Is there a horror film you especially like?

[jtaylor2010]

Hell House LLC, but I love a decent found footage horror film, not a genre for everyone.

If you like the found footage approach I take it you’ve seen Insidious, correct? If not then definitely check it out.

[desslok]

Pineapple on pizza.

Aaaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!! Dude, you can’t just sneak up and terrify people with stuff like that, geez. Give us a warning or something

[EliKoehn]

I though the new It movies did a much better job than the original. Going back and watching the original is kind of disappointing to me, but that’s the case with lots of old horror films. One that surprisingly kept its appeal was Nightmare on Elm Street 5. It’s done like an actual dream and jumps around which kind of pulls you in and makes you get lost in direction.

The 1990 It was the first horror movie I ever saw. In that regard it has a fond place in my regard, but it does of course suffer from the cheesiness of any less-than-immense budget 90s movie. Still, though, there's something to that premise of an ancient evil that stalks exclusively the helpless of the town (children) recurringly and galvanizes the social rejects, who are the ones who think they've defeated It, and are then picked apart as adults only much later. It's almost like what the antagonist did in forming the bond between them was more significant for them than his own (mistaken) demise. "The Losers" thought they won, and found a courage they likely wouldn't have in their prior existences at the bottom of their own respective pecking orders. Pretty good story overall, I thought.

The new ones, I didn't like at all. My biggest gripe (besides the cliche that contemporary horror films overly-rely on jump scares and special effects, which holds true here), is that it aimed for too much comic relief. Most scenes were full of so many jokes that it destroyed the intended emotional response, IMO.

From a different era, Silence of the Lambs and Se7en. Last Saturday I was at an estate auction in some converted apartments in a downtown district. It was creepy, like in the set of Se7en.




Attachment 9366343

Haven't seen either of those yet, Paul, but know that they're well-regarded. Which would you recommend between the two? Anthony Hopkins and his fava beans or Brad Pitt's emotional breakdown?

[AdamWW]

The 1990 It was the first horror movie I ever saw. In that regard it has a fond place in my regard, but it does of course suffer from the cheesiness of any less-than-immense budget 90s movie. Still, though, there's something to that premise of an ancient evil that stalks exclusively the helpless of the town (children) recurringly and galvanizes the social rejects, who are the ones who think they've defeated It, and are then picked apart as adults only much later. It's almost like what the antagonist did in forming the bond between them was more significant for them than his own (mistaken) demise. "The Losers" thought they won, and found a courage they likely wouldn't have in their prior existences at the bottom of their own respective pecking orders. Pretty good story overall, I thought.

The new ones, I didn't like at all. My biggest gripe (besides the cliche that contemporary horror films overly-rely on jump scares and special effects, which holds true here), is that it aimed for too much comic relief. Most scenes were full of so many jokes that it destroyed the intended emotional response, IMO.



Haven't seen either of those yet, Paul, but know that they're well-regarded. Which would you recommend between the two? Anthony Hopkins and his fava beans or Brad Pitt's emotional breakdown?

Silence of the Lambs is a more dramatic / emotional kind of horror…

Se7en is more of an action horror

Overall I think SOTL is a better movie… and also a classic which needs to be seen

[superman704]

To kick off October, is there a horror film you're particularly fond of? I've come to like the genre in recent years (more so the psychological variety, not really into slashers), and have seen probably a hundred or so in total at this point, with a handful of favorites.

The Shining is number one for me. The artistry, symbolism, allusions and overall presentation are highly appealing, and has a draw to it which I can't fully explain. Almost done reading the novel also, which is itself quite good IMO.

This is one of the most interesting videos I have ever seen in my entire life. If your curiosity is piqued or you share that sense of there being something undefinable but intriguing about the movie, you might be amazed at how much is subliminally there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMxy5zPj1m0&t=3241s

Other favorites/ones that gave a good thrill:
- The Exorcist (1973)
- In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
- Jacob's Ladder (1990)
- Dagon (2001)
- Hereditary (2018)

Anyone else?

Why are you watching demonic movies?

[EliKoehn]

I though the new It movies did a much better job than the original. Going back and watching the original is kind of disappointing to me, but that’s the case with lots of old horror films. One that surprisingly kept its appeal was Nightmare on Elm Street 5. It’s done like an actual dream and jumps around which kind of pulls you in and makes you get lost in direction.

From a different era, Silence of the Lambs and Se7en. Last Saturday I was at an estate auction in some converted apartments in a downtown district. It was creepy, like in the set of Se7en.




Attachment 9366343

Silence of the Lambs is a more dramatic / emotional kind of horror…

Se7en is more of an action horror

Overall I think SOTL is a better movie… and also a classic which needs to be seen

Yeah, I always thought it was more of a thriller than "horror" per se, but the genre kind of has a loose ticket anyway.

Why are you watching demonic movies?

What tragedy accomplishes for literature, horror supplies for film. The argument that because it features evil, it therefore necessarily glorifies and encourages it, is wrong-footed. By the same token, if the Bible was made seriously into a film, it could be accused of the same, since it features the full gamut of what you would castigate as demonic, tragic, unpleasant and horrific. Yet I highly doubt you would render such a judgment. In that regard, I think the maturity of the audience member and their intentions in witnessing it, do more to define the moral stamp of it than the substance of the content itself, which by contrast is necessary in defining its opposite.

For the record, I believe in the God of the Bible and find that our scientific materialism represents something of a technologized dark age of mankind and that we moderns have a poverty of the soul not experienced in previous eras.

[jtaylor2010]

The 1990 It was the first horror movie I ever saw. In that regard it has a fond place in my regard, but it does of course suffer from the cheesiness of any less-than-immense budget 90s movie. Still, though, there's something to that premise of an ancient evil that stalks exclusively the helpless of the town (children) recurringly and galvanizes the social rejects, who are the ones who think they've defeated It, and are then picked apart as adults only much later. It's almost like what the antagonist did in forming the bond between them was more significant for them than his own (mistaken) demise. "The Losers" thought they won, and found a courage they likely wouldn't have in their prior existences at the bottom of their own respective pecking orders. Pretty good story overall, I thought.

The new ones, I didn't like at all. My biggest gripe (besides the cliche that contemporary horror films overly-rely on jump scares and special effects, which holds true here), is that it aimed for too much comic relief. Most scenes were full of so many jokes that it destroyed the intended emotional response, IMO.

Yeah, I could see why someone would have issues with that, because they definitely went out of their way to provide humor throughout the movie. I didn’t mind much because I think it played into the overall story of the bond between them. And, while there were certainly some jump scares mixed in I didn’t think they relied on them too much, or sacrificed any of the creepiness aspect to fit them in.

[AdamWW]

For the record, I believe in the God of the Bible and find that our scientific materialism represents something of a technologized dark age of mankind and that we moderns have a poverty of the soul not experienced in previous eras.

You just threw out a bunch of terms I don’t think have known definitions…

What do you mean “scientific materialism”?

What does “poverty of the soul” mean?

[superman704]

Yeah, I always thought it was more of a thriller than "horror" per se, but the genre kind of has a loose ticket anyway.



What tragedy accomplishes for literature, horror supplies for film. The argument that because it features evil, it therefore necessarily glorifies and encourages it, is wrong-footed. By the same token, if the Bible was made seriously into a film, it could be accused of the same, since it features the full gamut of what you would castigate as demonic, tragic, unpleasant and horrific. Yet I highly doubt you would render such a judgment. In that regard, I think the maturity of the audience member and their intentions in witnessing it, do more to define the moral stamp of it than the substance of the content itself, which by contrast is necessary in defining its opposite.

For the record, I believe in the God of the Bible and find that our scientific materialism represents something of a technologized dark age of mankind and that we moderns have a poverty of the soul not experienced in previous eras.

I feel you on that. I like house of 1000 corpses and halloween, I admit it i like horror movies

[EliKoehn]

You just threw out a bunch of terms I don’t think have known definitions…

What do you mean “scientific materialism”?

What does “poverty of the soul” mean?

It's a statement of my own opinion, first of all, since by his sig, superman704 concurs.

Essentially, a secular epistemology, consciously endorsed by atheists and sympathized with by agnostics commonly: science can explain all phenomena of question and religious "superstition" is a vestigial feature of our recently-liberated existence. I just don't find the supposed conflict there convincing, personally, and am more than anything compelled by the teleology of the known universe to reject the claim that God doesn't exist, and that the cold, unknowing material universe is all that there is.

"Poverty of the soul" again, a statement of my own opinion, hangs on the worldview postulated above. Not aiming to force my worldview on anyone, but was answering the question of one who likely shares it.

EDIT: And what I meant by that was, that before the modern era, the cultures of the world (with the possible exception of some practices of eastern mysticism, which I admit I am not especially familiar with) virtually all legitimately believed in a spiritual reality which pervaded their lives and defined what they regarded to be true. There is a fulfillment there (and I, as a theist, believe that to be the case because there literally is) which modernism cannot offer, so the depression, anxiety, disappointment that are so rife in our world, despite its amazing technological achievements, I personally believe, have much to do with that fact. Again, my personal take.

I am a history enthusiast and have a bachelor's in it, but am of course no expert. I read history books for fun and besides lifting it's probably my only other major pastime.

[superman704]

It's a statement of my own opinion, first of all, since by his sig, superman704 concurs.

Essentially, a secular epistemology, consciously endorsed by atheists and sympathized with by agnostics commonly: science can explain all phenomena of question and religious "superstition" is a vestigial feature of our recently-liberated existence. I just don't find the supposed conflict there convincing, personally, and am more than anything compelled by the teleology of the known universe to reject the claim that God doesn't exist, and that the cold, unknowing material universe is all that there is.

"Poverty of the soul" again, a statement of my own opinion, hangs on the worldview postulated above. Not aiming to force my worldview on anyone, but was answering the question of one who likely shares it.

Brutal if true

[AdamWW]

It's a statement of my own opinion, first of all, since by his sig, superman704 concurs.

Essentially, a secular epistemology, consciously endorsed by atheists and sympathized with by agnostics commonly: science can explain all phenomena of question and religious "superstition" is a vestigial feature of our recently-liberated existence. I just don't find the supposed conflict there convincing, personally, and am more than anything compelled by the teleology of the known universe to reject the claim that God doesn't exist, and that the cold, unknowing material universe is all that there is.

"Poverty of the soul" again, a statement of my own opinion, hangs on the worldview postulated above. Not aiming to force my worldview on anyone, but was answering the question of one who likely shares it.

Im curious why you think the lack of a belief in a Christian God = cold, unknowing material universe ?

Just because someone doesn’t believe in God, or your version of God, or doesn’t know either way (Agnostic), doesn’t mean they lack feeling, love, or the capacity of behold the beauty of existence.

I’ve know supposed God-revering people who are pure shyt when it comes to their “souls” and atheists who are the most gentle, kind, and loving people you’d ever meet.

A belief in God does not equate to a human being of high moral or emotional IQ and a lack thereof does not the result in the opposite.

Religion has spawned immeasurable degrees of hate, death, and suffering… it’s historical fact.

I’m not saying this disqualifies your belief, I’m saying it doesn’t make them a prerequisite for morality or depth of feeling.

[EliKoehn]

Im curious why you think the lack of a belief in a Christian God = cold, unknowing material universe ?

Just because someone doesn’t believe in God, or your version of God, or doesn’t know either way (Agnostic), doesn’t mean they lack feeling, love, or the capacity of behold the beauty of existence.

I’ve know supposed God-revering people who are pure shyt when it comes to their “souls” and atheists who are the most gentle, kind, and loving people you’d ever meet.

A believe in God does not equate to a human being of high moral or emotional IQ and a lack thereof does not the result in the opposite.

Religion has spawned immeasurable degrees of hate, death, and suffering… it’s historical fact.

I’m not saying this disqualifies your belief, I’m saying it doesn’t make them a prerequisite for morality or depth of feeling.

Actually, I completely agree with all of this.

In my own life, I've experienced a fair dole of disillusionment from the ostensibly pious, which tempts me to disassociate from it completely. Intellectually, I just can't do that with honesty.

And I didn't say that a lack of belief in the Christian God equates one-for-one with a cold, unknowing material universe. I said that I believe in the Christian God, but referenced the many, multiple pre-modern societies which didn't, per se, but rather didn't have a secular understanding of the world. The contrast was between that and a stark atheism which rejects all of them.

In full honesty, sometimes I almost want to call myself an agnostic, and have a lot of sympathy for those who are. The reason I don't, is because it seems to be an easy position, when a strong case exists for taking a stand. We have brief, temporary lives, the majority portion of which, at its full span, we're positioned to forge mature, reasonable worldviews based upon what we can presume to know. That impacts us, the people we know, the people who witness us, etc. Going through your whole life choosing to be unsure, without taking a wager, does a disservice to the witness that we could be for others by our own lives, I find. Material science really does only go so far, and I don't think it's the same intellectual stronghold it could be claimed to be in the late 19th century when, ironically, it came to be just that academically.

That said, people who truly don't know, but seem to be trying to know, sincere to their convictions, and a good example to those who they know, are probably doing this already. Many professing believers of God hold disgusting positions which I don't want to associate with, and seem to by motive primarily cling to an intellectual comfort against challenging themselves by such difficult questions questions in the first place, but ironically, truly following such questions seldom seems to estrange the questioner from the the turf of its misapplication, anyway.

[AdamWW]

Actually, I completely agree with all of this.

In my own life, I've experienced a fair dole of disillusionment from the ostensibly pious, which tempts me to disassociate from it completely. Intellectually, I just can't do that with honesty.

And I didn't say that a lack of belief in the Christian God equates one-for-one with a cold, unknowing material universe. I said that I believe in the Christian God, but referenced the many, multiple pre-modern societies which didn't, per se, but rather didn't have a secular understanding of the world. The contrast was between that and a stark atheism which rejects all of them.

In full honesty, sometimes I almost want to call myself an agnostic, and have a lot of sympathy for those who are. The reason I don't, is because it seems to be an easy position, when a strong case exists for taking a stand. We have brief, temporary lives, the majority portion of which, at its full span, we're positioned to forge mature, reasonable worldviews based upon what we can presume to know. That impacts us, the people we know, the people who witness us, etc. Going through your whole life choosing to be unsure, without taking a wager, does a disservice to the witness that we could be for others by our own lives, I find. Material science really does only go so far, and I don't think it's the same intellectual stronghold it could be claimed to be in the late 19th century when, ironically, it came to be just that academically.

That said, people who truly don't know, but seem to be trying to know, sincere to their convictions, and a good example to those who they know, are probably doing this already. Many professing believers of God hold disgusting positions which I don't want to associate with, and seem to by motive primarily cling to an intellectual comfort against challenging themselves by such difficult questions questions in the first place, but ironically, truly following such questions seldom seems to estrange the questioner from the the turf of its misapplication, anyway.

We’re kind of veering way off topic now, but I’ll try and end my contribution to this tangent by saying that whatever your belief is, or lack thereof, none of them are ‘easy’ necessarily.

Admission of ignorance (agnostic), belief of God, or belief in the absence of God can all require the same amount of effort, thought, and consideration, or none at all.

Only the individual can know how thoughtful they are in forming their beliefs.

[air2fakie]

We’re kind of veering way off topic now, but I’ll try and end my contribution to this tangent by saying that whatever your belief is, or lack thereof, none of them are ‘easy’ necessarily.

Admission of ignorance (agnostic), belief of God, or belief in the absence of God can all require the same amount of effort, thought, and consideration, or none at all.

Speaking of which, Rosemary's Baby.

[superman704]

Wolf creek, the exorcist, Cujo, these movies scared me to the extreme (I watched exorcist alone when I was 8, literally paranormal stuff started to happen all around me or I hallucinated)

[TolerantLactose]

From a different era, Silence of the Lambs and Se7en. Last Saturday I was at an estate auction in some converted apartments in a downtown district. It was creepy, like in the set of Se7en.




Attachment 9366343

This is pretty much the atmosphere of every apartment building locker storage room.

[EiFit91]

For the record, I believe in the God of the Bible and find that our scientific materialism represents something of a technologized dark age of mankind and that we moderns have a poverty of the soul not experienced in previous eras.

I don’t believe in the God of the Bible and I very much agree with the «poverty of the soul» part. You may find this interesting:

https://academyofideas.com/2018/11/n...e-of-the-hero/

Disclaimer: I was brought up as a Christian and lost my faith as a teen

[Strawng]

I don’t believe in the God of the Bible and I very much agree with the «poverty of the soul» part. You may find this interesting:

https://academyofideas.com/2018/11/n...e-of-the-hero/

X3 the poverty of the soul is real, bros. I’ve experienced it firsthand. Srs.

& great article!

[EiFit91]

X3 the poverty of the soul is real, bros. I’ve experienced it firsthand. Srs.

& great article!

Same. «Existential depression» is definitely a real thing...

[jtaylor2010]

Speaking of which, Rosemary's Baby.

For anyone who liked Rosemary’s Baby I recommend The Seventh Sign. Despite starring Demi Moore it’s a movie that flew way under the radar. It definitely scared the crap out of me as a kid.








Also, for anyone who feels a poverty of the soul I recommend the book Acedia and its Discontents. Heavy Christian approach but I think a lot of the concepts can resonate for non-Christians and be meaningful even if you feel the need to remove a specific God from the ideas.

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/sh...ts-discontents

While the term acedia may be unfamiliar, the vice, usually translated as sloth, is all too common. Sloth is not mere laziness, however, but a disgust with reality, a loathing of our call to be friends with God, and a spiteful hatred of place and life itself. As described by Josef Pieper, the slothful person does not "want to be as God wants him to be, and that ultimately means he does not wish to be what he really, fundamentally is." Sloth is a hellish despair. Our own culture is deeply infected, choosing a destructive freedom rather than the good work for which God created us. Acedia and its Discontents resists despair, calling us to reconfigure our imaginations and practices in deep love of the life and work given by God.

Our modern Empire of Desire manufactures endless appetite while simultaneously denying that anything is objectively good, beautiful, or desirable. The result is not great yearning or passion, but acedia or sloth, a pervasive 'noonday demon.' In this learned study, R.J. Snell draws on the vast spiritual and intellectual resources of the Christian tradition to diagnose the deep structure of our contemporary nihilism, exposing this demon and its far-reaching effects with elegance and profundity and thereby providing the weapons necessary to slay it

[paulinkansas]

Haven't seen either of those yet, Paul, but know that they're well-regarded. Which would you recommend between the two? Anthony Hopkins and his fava beans or Brad Pitt's emotional breakdown?

It's like comparing salt and pepper. One tastes salty, one tastes hot. Both are worth it.

[air2fakie]

It's like comparing salt and pepper. One tastes salty, one tastes hot. Both are worth it.

Se7en is one of those movies you like a lot but don't want to watch again. SOLC you can watch over and over, like the Shining, and it gets better every time - mainly because of the performances of the main star. And stop calling movies I've seen in the theater "from a different era".

[paulinkansas]

Se7en is one of those movies you like a lot but don't want to watch again. SOLC you can watch over and over,

I saw Se7en and SOTL in the theaters on a date. Both the women I went with were a 9/10 on the horizontal and vertical axis.

[AdamWW]

X3 the poverty of the soul is real, bros. I’ve experienced it firsthand. Srs.

& great article!

But what does it mean?

I don't understand

[bernipes]

I don't usually watch horror movies because I feel that most plots explore spirituality or mental disorders in a too appealing way.
However, there are two films that I find particularly clever in their way of scaring the viewer which are The Skeleton Key (2005) and Sinister (2012).
Here's the trailer for the first one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPeg...heHomeOfHorror

[GrouchyUSMC]

I though the new It movies did a much better job than the original. Going back and watching the original is kind of disappointing to me, but that’s the case with lots of old horror films. One that surprisingly kept its appeal was Nightmare on Elm Street 5. It’s done like an actual dream and jumps around which kind of pulls you in and makes you get lost in direction.

I still have to watch the new ones, but that sounds better for me. The book was okay, a bit boring, and definitely way grittier than the movie content-wise. The movie is more fun to watch than scary nowadays.

[DougyF7]

I'm not big into horror films myself. I like some of the comedy/Halloween type films - Hubie Halloween, Nightmare Before Christmas, Addams Family...

I did watch Sleepy Hollow earlier this year though and enjoyed that.

[desslok]

I'm not big into horror films myself. I like some of the comedy/Halloween type films - Hubie Halloween, Nightmare Before Christmas, Addams Family...

I did watch Sleepy Hollow earlier this year though and enjoyed that.

You ever seen Young Frankenstein? Classic mel brooks comedy

[DougyF7]

You ever seen Young Frankenstein? Classic mel brooks comedy

No, but will have to check it out now that you mention it. I just looked it up and saw Marty Feldman and his eyes lol...good fit for Igor!