Scariest movie you ever saw?

Post by **ShyViolet** » August 7th, 2006, 1:25 pm

Has anyone see The Descent? That film is supposed to be very, very scary (and actually well directed.) I don't know if I should see it since I'm (somewhat) clausterphobic.

Post by **Wonderlicious** » August 7th, 2006, 5:14 pm

Whilst I haven't seen it all the way through, my memories of whant I saw of The Silence of the Lambs really want to make me have a panic attack. Anthony Hopkins' performance was one thing. The scene with the nail and the blood on the wall where that female victim was kept is something that will forever haunt me.

Oh, and whilst I hate to be "oh, XYZ a movie was so scary as it was stupid and for kids", let's not forget The Master of Disguise. I've seen worse movies, yet the reason that I hate it is because I find it really disturbing that any sane adult could pour passion into such a really immature piece of poo.

Post by **Meg** » August 7th, 2006, 5:19 pm

Whilst I haven't seen it all the way through, my memories of whant I saw of The Silence of the Lambs really want to make me have a panic attack.

It's scary that it's based on a true story.

Post by **ShyViolet** » August 7th, 2006, 6:02 pm

Wow, I didn't even know that.

About Silence of the Lambs, although it didn't "terrify" me the way other films have, I still find the line: "It rubs the lotion on itself, it does this whenever it's told" to be EXTREMELY chilling.

"It puts the lotion in the basket..." Oh, G-d.

Post by **ShyViolet** » November 7th, 2006, 10:18 pm

I saw The Descent. (The underground cavern movie)

The scariest stuff was being trapped underground, etc (I'm a bit clausterphobic so....

)

...the monsters were scary, but a total rip-off of the 28 Days Later creatures!

Plus the ending was....lame-o!

I read about Saw III...I don't know if anyone saw it but that movie looks terrible. Just gross, (at least to me) It just looks like two hours of torture...seems like more and more films are including stuff like this--Hostel, etc...

I had a hard enough time with the scenes in Fear.com....

Post by **Dacey** » November 9th, 2006, 6:59 pm

From what I've heard, the "Saw" movies, as disgusting as they are, do have good storylines. Of course, that's from what I've heard.

Let's see, scariest movie I've ever seen? This is embarassing for me to say, but it just may have been "When a Stranger Calls". Maybe it's because it didn't have that "Okay-that-was-creepy-but-I-really-have-no-idea-what-just-happened" supernatural element that you find in horror films like "The Grudge" and its sequel (though those films do have some genuinely scary scenes in them). "When a Stranger Calls" took a frightening concept and kept it intense for a full 87 minutes. And I even knew about the whole "The calls are coming from inside the house" thing at the end. After seeing this movie, I was afraid to answer the phone late at night for quite some time, so I think that shows how much it scared me.

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 27th, 2007, 1:51 am

I know we were talking about Excorcist in one thread, but I couldn't find it, so....

I think it looks quite scary at first, (saw clips) but when I watch it more than once, it seems less scary...?

I heard it was banned in England for 14 years!

As was A Clockwork Orange for a long time I think, and the really old movie Freaks....Britain sure bans a lot of movies, don't they?

BTW it's off YouTube now......

As are a bunch of other things.....

I saw clips of "Saw" (ha!) on the 30 scaries movies of all time on Bravo (Saw 2 I think) and it really creeped me out....A LOT...I can take a lot but not 100s of needles!

*************************************************

Really weird and random quesiton:

I've seen the "Chucky" series as a DVD set at stores, but:

WHY IN THE WORLD are ALL THE FILMS INCLUDED EXCEPT FOR THE ORIGINAL????????

Is it a copyright/creative thing or something?

EDIT: I looked it up on Amazon, and someone wrote that the first one was MGM and all the others were Universal....

Still, that's the dumbest thing ever!

The first was the best, and the scariest! How can you buy the whole series and not have the original????

(True, I didn't see Bride but...)

BTW, Child's Play 1 is available separately, but with NO Special Features, not even Widescreen!

It's basically a VHS!!

Post by **Daniel** » January 27th, 2007, 2:55 am

ShyViolet wrote:I think it looks quite scary at first, (saw clips) but when I watch it more than once, it seems less scary...?

So, you've only seen clips?

Strange. Some scenes IMO, still seem the same, no matter how many times I view it.

The Excorcist is a good movie. I would say great, but I'm not really into scary films. Other than that, I thought it was a very entertaining film. A little scary, but very compelling!

And yes, I've seen all (but one) sequels.

Part 2 - horrible! Just long and boring. The plot was soooo lame.

could they say "ka-zu-zu" anymore times?

Part 3 - same with two. Very meh. I didn't like it. Should it have still have been called, Excorcist?

Theatrical prequel - it was ok. Kind of a let down, and somewhat confusing. But I enjoyed the ending confrontation. Though, it was short.

not to mention, a little sad.

Dvd prequel - haven't seen, but I want to!

Post by **Ben** » January 27th, 2007, 9:06 am

The Omen films are a lot more entertaining in this genre.

Post by **lordcookie** » January 27th, 2007, 5:33 pm

ShyViolet wrote: I heard it was banned in England for 14 years! As was A Clockwork Orange for a long time I think, and the really old movie Freaks....Britain sure bans a lot of movies, don't they?

A Clockwork Orange was never banned in Britain, it was removed by Kubrick himself due to the criticism of the violence and how it was seen to glamourise rape. Its a real shame we had to wait until his death to get to see it again in this country as it is a brilliant film. Sadly you are right that we did ban a lot of films. Thankfully our censorship is far more relaxed now.

To answer the topic question for me is really difficult as there are so many great horror films. I think horror is all about atmosphere rather than out and out scares. A film that relies on jump tactics might get you once but on repeat viewings its impact to scare is greatly reduced. However, with a film that uses atmosphere to illicit fear you have a movie that works again and again. It is for this reason that most modern horror films don't work as studios and/or directors are worried that they won't keep an audiences attention if they just rely on maintaining an atmosphere.

A few of my favourites are:

The Thing (1982) - John Carpenter was king at managing to create a menacing atmosphere and The Thing is him at his finest. Everything about the film breeds paranoia and it is a genuinely uncomfortable experience to watch. It also has some brilliant moments of gore too which should please the more visceral horror fan.

Nosferatu (1922) - A classic and for good reason. Some of its impact has been lost over time due to many of its ideas being copied but the use of shadows still work wonders.

Audition (2000) - I think this film is so unsettling because it plays with the audiences expectation. Two thirds of the film are essentially a sweet romantic comedy so when the horror comes it really does set you on edge. I also think it is far more frightening for a man as well.

Rosemary's Baby (1968) - This is a film that perfectly illustrates how atmosphere is more important than gore or jumps. Very little actually happens but the film is so carefully crafted that it haunts you for days after.

Freaks (1932) - Just the subject matter alone is creepy enough really.

The Shining (1980) - One of the most beautiful horror films ever made. It really plays with the horror conventions which I think works well to unsettle an audience (especially one that watches a lot of horror films). A lot of the movie is shot in day light for one and its slow, long tracking shots are totally opposite the jumpy handheld feel of most horror films (especially noticeable that this film comes out shortly after many horror films of the 70s that use the quick edits and juddery camera movements).

Carnival of Souls (1962) - Its a film that has sadly been forgotten by many which is a real shame as it has influenced many films (such as Night of the Living Dead and Jacob's Ladder to name but two). Its what you don't see in this film that makes it really work as a horror film.

Night of the Hunter (1955) - Its like a really bad nursery rhyme and I think it works so well because its a threat to children which is always unpleasant. It also helps that Robert Mitchum delivers his best performance.

Ghostwatch (1992) - This was actually a one off TV programme made by the BBC at Halloween. It had a number of famous TV celebrities going into a supposed haunted house to see if they could catch any of it on film. It was actually a spoof but played dead straight and had, at the time, record complaints and even a couple of people commited suicide because of it. I remember it really creeped me out as a 10 year old and I haven't had the balls to watch it since.

For a first post that was pretty long, sorry.

Post by **Josh** » January 27th, 2007, 5:41 pm

I found it an interesting read, lordcookie!

And welcome to the Animated News & Views Forum!

Post by **lordcookie** » January 27th, 2007, 5:48 pm

Thanks for the kind welcome. I better have a look at the animated topics now.

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 28th, 2007, 6:48 am

Rosemary's Baby (1968) - This is a film that perfectly illustrates how atmosphere is more important than gore or jumps. Very little actually happens but the film is so carefully crafted that it haunts you for days after.

Freaks (1932) - Just the subject matter alone is creepy enough really.

Totally agree about these two, very well said!

RB is one of my fave movies of all time.

The Shining (1980) - One of the most beautiful horror films ever made. It really plays with the horror conventions which I think works well to unsettle an audience (especially one that watches a lot of horror films). A lot of the movie is shot in day light for one and its slow, long tracking shots are totally opposite the jumpy handheld feel of most horror films (especially noticeable that this film comes out shortly after many horror films of the 70s that use the quick edits and juddery camera movements).

Oh yeah, i think the Shining is a great film, great Kubrik work and MUCH better than the TV version later on (although the TV version was written by King and much closer to the novel.) But I've seen it quite a few times now so it doesn't shock me as much...most of the stuff that scares me is the nightmare stuff of the two little girls, the dead woman, the blood and Grady at the party.

Jack Nicholson doesn't scare me at all....actually he kind of makes me laugh, when i think of him acting crazy...it's just funny to me for some reason.

I find Danny talking to Tony scarier....

Post by **Ben** » January 28th, 2007, 7:36 am

Welcome, lordcookie!

On Farrow...she was served with divorce papers from husband Frank Sinatra during the filming of Rosemary's Baby, which led to her losing weight and becoming gaunt during filming.

On Shining...I disagree totally with King's remarks: it's clear they are ghosts (the fact that they aren't always there is a pretty big giveaway), clear that they control the hotel (otherwise the things that happen would happen!) and very clear that Danny is "psychic"...he HAS the Shining for a start!

Also, both Jacks do love their wife in book and film, though Jack N's movie portrayal is very much more clearer a turnaround than how the book plays it, mostly becuase they have to squeeze all that into two hours of film.

I think King has a grudge on this (and it's been clearly and publicly stated over the years) since Kubrick, essentially in his slimming it down for the screen, made it better, and it's not known as Stanley Kubrick's The Shining as opposed to Stephen King's The Shining for nuttin'!

Post by **ShyViolet** » January 28th, 2007, 7:57 am

Also, both Jacks do love their wife in book and film, though Jack N's movie portrayal is very much more clearer a turnaround than how the book plays it, mostly becuase they have to squeeze all that into two hours of film.

Actually that was more my opinion than King's, although he could have said something similar.

I think King has a grudge on this (and it's been clearly and publicly stated over the years) since Kubrick, essentially in his slimming it down for the screen, made it better, and it's not known as Stanley Kubrick's The Shining as opposed to Stephen King's The Shining for nuttin'!

I think you're right Ben!

He likes The Green Mile/Shawshank movies a lot more, maybe that's 'cause they stayed closer to his book? He got a lot more press for those than Shining, that's for sure.....

He also likes Dolores Claiborne.

I think in one of his EW columns he listed his favorite movie versions of his books, and The Shining was NOT in there, nor was it mentioned.....

I also think the TV movie version of "IT" (with the clown) is tons better than his long, self-indulgent, rambling novel!

Boy, was that book awful!

On Farrow...she was served with divorce papers from husband Frank Sinatra during the filming of Rosemary's Baby, which led to her losing weight and becoming gaunt during filming.

Really? I didn't know that. I thought it was just part of her role!

Also, wasn't there are TV movie sequel to this film? Was it any good?

****************************************************

Also speaking of scary films....I saw the Prestige last night.

Believe it or not, that film scared me quite a lot!