Gore/Blood as an Art

[darkknight103]

With the "new wave" of horror films (Saw, Hostel, The Descent for ex.) and the directors behind them (Eli Roth, James Wan, Neil Marshall), the market for gore is catching all kinds of hell. Critics say that the "scary movie" is simply losing its fear factor which is being replaced with liberal amounts of blood. I don't see it this way. Look at a few films by the "Splat Pack" (Neil Marshall, Rob Zombie, Greg McLean, James Wan, Darren Lyn Bouseman, Eli Roth) and you'll see the film is not just some B-flick. The cinematography in these films is some of the best out there and their stories are original and if not, entertaining in the least. These directors take what they have, a small budget and a few big name actors willing to work for less, and make a film that can proudly be called a horror flick. I'd like to hear other points of view on this, so please post what you think.

[IMLX]

I disagree, these horror films lack any kind of story and you definitely don't are about the characters. Have you seen Hostel? It is ridiculous. There is no story. The only horror films that I like are "Blair Witch Project" for its creativity and all around creepiness and "Saw," a great set up and a horribe situation to be in. Everything else is pure crap, even though I enjoy a scary movie here and there. I'm waiting to see if James Wan can repeat his work on "Saw" with his upcoming film "Dead Silence," but I doubt it. I just looks cheesy.

The reason why these films are all of a sudden not making tons of money, is because there are so many of them now. Before, we had our Texas Chainsaw, Saw, Hostel, but now there is Turistas, Abandoned, and just about every remake and sequel imaginable.

So sorry, I don't horror films are anything beyond a B-movie. They complete crap, but at the same time different from the usual, so sometimes it is a good thing.

[spinin]

I agree completely IMLX. There are so many out there that studios are shooting themselves in the foot. Look at the failures of the Grudge and Chainsaw sequels. They are cheap and they look cheap because audiences have given studios a reason not to spend money. Most of these horror films ARE B-movies: They replace story with gore or nudity, but really mostly gore - just like the exploitation flicks of the past. There is no real content, just shocking fluff. A lot of them are ugly to look at so I don't know about the cinematography being good. Frequently, the editing lacks coherency, which makes the entire affair just look sloppy. It is very rare to see a good horror movie these days with all this drivel piling up on top of more drivel. The Descent was solid, solid stuff, however.

[N8R]

I personally have always been a fan of the no-budget B-flicks. I think the more you do with less adds to the art. The high-budget B-flicks usually tend to overdo alot of things and the low-budget ones tend to come off cheesy with few exceptions. The new breed (with few exceptions) tend to take an idea from an older movie and rip it off most of the time labeling it a "remake". This of course shows lack of originality with a twist of "Forget about that classic, WATCH THIS!!!!" Whereas those after midnight movies the drive-ins would run in the 60's were completely awesome. I'm a huge fan of everything Herschel Gordon Lewis has ever done. It doesn't get more B-flick than that.:D