# Favorite Sub-Genre



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

What Sub-Genre of horror is your most beloved?

I think I gotta go with zombie movies, though slashers come in at a close second.

For some reason, I just love movies where the world has essentially come to an end as we know it, and is overrun by the animated corpses of our fellow man (or woman).

When done well, zombie movies can be deep and contain social commentary on the state of the real world, and can present some nice conflicts between the living and a fallen loved one who now must be dealt with. They can play off of the most basic of human emotions, love and hate.

Or, zombie films can present some humor on the surface while still remaining scary under the surface. They can be pretty diverse movies in the right hands.

What's your favorite sub-genre of horror?


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

Voodoo/disease/mutant/creature. Those movies seem to blend into each other often and well enough to consider separate movies that have some of those 4 elements but not all, part of the same subgenre. For instance, any movie by Cronenberg. And other movies like Serpent and the Rainbow, Cat People, Brain Damage, 28 Days Later, The Believers, The Crazies, The Kiss, Warning Sign. For me, this genre is like a perfect combination of the science fiction and Satanic sub-genres. Because the voodoo element is a matter of belief and science fiction is... scientific. Some of these movies have an equal mixture of both. And still, they can add psychological elements, or a killer. It's one of the more elastic sub-genres and often very inventive and interesting.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

Zombies for me as well, closely followed by anything that has to do with Aliens.

What I like about Zombie flicks is how the world seems to be moving humdrum right along absolutely unaware that their neighbor next door, the used car salesman across town, their doctor, or their kids who have been out all night, are suddenly going to become flesh eating ghouls who at one time were their friends and family, and now look at them as a steak dinner. In no time whatsoever, the world is at the mercy of these marauding corpses. The interaction of these characters and what they do to take care of this mess or at least survive it, is what intrigues me. For in nothing flat, you could be thrown in with a group of people that you would NEVER get along with in the world that is no more, but now you have no choice. The Zombie genre can be worked in so many ways, and I think just now it is really coming into its own rather than being a "dead" genre.

Aliens are the same as Zombies. Almost the same rules of tension and paranoia apply.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

The zombie format is very cool, again I think it's something people can do a lot with, storywise. But it remains one of my least favorite sub-genres (right after ghosts and hauntings) because no one ever tries to do anything new or different. Not really since Romero. We had his Dead Trilogy (before Land made it a quadrilogy) but that covered nearly all the ground dealing with racism and consumer culture that has been done since. I don't remember the Dawn '04 remake very well, but from what I do remember, that movie added very little new to do with the latter. Return of the Living Dead made things not so serious, Shaun of the Dead seems to follow in it's footsteps. It seems as though there are only 2 main directions zombie movies go in. Special effects seem to make these movies.


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

A tie between ghosts and vampires. They have been my favorite creatures for as long as I can remember, perhaps because they frighten me the most. As for why they frighten me, I can only assume it's because they are of a supernatural nature, and things unknown are always scarier than things known - such as a monster or a werewolf. 

Of the two, I would have to say ghosts are scarier (although I don't like them any better than vampires), and I am hard pressed (I always enjoy being hard pressed) to find more frightening films than the likes of "The Haunting" (1963), "The Changeling", "The Shining" (1980), "The Innocents" (1961), "The Others", "The Sixth Sense", and other such fare.

Demons are pretty scary too, I just have a problem with demons so I usually don't like the movies ("The Exorcist" being the exception).


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

dougspaulding said:


> Of the two, I would have to say ghosts are scarier (although I don't like them any better than vampires), and I am hard pressed (I always enjoy being hard pressed) to find more frightening films than the likes of "The Haunting" (1963), "The Changeling", "The Shining" (1980), "The Innocents" (1961), "The Others", "The Sixth Sense", and other such fare.
> 
> Demons are pretty scary too, I just have a problem with demons so I usually don't like the movies ("The Exorcist" being the exception).


Judging from your Ghost list, DS I take it that you're frightened rather easily. If I had known this, I would have worn a sheet the times you came over to the house to see what sort of reaction I could have gotten out of you.  

But seriously, with the exception of *The Shining,* there isn't a one of those films you listed that are frightening in the least. They're so dull in fact that it took all I could to watch them (plying the ol' bod with heavy doses of caffeine helped out.) Ghost films on a whole aren't usually done very well. I watch them once and usually don't view them again. IMHO there hasn't been a good one made since *Ghostbusters* and that one was played off for comedy not as a Horror film.

As far as demons go, I could recommend some good flicks. I have to admit a bit of puzzlement here, however. Is your not viddying Demon films have to do with the fright factor, or religious purposes? If the latter, I thought I was to understand that you didn't you didn't believe in such things anymore. Not that I'm riding you about it, just a friends curiosity.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

dougspaulding said:


> A tie between ghosts and vampires. Of the two, I would have to say ghosts are scarier (although I don't like them any better than vampires), and I am hard pressed (I always enjoy being hard pressed) to find more frightening films than the likes of "The Haunting" (1963), "The Changeling", "The Shining" (1980), "The Innocents" (1961), "The Others", "The Sixth Sense", and other such fare.


I haven't seen The Innocents all the way through, and I liked The Others, but your other four examples are prime reasons why Ghosts and Hauntings is my least favorite subgenre of horror.


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Sinister said:


> Judging from your Ghost list, DS I take it that you're frightened rather easily. If I had known this, I would have worn a sheet the times you came over to the house to see what sort of reaction I could have gotten out of you.
> 
> But seriously, with the exception of *The Shining,* there isn't a one of those films you listed that are frightening in the least. They're so dull in fact that it took all I could to watch them (plying the ol' bod with heavy doses of caffeine helped out.) Ghost films on a whole aren't usually done very well. I watch them once and usually don't view them again. IMHO there hasn't been a good one made since *Ghostbusters* and that one was played off for comedy not as a Horror film.
> 
> As far as demons go, I could recommend some good flicks. I have to admit a bit of puzzlement here, however. Is your not viddying Demon films have to do with the fright factor, or religious purposes? If the latter, I thought I was to understand that you didn't you didn't believe in such things anymore. Not that I'm riding you about it, just a friends curiosity.


I am! Not yet being immume to horror movies is a great thing in life (I think it's partly connected to my being twelve). I wish you had worn a sheet - it would've been fun!

To the contrary, ghost films are one of the most consistently well-made film types of horror.

As for demons - we'll talk.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

dougspaulding said:


> To the contrary, ghost films are one of the most consistently well-made film types of horror.


I don't think there is such a thing. I mean, perhaps critics and mainstream movie fans think that way, but that has more to do with their insecurities than anything else. Ghost and haunting films are usually very stiff and heavy handed. Not to mention thick, melodramatic, and wooden. Not much fun, not always spooky, and usually very forgettable.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

To my knowledge, there is only one truly scary ghost film. The name of it is *Legend of Hell House.* It stars Roddy McDowall and it concerns some experts in the paranormal who try to "exorcise" the evil spirits that reside within the abode. It is creepy as hell and worth at least one viewing, maybe more. I have got to add it to my movie collection one day.


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Yes, I toyed with putting "Hell House" in my above post, but it just didn't quite make it. It wasn't a bad movie, just a big letdown after reading Richard Matheson's novel - one of the best ghost stories ever. King's "Rose Red" was a rip-off of this novel, which itself was a rip-off of Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House" (which did make a terrific film, by the way). Sorry - not a rip-off. Let's say it was inspired by... 

I do think that ghost stories are better on the page than on the screen. Witness Straub's "Ghost Story", one of my five favourite ghost novels turned into one of the worst adaptions ever!


----------



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

I'm all about slashers. There's a reason I got Jason tattooed on my arm.
I'll admit, slasher movies really suck, but they can, if done right, still be alot of fun. :voorhees:


----------



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

I wasn't a huge fan of the GHOST STORY book, but, I agree, it was a horrid movie.

Hollywoods best ghost flicks: POLTERGEIST, and GHOSTBUSTERS.

But, c'mon, EVERYONE knew I was gonna shill for GHOSTBUSTERS, right? :googly:


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

If done right, slasher movies indeed can be a lot of fun!


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

RAXL said:


> Hollywoods best ghost flicks: POLTERGEIST, and GHOSTBUSTERS.
> 
> :googly:


You're right about "Poltergeist". "Ghostbusters" was a great comedy!


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

dougspaulding said:


> Yes, I toyed with putting "Hell House" in my above post, but it just didn't quite make it. It wasn't a bad movie, just a big letdown after reading Richard Matheson's novel - one of the best ghost stories ever. King's "Rose Red" was a rip-off of this novel, which itself was a rip-off of Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting of Hill House" (which did make a terrific film, by the way). Sorry - not a rip-off. Let's say it was inspired by...


While some films are indeed rip-offs of others, creativity as a whole is no walk in the park. EVERYTHING IN SOME FORM OR OTHER HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. The best you can hope for is to better the original in some way. It's a rip-off if page by page, or frame by frame has been duplicated totally with little to no variance on theme. No matter what you see, hear or read in this day or age, you will have memories of it sharing obvious similarities with something else. There is no such animal as originality anymore, it is an extinct species. :ninja:


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Sinister said:


> There is no such animal as originality anymore, it is an extinct species. :ninja:


You may be right.


----------



## Doctorthingit (Jul 7, 2005)

Legend of Hell House has a great opening and some okay moments, but I couldn't stand Pamela Franklin's melodramatic revelations. The fact that Roddy McDowell bought into it also, ug. I suppose my general distaste for the ghost genre is that I don't believe in any kind of afterlife existence, at all. I think that's why when I watch these movies, I just don't care about the stories and one character being guided by a spirit seems like more than nonsense to me, it makes things really boring, especially when you don't see anything. The work is always left up to music and camerawork and other special effects. No ghost horror movies have really gotten to me. Though I did really like William Castle's 13 Ghosts, and there were scenes from Ghost Story that I liked quite a bit.

Slashers is/are my second favorite subgenre. Because even though they are generally made with low ambition or care or whathaveyou, they're a lot of fun. That and I've always been a fan of the image of crazed killers wielding heavy, shiny, sharp weapons. And I like chase scenes.


----------



## Rocky (May 4, 2004)

Vampires all the way! Especially the Dracula movies. And speaking of Dracula, I've got a great book from a friend this weekend simply called 'Dracula' and it was written by Elizabeth Miller I believe. I can't wait to start reading it!


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

The bad thing about the whole Vampire genre is that I doubt there are more than fifty real good flicks made. Granted I haven't seen every damn one of them, but I don't have to view the John Holmes excursion into the genre with *Dracula Sucks* to know we're not talking about quality film making here. 

I have watched big budget bloodsucker fests all the way down to micro-budget mish mash and have a fairly broad range experience with what is offered out there. this is why I say there aren't more than fifty films out there worth the time and effort. Of course, it's all about preference. I like the *Subspecies* series and there are a few people I know that dislike those flicks. But to each their own. I just wish someone would come along with some fresh approach to the subject, but make it entertaining without bogging the movie down with an hour of explanantion.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

Someone should turn the book "The Travelling Vampire Show" into a freakin' movie. It's ripe with pretty fresh ideas. It disguises itself as a fairly traditional vampire story, but the end is such an awesome twist on the mythology that it'd be a great shocker for audiences to see.


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

I concur. I rather enjoyed the book. I suspect that if Spaulding really liked _Something Wicked This Way Comes_ by Bradbury, then he would love Richard Laymons book (hint* hint* DS) except it's done with Vampires. Great stuff there and definitely worthy of a read by anyone. I would like to see a good director to do something with this as well.


----------



## SuFiKitten77 (Jul 19, 2005)

For me it's a tie between Ghost/Demon movies .. though it seems there aren't as many good ghost flicks out there anymore, all too predictable. "Legend of Hell House." was a great movie .. haven't seen that is awhile. I loved the Hellraiser series up until Bloodline, after that I found them to all suck monkey balls. I watched Deader which was released in June and it was alright .. but left me with even less hope for Hellworld which will be released September 8th I think it was. I will watch it when a friend buys it


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

*Hellraiser: Hellworld* has only one thing going for it: Lance Henrickson. Lance is always good, no matter how much the movie he is in sucks.


----------



## SuFiKitten77 (Jul 19, 2005)

I will watch it when someone else rents it or buys it  and even though I have been unimpressed with the last few .. they are still Hellraiser movies and I know I will watch them. Do you think *Hellraiser: Hellworld* will actually be the end of the series? I personally think it has run it's course.


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Sinister said:


> I suspect that if Spaulding really liked _Something Wicked This Way Comes_ by Bradbury, then he would love Richard Laymons book (hint* hint* DS) except it's done with Vampires.


"Something Wicked" is one of the great horror novels. I consider Bradbury the master of dark fantasy, and I yield to no one in my respect for him.

I haven't forgotten my assigned task to seek out Laymon at used book shops. It is a task I am excited by - to approach the dark stacks, to breathe in that most wonderful pollen which is book dust.

This Saturday I'll go see Uncle Forry and ask him where the good shops are - he'll know!


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

SuFiKitten77 said:


> I will watch it when someone else rents it or buys it  and even though I have been unimpressed with the last few .. they are still Hellraiser movies and I know I will watch them. Do you think *Hellraiser: Hellworld* will actually be the end of the series? I personally think it has run it's course.


As long as bloodthirsty leeches in human form exist on this planet, you can be certain that there never really is an end to any franchise. Those clowns think they can squeeze at least one more non-existant drop of the claret from the exsanguinated corpse of a dried up series.

*Hellraiser* has run its course, and unless Clive barker can get his hands back on the series and make that one last movie which effectively kills Pinhead for the last time, expect to see more in the future. Pretty soon Doug Bradley is going to be too old for the role and then we'll have: *Hellraiser: Hell in the Nursing Home, Hellraiser: One Foot in The Grave* and maybe, *Hellraiser: My Un-Life as a Pinheaded Cadaver!* 

Spaulding, for your own enjoyment, like Z recommends, check out Laymons _Travelling Vampire Show_ and thanks for looking for those books for me, I really appreciate it.


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Sinister said:


> The bad thing about the whole Vampire genre is that I doubt there are more than fifty real good flicks made.


Oh, I don't know. I think there are at least thirty. To wit:

Nosferatu (1922)
London After Midnight (1927)
Dracula (1931)
Vampyr (1932)
Mark of the Vampire (1935)
Dracula's Daughter (1936)
Return of the Vampire (1943)
House of Frankenstein (1944)
House of Dracula (1945)
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)
Horror of Dracula (1958)
The Brides of Dracula (1960)
Blood and Roses (1961)
The Last Man on Earth (1964)
Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1965)
Dracula Has Risen From the Grave (1968)
Taste the Blood of Dracula (1970)
Count Yorga, Vampire (1970)
The Vampire Lovers (1970)
The Night Stalker (1972)
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1973)
Nosferatu, the Vampyre (1979)
Salem's Lot (1979)
Fright Night (1985)
The Lost Boys (1987)
Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
Interview With the Vampire (1994)
From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
Bordello of Blood (1996)

And while I haven't seen it yet, the title is promising:
Barely Legal Lesbian Vampires (2003)


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

An impressive list to be sure, my friend. You've tapped practically all the ones I would have, with the exception of a few that I could do without and I can add a few more to your list:

1. The *Subspecies* series. That's four of 'em, so the second Vampire movie will start at number five.
5. *Vampire Hunter D* 
6. *Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust* 
7. *Blood: The Last Vampire* 
8. *Blacula* 
9. *Scream Blacula, Scream* 
10. *Lifeforce* 
11. *Vampire in Brooklyn* 
12.*Innocent Blood* 
13. *House of Dark Shadows* 
14. *The Night Flyer* 
15. *The Vampire Journals* 
16. *Fright Night II* 
17. *From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter* (Forget number two, it appropriately enough, sucks.)
18. *Near Dark* 
19. *Love at First Bite* 
20. *Monster Squad* 
21. *Queen of Blood*

There are a few anthologies here and there that are good that have Vampire chapters in them: *Black Sabbath, The House That Dripped Blood, Tales From the Crypt, Vault of Horror* and *Monster Club.* You just gotta love that EC Comics style of Horror.


----------



## RAXL (Jul 9, 2004)

Ohhh, I don't know. I think HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN may have to come off the "good vampire movie" list. 
C'mon, Dracula is looks like a goof, and is only in the movie for like 15 minutes. :googly:


----------



## Sinister (Apr 18, 2004)

I agree Raxl. It's a monster flick with a Vampire in it, not a Vampire flick with a monster in it. Also, *Dracula's Daughter* is very boring. *London After Midnight* and *Mark of the Vampire * technically aren't vampire flicks despite their titles. As for *Bordello of Blood,* despite the hot chicks like Angie Everheart and Erika Eleniak and the added bonus of Dennis Miller and Chris Sarandon, I'm just afraid this movie didn't have a lot to offer in the way of entertainment.


----------



## Zombie-F (Apr 12, 2004)

Bordello of Blood was one of those movies you said "AWESOME" about when you saw the trailer for it. What a great idea! Dennis Miller + Hot Vampire Chicks!

Too bad about the execution of it.

And Dracula's Daughter is dreadfully boring to the point I've not seen it all the way through yet. I keep dozing off.


----------



## dougspaulding (May 22, 2004)

Stephen King recommends in his latest column the following movies to get you in the mood for Halloween:

Something old and something new, okay? The oldie is "The Changeling", starring the late George C. Scott as a composer and pianist who loses his wife and child in a horrific accident, moves to another city...then buys a haunted house. Not a good move for George, and the results for anyone watching are terrifying. This is one of those timeless movies (like Robert Wise's "The Haunting") that don't seem to age; the bogeyman is still alive and well inside, just waiting to grab you.

Oh, this is depressing. Not as bad as getting a razor in your candy apple, maybe, but too much like getting pebbles instead of chocolates in the little foil Hershey's Kisses bag. No Freddy this year; no Jason; no Michael Myers. The horror heavyweights are taking Halloween 2005 off, and what do we have to look forward to? A remake of "The Fog" (which didn't need to be remade) and the first of what will probably be many additions to the "Saw" saga. I'll go see "Saw II" and probably you will see "Saw II" too (say it fast, I dare you), but I predict we'll hate ourselves on the morning of All Saints' Day. If you want to see something authentically scary this Halloween, I'd suggest either "Flightplan" or "A History of Violence".


----------

