I like gory movies- they're fun. But not many creep me out. I generaly laugh at extreme gore. For some reason, something like NOSFERATU (1922) and DRACULA (1931) and the HAUNTING (1963) give me the willies and are more satisfying. I know folks think DRACULA is slow- but I like slow movies. Granted- the first 20 minutes are the best- even after that it has some creepy moments.
Call me weird (most everyone does) but I like the old moody horror films more than a gorefest.
(https://i.imgur.com/1IIOdEx.jpg) (https://lunapic.com)
I like both. Depends on how they are done.
ronny, this is part of why i love you, you understand the true spirit of horror, and it doesn't need much of anything in the way of blood, guts or gore. AND you're amused with the over the top crap. i watch that to hone my sfx skills, but generally the gore crap is just that. crap. bad acting, bad storyline and BAD MUSIC, mostly. :cheers:
I'm with Cult Moody Movies. It depends on how they are done.
Personally I couldn't restrict certain movies because there's something in it that ruffles my feathers. If I did I'd always feel like missing out.
although I love horror I am actually getting quite squeamish, gorewise... (more as I get older)
most 80s slashers tend to have what I would call 'fun gore'...but recently watched TERRIFIER from 2016. the gore in that is too much imo. gratuitous in a way that made me think the director actually has a problem. there was a scene I literally couldn't watch... I mean if that was the director's intention then bravo..... every single film on the original banned 'video nasties' list looks like MARY POPPINS in comparison
I remember being seriously freaked out by the gore in the movie SOLDIER BLUE because it looked so realistic. 😳
despite what I said above, I have to laugh that FRIDAY 13TH PART 7 was not allowed to show Jason whacking a sleeping bag with the girl inside against a tree repeatedly... only one whack allowed! how quaint does that seem compared to new horror
RE-ANIMATER was gory as hell- but also hilarious! Now, a film like CITY OF THE LIVIG DEAD (1981) aka the GATES OF HELL is a scary as hell movie, but the gore is creative. The girl puking up her guts; the poor sap who gets a power drill into his skull- yikes! the TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974), despite its title, has very little gore and it's still one of the scariest movies I've ever seen.
I can do without torture porn s**t like HOSTEL and SAW.
Gore can be shocking or disturbing, but it's not in itself scary. It's whatever leads up to the gore that's scary.
I like gore in sporadic yet intense quantities - as punctuation. There's only one (sort of) gory scene in POLTERGEIST, for instance, but it makes a big impact amidst the other bloodless horror.
The gore in Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD is more frequent and gross, but it still serves the same function amidst a lot of suspense and melodrama. Once Romero got to the final act of DAY OF THE DEAD, on the other hand, he just decided to pour blood on blood for 20 minutes. It's cathartic, but it also becomes overkill... you get a little desensitized.
Another relevant example of this Good Gore/Bad Gore dichotomy: Japanese films of the 70s, and also the later films of Takeshi Kitano and Takashi Miike, are often slower, plot-driven affairs, but when there is violence, we'll get abruptly erupting geysers of blood or huge expressionistic splatters. I love this - again, as a contrast to the lack thereof. But when I tried to watch TOKYO GORE POLICE (or other 21st century films of the same "More Is Less" genre) I just got bored. It's 90 minutes of geysers and oceans of blood, w/ nothing else surrounding to make them meaningful.
SAW, TERRIFIER, to some extent HOSTEL, and other films that we might call "torture porn" have a whole separate issue: if the victims are always incapacitated or otherwise helpless to defend themselves... there's no real conflict... thus no suspense. Again, boring and morbid. The best parts of the entire F13 series are always the parts where someone FIGHTS BACK.......
Quote from: Rev. Powell on August 13, 2023, 09:54:38 AM
Gore can be shocking or disturbing, but it's not in itself scary. It's whatever leads up to the gore that's scary.
As always, Rev, you say it all w/ admirable brevity! :cheers:
Anyone can make a film where they throw buckets of blood and animal entrails at the camera. Not everyone can make a suspenseful movie. Not saying there isn't a place for gorehound movies. They can be quite fun, but I appreciate the talent in movies where they achieve more than that (and hey if you can achieve gore and a suspenseful movie, then fantastic).
Quote from: claws on August 13, 2023, 02:53:24 AM
I'm with Cult Moody Movies. It depends on how they are done.
Personally I couldn't restrict certain movies because there's something in it that ruffles my feathers. If I did I'd always feel like missing out.
I love all kinds of horror. I can watch something like The Witch and Mandy back to back with no issue. Both have things that entertain me on different levels.
Gore's neither here nor there - sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't. It can be disturbing, but it isn't always.
That said, the original Night of the Living Dead made a pretty strong impact when I first saw it ages ago - I think part of the reason is that there's a certain juxtaposition there, it's all this theatrical acting and it's all black-and-white, and so when a little girl dies, comes back to life, and brutally kills her own mother with a spade, it has impact, I didn't expect it. Of course, that movie's also dripping with atmosphere, dread, and commentary, so in that context it just adds this additional grim edge to it. I think it's kind of a crucial component to the horror of stuff like Alien and Carpenter's The Thing, too, although moreso the latter.
On the other end completely... I really appreciate the goofier gore in something like Gamera vs. Guiron or Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla... it's so insanely violent, but in such bizarre, creative ways. Actually, Guiron is really not one of the better classic Gamera flicks aside from those short, more violent scenes... so it can improve stuff.
I think really I only start really, really disliking gore as a kind of "cruise control" for horror in the '00s era... not that there was no bad gore before that point, but you get just these really garbage movies in that era where the blood is all black and everything looks like it's been run through a digital filter, but it also plays it super straight & grim. It's a point where that kind of movie just kind of succeeds in being unpleasant, but doesn't really do anything else. That's not even to say that there aren't exceptions, but it's so god damn boring when that's the entire aesthetic and there's no substance under it. There are plenty of people who'd say the same about some movies I like, but I've gotta draw the line somewhere.
Quote from: AlbertMond on August 16, 2023, 09:56:35 PM
I think it's kind of a crucial component to the horror of stuff like Alien and Carpenter's The Thing, too, although moreso the latter.
THE THING is the gold standard for optimal application of gore. If ever someone challenges you to defend the existence of onscreen gore, the right answer is always THE THING.
I dunno- DAWN OF THE DEAD (1979) would be useless without the gore.
I think the key is whether the gore is gratuitous. A zombie movie needs gore, so do some Monty Python skits. Many movies add it without purpose or good effect. One trick is use it minimally to maximize the impact.
Mark of the Devil. (At least when you're little it is.)
The Passion of the Christ was gory.
Quote from: ER on September 10, 2023, 09:18:07 AM
The Passion of the Christ was gory.
Yeah, I'd classify that one as a gratuitous use of gore, certainly...