It's fooking horrific). Horror has as much to say about the Human Condition as any other voice in cinema and to me it's a vital cog.

So when I look at the health of Horror cinema today - admittedly in purely generalised terms and I admit that - I feel tremendously underwhelmed, if not plain depressed. I don't think Horror has become unfashionable as such, instead quite the opposite: it feels like it has devolved into a derivative, exploitational conveyor belt for cheap shocks - Grindhouse but with a budget. What was once the seedy underbelly of the genre is now the main cashcow.

While yes, there have been isolated films of intelligence and quality such as Let the Right One In, 28 Days Later (Danny Boyle feels like a throwback with his constant dabbling in various genres) and so on, fewer 'legitimate' people seem to want to touch the genre these days - either side of the lens - and films appear to have become interchangeable productions out to produce theme-park style scares, or as Mark Kermode remarks, films that go 'quiet quiet quiet BANG!'; with many of them doing a line in that execrable obsession with gore-porn (though I realise there's a slight contradictory genetic link between genuine creatives like Sam Raimi and Eli Roth).

Like I said, I recognise there's probably lots of worried generalisation to this ranty thread, but I'm genuinely curious about two things. First, validate my beliefs internet! Ok, kidding, but am I being completely misguided here or does it seem like Horror has become the crude, backward cousin of cinematic genres nobody wants to talk seriously anymore - that it has lost its subtly of craft and artistry? Second, if I'm wrong and barking up the wrong tree, where and to whom should I be looking instead?

Old-man rant over

losthorizon

The Golden age of Horror cinema was probably the the 1930s and 1940s. Watching late night films on BBC 2 taught me that. Many people regard the Bride of Frankenstein as simply the best film ever made. Dr Jeykll and Mr Hyde with Fredric March is stunning and that dates from 1931!


When you compare these films with their atmosphere, plot and great story telling I'm afraid that not many modern Horror films do it for me.

poundapunnet

Very good point about mainstream directors not being willing to go near it now, speaks volumes. But non-western horror is in ok shape, ringu, old boy etc (though wow now I think of it they're both pretty old), a friend of mine told me there's some good things coming out of Australia too, can only think of wolf creek off the top of my head but I thought that was decent.

I definitely prefer the 70s and early 80s stuff too, have no time at all for any of the paranormal activity crap.

It's probably one of the longest surviving genres of genre cinema though, and it's necessarily limited. Unlike the western or the sci-fi or even a romance or comedy it can't expand it's plot and themes too much, the primary objective is always going to have to be to scare or unsettle. Post-modern self-reflexive stuff like Scream or the Cabin in The woods is fun but it dates quickly. I really think it's one of the most interesting genres of films, so satisfying to watch and to think/read about and I'd argue that horror's influence is actually spreading outwards rather than Big Serious Directors coming in. Amour is kinda a horror movie like, and I said Oldboy up there but that's a borderline case too.

Basically I dunno, interesting points you've raised though!

Fysh

I think part of the issue at hand with horror films is that there are a number of different ideas about what horror films are or should be, and those ideas go in and out of fashion. I remember reading about an early screening of Romero's Night of the Living Dead where it was screened as a matinee film with kids in attendance, because the venue had assumed that as a monster film it must be a family friendly adventure - cue many traumatised kiddies as the film progressed!

As a result of this variety of interpretations I think that horror as a genre doesn't have to be limited in narrative terms. I think that currently there's a desire to try and rekindle the horror franchise previously popularised with either monster films or slasher films (arguably a subset of the former but let's not dwell on it); the availability of tools to cheaply produce found-footage horror films like Paranormal Activity means that the relative risk to the studio is small while the potential profits from successful films are great. Personally, I much prefer psychological horror with a clever script so those kind of films do nothing for me, but so long as there's diversity of output it's not a problem.

In the last few years, we've had The Tunnel, Cabin In The Woods, The Crazies remake, Rubber, Tucker & Dale Vs Evil, Detention, Berberian Sound Studio, Lords Of Salem, Citadel, John Dies At The End, V/H/S, Snowtown. And that's me filtering just by the stuff I've seen and thought was good. There's a good bit more out there. Granted, a lot of those films haven't had theatrical releases, which is a pity - but they are being made, which is the main thing.

jpm4

Does anyone really care if the big studios are standing behind "intelligent" horror films anymore, assuming they ever were? The internet and broadband have made that largely irrelevant for me anyway - there is a whole world of horror out there to pick and choose from. I think the genre is in rude health myself, though some sub genres are probably better served than others.

pixelburp

jpm4 wrote: »

Does anyone really care if the big studios are standing behind "intelligent" horror films anymore, assuming they ever were? The internet and broadband have made that largely irrelevant for me anyway - there is a whole world of horror out there to pick and choose from. I think the genre is in rude health myself, though some sub genres are probably better served than others.

Well you care enough to post It's not a question of caring, it's not the core of my point really; to me it seemed studios bankrolled films in the first place because noted directors seemed more interested to explore the genre's potential, who tended to have easier access to the purses of studios. Like I said, the names from the past who dabbled in the genre makes for a pretty dizzying list.

I'm just curious what - if any - has been the change in perception by (for want of a better term) the top tier of Hollywood's directing and scripting talent? It feels like there has been a change in attitude towards the genre, that nobody wants to touch a horror script - is it that they feel it's only the preserve of hack directors and gore, that it's just not fashionable, or what? Mind you, the thought of a Wes Anderson horror film breaks my brain

I openly admit to generalisation in the main post, but just thought how it was curious that a genre seems to have shifted in approach of late. I agree though that the broadening of the media has been a massive boon to the industry, changing the landscape as a whole, and Horror has benefited as much as anything else. To be honest, the cynic in me thinks the answer is quite simple: Hollywood is now dominated by the chase for the teen-25 demographic, and when it comes to Horror the path of least resistance is simply trashy, blood soaked cinema that can be knocked out & hit the R-cert. And now I realise that makes me sound like an old sod, lol

Fysh wrote: »

In the last few years, we've had The Tunnel, Cabin In The Woods, The Crazies remake, Rubber, Tucker & Dale Vs Evil, Detention, Berberian Sound Studio, Lords Of Salem, Citadel, John Dies At The End, V/H/S, Snowtown. And that's me filtering just by the stuff I've seen and thought was good. There's a good bit more out there. Granted, a lot of those films haven't had theatrical releases, which is a pity - but they are being made, which is the main thing.

Glad you mention that movie, and that I wasn't the only one who walked away from it believing they'd just watched a horror movie. It was a singularly unnerving exercise (that kinda fell apart at the end), and whilst not 'scary' in the conventional sense, contained a brooding malevolence that would have been at home in Horror's days of yore.

jpm4

pixelburp wrote: »

Well you care enough to post It's not a question of caring, it's not the core of my point really; to me it seemed studios bankrolled films in the first place because noted directors seemed more interested to explore the genre's potential, who tended to have easier access to the purses of studios. Like I said, the names from the past who dabbled in the genre makes for a pretty dizzying list.

I'm just curious what - if any - has been the change in perception by (for want of a better term) the top tier of Hollywood's directing and scripting talent? It feels like there has been a change in attitude towards the genre, that nobody wants to touch a horror script - is it that they feel it's only the preserve of hack directors and gore, that it's just not fashionable, or what? Mind you, the thought of a Wes Anderson horror film breaks my brain

I openly admit to generalisation in the main post, but just thought how it was curious that a genre seems to have shifted in approach of late. I agree though that the broadening of the media has been a massive boon to the industry, changing the landscape as a whole, and Horror has benefited as much as anything else. To be honest, the cynic in me thinks the answer is quite simple: Hollywood is now dominated by the chase for the teen-25 demographic, and when it comes to Horror the path of least resistance is simply trashy, blood soaked cinema that can be knocked out & hit the R-cert. And now I realise that makes me sound like an old sod, lol

.

I think you may be making your own interpretations as to how horror films have been perceived over the years - I don't don't think there has been a time when it has been considered more 'worthy' or whatever the term is. Looking at the list of Directors you mentioned (and am going to have to take a guess at what films you are talking about ), but for me the likes of the Shining, Rosemary's Baby, Silence of the Lamb, Alien, Jaws - great films they are- but have always struck me as being horror films for people
who basically don't like horror films anyways.

What the hell am I trying to say actually? Basically that the films I mentioned above might be considered the loftier, worthier horror films but for me it doesn't mean there was a time when the genre was held in higher regard or whatever. It means occasionally some awesome films come out that really capture the public imagination.

pixelburp

jpm4 wrote: »

I think you may be making your own interpretations as to how horror films have been perceived over the years - I don't don't think there has been a time when it has been considered more 'worthy' or whatever the term is.

Well obviously it's my own interpretation - who elses would it be? My argument maybe a touch abstract for such a wide genre, but I'm asking the question and seeing if there's anything to it. That's why we have a debate in the first place

jpm4 wrote: »

Looking at the list of Directors you mentioned (and am going to have to take a guess at what films you are talking about ), but for me the likes of the Shining, Rosemary's Baby, Silence of the Lamb, Alien, Jaws - great films they are- but have always struck me as being horror films for people who basically don't like horror films anyways.
[...]

AH now, maybe it wasn't your intention, but that just comes across as more than a little hipster to be honest; the idea of movies being bracketed into those for proper genre fans and the coffee-table variety is just silly and wouldn't have any time for it tbh. Oh you like The Shining? How gauche Equally the idea that someone like Kubrick would make a movie to please the non-Horror crowd is kinda cute. Why Kubrick you sellout

I'd welcome any modern day director with creativity and vision to take a stab at a genre outside of their comfort zone, and certainly wouldn't hold a production against them because it might run the risk of being popular with the great unwashed. To me, Horror is a genre that should (in theory) speak to everybody, play on a dread or fear that lurks under the skin of most in the audience. It cannot help but be popular if it does its business right.

jpm4

AH now, maybe it wasn't your intention, but that just comes across as more than a little hipster to be honest; the idea of movies being bracketed into those for proper genre fans and the coffee-table variety is just silly and wouldn't have any time for it tbh. Oh you like The Shining? How gauche Equally the idea that someone like Kubrick would make a movie to please the non-Horror crowd is kinda cute. Why Kubrick you sellout

What I am saying is that certain films become popular and or critically acclaimed enough to transcend the typical genre audience and widely appeal beyond it- like the films listed above. I already said I really like those films so I don't what is so hipster about what I am saying. I have pretty much f**k all interest in say gangster films - if you pressed me for a few I would rate I would said the Godfather, Goodfellas - the obvious ones. Am sure there is plenty more out there, I have no interest in finding out.

I'd welcome any modern day director with creativity and vision to take a stab at a genre outside of their comfort zone, and certainly wouldn't hold a production against them because it might run the risk of being popular with the great unwashed. To me, Horror is a genre that should (in theory) speak to everybody, play on a dread or fear that lurks under the skin of most in the audience. It cannot help but be popular if it does its business right.

There has been loads of great horror over the past say 15 years, The likes of Danny Boyle and Del Torro are well regarded directors that have had a go. I agree with you that Horror will speak to all or most, but Paranormal Activity 4 will do the job for the masses just as well as the next Exorcist and is probably cheaper and less risky to make.

Decuc500

pixelburp wrote: »

Carpenter (before he was replaced by an evil, talentless clone)

Bit harsh on John Carpenter! Sure some of his recent films haven’t been as good as his early stuff but that’s to be expected. He got older, he lost that drive or inspiration that I’m sure comes with the passing of time.

His last great film was probably In The Mouth Of Madness but The Ward was a very well made horror film as well.

The thing I don't like about most modern horror films is how outright nasty they are. You can usually guess how they're going to end i.e. no survivors, no hope, no chance of an even remotely uplifting ending. You don't have to send the audience away on a downer to have an effective horror film. Carpenter knew that. His endings always suited the film.

My feeling is many of todays horror movies are pandering to the current cinema going public. They are manicured to a degree.

When I started getting into film, directors like Cronenberg were my diet. Movies like Shivers, Videodrome. They not only have the shocks in them, but they are scary on another psychological level, and you feel the director's personality or original ideas are coming out in the movie. You dont really have any idea what is going to happen, whereas with todays horror movies Im pretty sure after watching the first 5 minutes you could map out the story pretty good. I mean I saw the conjuring this week, and it wasnt bad at all, but its just entertainment at the end of the day, it didnt leave me with that uneasy feeling after a proper horror movie and I knew most of what would happen.

The other problem with horror today is doing something new and coming up with new concepts the public havent seen already is hard. I think Rob Zombiee managed to do it with The Devils Rejects, which I thought was an awesome new breed of horror movie just dealing with purely evil people.

Fysh

Deleted User wrote: »

My feeling is many of todays horror movies are pandering to the current cinema going public. They are manicured to a degree.

When I started getting into film, directors like Cronenberg were my diet. Movies like Shivers, Videodrome. They not only have the shocks in them, but they are scary on another psychological level, and you feel the director's personality or original ideas are coming out in the movie. You dont really have any idea what is going to happen, whereas with todays horror movies Im pretty sure after watching the first 5 minutes you could map out the story pretty good. I mean I saw the conjuring this week, and it wasnt bad at all, but its just entertainment at the end of the day, it didnt leave me with that uneasy feeling after a proper horror movie and I knew most of what would happen.

The other problem with horror today is doing something new and coming up with new concepts the public havent seen already is hard. I think Rob Zombiee managed to do it with The Devils Rejects, which I thought was an awesome new breed of horror movie just dealing with purely evil people.

I think the above comments only really apply if you're talking about Hollywood horrors. And it's not like it's just horror films that get the Hollywood Conventional Script treatment - there are a great many films from all sorts of genres that are utterly predictable, because there is an audience for such films.

Take Martyrs, for example, or Berberian Sound Studio, or YELLOWBRICKROAD, or A Field In England. All of those films threw me completely for a loop, and I loved them for it. I think it's a pity that there isn't more demand for high-calibre horror at the cinema, but with the diversity of access we have today at least it does mean that filmmakers who want to create more challenging films can do so without having to compromise in such a way as to guarantee bums on seats during a theatrical release.

Banjaxed82

Is there an element of... "in my day, they new how to make a good horror movie".

Every era of horror has had a peppering of top notch films and a sh!tload of terrible/mediocre ones.

Anyway, the title of the thread could easily be called the state of cinema. I don't think this is exclusive to horror. Every genre has suffered.

Tony EH

The 1970's wasn't just the golden age of horror cinema, it was the golden age of cinema, full stop.

Because of the troubles that cinema was going through in general, with the growing sophistication of TV, film studios allowed film makers to experiment to a greater degree than ever before. The relaxation of censorship and moral boundries gave the film maker a wider margin to put onto film, images that only a decade before, would have been unthinkable.

I mark the period from 'Night of the Living Dead' as a turning point, where horror cinema grew up. Gone was the tame horror of the vampire and the wolfman, which by the 50's/60's had been progressively marketed at children and early teens (boys mostly). They had been replaced with creatures that were us literally devouring ourselves and they also served as a backdrop for a hard hitting, while at the same time, subtle social commentary that was as grim as the flesh eating ghouls chomping into the warm meat of their victims.

But, elsewhere, cinema had grown up too. Mainstream films, of the likes such as 'The Godfather', 'Taxi Driver', 'Apocalypse Now' just simply would not have been able to be made by their creators in the 1960's, due to the restraints that were common-place at the time. Obviously 'Apocalypse Now' wouldn't have been made in the 60's, with the war at it's height, but in regards to that picture, I am talking about tone, rather than content.

But, also, we had blockbusters like 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars', which were quite revolutionary at the time, for entirely different reasons, of course. But, both films wouldn't have been made in the fashion that they were just 10 years before.

Horror, though, died a terrible death in the 80's however. Again, this had to do with a tightening of censorship that was imposed upon film makers. In America the MPAA became harsher with regards to horror cinema, while in the UK, they had the utterly ridiculous "video nasties" scare that threw horror cinema into the dark ages. The result of the new squeamishness was that horror films, from around 1984/85, became so tame as to be worthless to the average genre fan. While there were certainly exceptions to the rule, like 'Day of the Dead', 'The Fly' or 'The Thing', most of the fare on offer was pretty awful. This period also saw the rise of, what I consider to be the lowest rung on the ladder, the Horror-Comedy, which by and large, are laugh free-affairs.

From the mid 80's throughout the 90's, Horror was almost a pointless exercise and while the genre fan is often let down by their content of choice, the 80's and 90's remain the worst period by a large margin.

The worst thing about horror cinema these days are the seemingly endless remakes, reboots and re-imaginings that are bombarding the screens. Remakes can be good though, like 'The Hills Have Eyes', or 'The Crazies', which are far superior to their former incarnations. But, in the main they are completely pointless as they don't improve on what came before, like Rob Zombie's 'Halloween', or the 'Evil Dead' remake.

Often times, the only thing that these films have going for them is their unashamed penchant for blood and gore, as if film makers are making up for the lack of blood and guts during the 80's and 90's.

But, remakes are not just blighting horror cinema. They reign supreme over the entire business. Rubbish like 'Conan the Barbarian', 'The Ladykillers', 'Footloose', 'Get Carter' and 'Mr Deeds' have tarnished the memory or great films (with the exception of 'Footloose', of course).

The worst thing about this cycle, is that it looks continued to roll on for some years yet.

Sleepy

I don't watch a lot of horror for a simple reason: most of it is ****e.

The genre's biggest problem imo, is that there's so much low-budget, shoddily made straight-to-video stuff out there that it can be very difficult to identify the good stuff and even so much of what's considered to be good has disappointed. I can see that films like Carrie, The Shining, The Exorcist, Dawn of the Dead etc are good, I don't tend to hugely enjoy them...

Fysh

Sleepy wrote: »

I don't watch a lot of horror for a simple reason: most of it is ****e.

The genre's biggest problem imo, is that there's so much low-budget, shoddily made straight-to-video stuff out there that it can be very difficult to identify the good stuff and even so much of what's considered to be good has disappointed. I can see that films like Carrie, The Shining, The Exorcist, Dawn of the Dead etc are good, I don't tend to hugely enjoy them...

You can say that about any genre, though. For every Blazing Saddles there are all the films starring Adam Sandler (yes, I'm being somewhat mean here). For every 12 Angry Men there's A Time To Kill. For every When Harry Met Sally there's almost any film starring Hugh Grant.

I do find that horror and fantasy are two genres where it's very tricky to reliably find material that I personally enjoy, because there seem to be several different schools of thought about what makes them good and no obvious way to distinguish between them

Of course, if you don't like any of the genre you might be better off acknowledging that it's not for you than trashing pretty much an entire genre...;)

Tony EH

Fysh wrote: »

...there are all the films starring Adam Sandler (yes, I'm being somewhat mean here).

No...no, you're not.

Sleepy

Sorry Fysh, I didn't mean to trash the entire genre, my point is that the noise:signal ratio seems far higher in the horror genre than in many others.

Fysh

Sleepy wrote: »

Sorry Fysh, I didn't mean to trash the entire genre, my point is that the noise:signal ratio seems far higher in the horror genre than in many others.

Ah I know, I was only messing I do know what you mean in that sense, I have a similar problem myself as I really like psychological horror but have very little interest in slasher films or other generally-predictable jump-scare films.

I think it's easier than it ever has been to find something good to watch (whatever your personal definition of "good" would be) than it ever has been before, though. In particular I find that with Netflix and Lovefilm streaming (coupled with streaming-rental services becoming more commonplace), a bit of time spent rating the films I do and don't like pays off with some reasonably good suggestions. It's not perfect, mind you, but it's a damn sight better than trying to judge based on video covers at Xtravision...

Bipolar Joe

It all really depends on what you want out of your horror. It's no good saying it's all bad, because art in general is very subjective. It's not bad, just not your schtick, although I'll agree there are some genuinely terrible films (Zombie Chronicles, Slaughterhouse Massacre, Jason X). To say horror now is bad is also just plain incorrect. It might not be in the mainstream, but you're looking at history through a lens, just like anyone who says modern music is terrible does. Videodrome was released in 1983. Guess where it placed on the top 100 grossing films of that year. Nowhere. Psycho II is on that list. Krull, Mr. Mom and Porky's II is also there.

Horror was pretty much always seen as the lesser mans cinema experience. Carpenter, Hitchcock, Argento, Romero, Browning and Castle are all great horror directors of the past. They made some fantastic films. Basically no one cared that much at the time, it was seen as tacky and for stupid teenagers with no taste. Those stupid teenagers with no taste grew up, and decided horror movies now are terrible, because they don't know how or where to look for that content any more. Just take a look at the list for the IFI Horrorthon this year, it's packed! Look deeper elsewhere in the world and you'll find even more.

If there's any genre that's been mostly forgotten, it's science fiction. There's a couple of good movies out recently, but for the most part there's been fuck all, and the ones that have been out are either forgettable or just not good. If you want horror, the world delivers, because humanity is always scared and film reflects that.

e_e

Banjaxed82 wrote: »

Anyway, the title of the thread could easily be called the state of cinema. I don't think this is exclusive to horror. Every genre has suffered.

Sorry but that's nonsense imo. There's great comedy, horror, science fiction (I mean look at Gravity) and action every year.

People just have a cinematic kind of selective hearing and assume that it doesn't exist and/or is all ****e.

johnny_ultimate

Could be a bit of a word stew coming up here, so you've been warned

Firstly, genres (we'll get back to that word in a minute) age. It's a natural process - cinema history is littered with the remains of once popular genres that naturally ran their course, from the screwball comedy to the film noir. Heck, whole movements like the French New Wave naturally petered out (to the point where Godard's ongoing efforts in the area seem a tad quaint and desperate). Eventually, a genre has been explored so thoroughly, it becomes increasingly challenging for even talented directors to do anything new in them. There'll still be the odd few (the Western, for example), but glory days cannot last forever.

Horror has endured more than most, but it's not immortal either (pardon the implied pun). Take the vampire movie. Great directors have been making vampire films for almost 100 years now, so it's frankly remarkable imaginative things like Thirst and Let the Right One In are still getting made. But every time someone makes a great vampire film that puts extra pressure on the successor to breathe life into it again. Eventually, you get to the point where the layers of postmodernity, subversion and parody just pile up on top of each other precariously (exhibit A: the slasher flick. Exhibit B: the 'cabin in the woods' film). There are just so many horror films out there it's increasingly hard for all but the best filmmakers to squeeze in and carve themselves a fresh niche in what might be the most saturated filmic genre that has ever existed. And really it's incredibly hard for a director to articulate terror in ways we haven't seen before - the strings-heavy soundtrack wasn't born a cliché, after all. Heck, the savvy audience member has probably built up an immunity to all this anyway.

But there are great filmmakers out there, and that brings me to my second point: the trouble with simple genre divisions like horror in the first place. Now, I do think there are a few great directors out there indisputably working in the realms of horror. Personally, I'm quite fond of Ti West (if you want traditional horror with a focus on characters, he's your man) and Hélène Cattet / Bruno Forzani (making their intoxicatingly abstract and visceral films). There's one-offs like American Mary, Drag Me To Hell (oh Raimi, please return to your divinely chosen style), Inside, Audition, Cold Fish, Perfect Blue, A Tale of Two Sisters etc etc etc... We could go on.

Then I think of how many films use the iconography and language of horror, but would trouble traditional definitions. What of Guy Maddin, who makes films like Keyhole that aren't traditionally terrifying but make amazing use out creepy, oddball and deeply cinematic delivery learned from the horror master past? The procedural thrillers like Zodiac, Memories of Murder, Prisoners, The Chaser etc... that are dank, miserable and disturbing? Films like Hausu, Cabin in the Woods or Evil Dead where you're as likely to burst your ****s laughing as you are to cower behind the nearest cushion? Abstract weirdness from Lynch or Tsukamoto? Or something like The Act of Killing: a mere documentary, but with scenes more chilling than anything that goes bump in the night. They mightn't make 'em like they used to, but they're making a hell of a lot of different things instead. This is good.

Cinema is an evolutionary process, with filmmakers constantly trying new things. Even if the form is sometimes unfamiliar, there are plenty of filmmakers out there running with and building on the work of their inspirations and predecessors. I don't think there's much use mourning what has come before (like people around here often do with 80s action films): it's all still there for the taking. Instead, embrace the new: if anything, moving away from the traditional myths, nightmares and monsters entirely might just be the kick in the arse the horror genre needs.

biggebruv

I grew up on the slashers in the very late 90s all the 80s ones were available to rent which was heaven lol
I guess it all started after i seen Halloween on TV one night then when scream came out it just blew up for me
then resident evil set me off into zombie horrors.

so i discovered all these great movies

dawn,night,day of the dead
Jason movies
Freddy movies
Chucky movies

Texas Chainsaw massacre was a big one on first viewing i remember when my older cousin got it i was so scared because it had the banned tag on it LOL

They just cant make a decent slasher these days for some weird reason I loved the long chase scenes in the old slashers now they just die in 2 seconds its crap the only one that done it well in the past 4 years or so was the My Bloody Valentine remake

Optimalprimerib

With any genre books games or movies, every now and again an idea may get revitalised and peak peoples interest in that niche again. For example Scream came from nowhere and brought a rebirth to the slasher flick, which in turn awoken carbon copies such as I know what you did last summer and the market got saturated again with rehashes of the same idea.

I think myself that the late 90's-2000's saw a good rebirth of the horror genre with the likes if the sixth sense, saw and the blair witch project bringing a wide variety if horror genres back into the market. But like with scream, the carbon copies started being churned out and in saw's case an epidemic of sequalitis set in.

Horrors have a good fanbase and even the worst will find a profit. I know I saw my fair share of rubbish in my time. But if I was to push myself, I could name at least 20 good horrors between lets say 95 until now.