British Horror?
- Thread starter Semiazas
- Start date
If you want to see really good British horror watch the Hammer films of the 70's.
Any of the Christopher Lee Dracula films, which are the best ones ever made. The sets, the brillaint cinematography that is INSTANTLY recognizeable, Chris Lee the best actor to ever don the cape. They are "dated" the way "Citizen Kane", "Rear Window", and "Midnight Cowboy" are dated. There are things we might consider "quaint" by today's standards, but the artistry shines through.
Kudos, Gonzo.
The very same movies that would force you to run out of the cinema accompanied, and never alone.
Some do say that. Some say they are excellent, well written,
well acted and quite scary. You'll hear mixed things about
every film ever made.
Watch three and you will know which side you are on.
I think they are as good as all the praise you hear suggests. I
think 28 Days Later is excellent and I loved The Descent and Dog
Soldiers but found Eden Lake tedious. How about Shaun of the Dead?
What are your thoughts on that one?
28 Days Later is awesome, The Decent is not.
Yeah 28 days later was a breakthrough movie. Had seen nothing like it at the time it came out.
Shaun of the Dead is a very entertaining film. British do comedy very well and I think they also have a lot of skill in the horror genre too.
But I guess the only way you're going to know your answers for certain are to watch the films and make your own mind up on them
But I guess the only way you're going to know your answers for certain are to watch the films and make your own mind up on them
I thought 28 Days Later and The Descent were both highly original and entertaining horror movies. So I guess that comes down to taste.
Personally I think some of the old Hammer Horrors have aged badly, but you've got to consider the fact that they were being mass quickly and cheaply and in modern terms are probably closer in target demographic to the Saw franchise than the films the OP originally listed.
Personally I think some of the old Hammer Horrors have aged badly, but you've got to consider the fact that they were being mass quickly and cheaply and in modern terms are probably closer in target demographic to the Saw franchise than the films the OP originally listed.
Full agreement from me on "28 Days", "The Descent" and "Eden Lake". Makes me think I need to put "Dog Soldiers" in my queue -- never seen it. "Shaun of the Dead" is fun, not sure if I'd call that "horror".
plague of the zombies is my favourite hammer film. dog soldiers was a good 'recent' one.
huh, how in the blue moon is 28 days later original??????? never seen anything like it?
the last man on earth > night of the living dead > too many to mention > 28 days later
is good film but highly original. no.
huh, how in the blue moon is 28 days later original??????? never seen anything like it?
the last man on earth > night of the living dead > too many to mention > 28 days later
is good film but highly original. no.
You're right, I don't think I would call "28 Days" "highly original". It's got a couple things for it, though, in the originality department.
First, to the best of my knowledge, it was the first to give zombies legs -- instead of plodding along, they run their asses off, and for me, that adds a great deal of tension.
Secondly, in my opinion, it stands in a league of it's own, when it comes to giving us real characters that we can really latch onto. We care about these guys, become emotionally invested in them. Other horror movies might try to do that, but for me, "28 Days" is the only one that's been truly successful (unless you count movies like "Shining" and "Sixth Sense", but that's a different kind of horror; I'm talking more about blood-and-guts kind of horror).
"the last man on earth > night of the living dead > too many to mention > 28 days later"
Uh, no, they didn't event the post apocalyptic or zombie genres, but stylistically it was "different". The fast stuttery (cranked up shutter speed) style for the "infected", the low key British sensibility that was brought to it. Very original at the time) take on the genre. It's a good film that has held up well.
Uh, no, they didn't event the post apocalyptic or zombie genres, but stylistically it was "different". The fast stuttery (cranked up shutter speed) style for the "infected", the low key British sensibility that was brought to it. Very original at the time) take on the genre. It's a good film that has held up well.
it was a banana painted purple, still a banana. still the same story. not original. technology changed, still the same story.
Nothing wrong with the same story. Shakespeare covered about 70% of the entire human experience in one play or another. There are no original stories, only original ways of telling the same old ones.
I totally disagree.
28 Days Later was highly original in the same way that Let The Right One is was a highly original take on vampires. Yes, it borrows from Zombie lore, but all movies do that. I think you chose The Last Man on Earth as the start of your flow chart, but do you think that early 20th Century was the first time the extinction of the human species had been considered? Of course not.
If you don't think 28 Days Later was original then you'll never be able to find any horror movie original. Horror movies are only frightening because the audience recognise frightening concepts and react to them, so every new horror film made is borrowing from ancient history.
28 Days Later was highly original in the same way that Let The Right One is was a highly original take on vampires. Yes, it borrows from Zombie lore, but all movies do that. I think you chose The Last Man on Earth as the start of your flow chart, but do you think that early 20th Century was the first time the extinction of the human species had been considered? Of course not.
If you don't think 28 Days Later was original then you'll never be able to find any horror movie original. Horror movies are only frightening because the audience recognise frightening concepts and react to them, so every new horror film made is borrowing from ancient history.
omg you compared hammer horror films to the saw films, omg.
highly original. never seen anything like it.
now it's just a take on the zombie genre. ok then.
well there was mary shelleys 'last man' before mathiesons 'i am legend' but how far do you want me to go back?
and also, they're not zombies.
it's a good film, it is not highly original. you're saying yourself it's not original then saying i'm wrong for saying it's not.
highly original. never seen anything like it.
now it's just a take on the zombie genre. ok then.
well there was mary shelleys 'last man' before mathiesons 'i am legend' but how far do you want me to go back?
and also, they're not zombies.
it's a good film, it is not highly original. you're saying yourself it's not original then saying i'm wrong for saying it's not.
No movie is completely original. They are all inspired by, or a new take on something else. If you judge the movie, on the whole, "28 Days Later" is very original. Sure, you pick apart this aspect and that aspect, and you'll find lots of similarities to previous movies. But look at it, as a whole -- nothing had really been done like that before.
And technically, no, but for all intents and purposes, yes, they are zombies. What a silly debate we are having. Wow, we are ubernerds!
And technically, no, but for all intents and purposes, yes, they are zombies. What a silly debate we are having. Wow, we are ubernerds!
this thread is highly original, i have never seen anything like it. i think it's held up pretty well since it was made all those many years ago. it has been a fresh new take on the super hero genre indeed. ok technically it's not a super hero thread but for all intents and purposes it is now.
also 28 weeks later was on tv tonight, it sucked. zombies running, wtf is that crap? never seen anything like it.
also 28 weeks later was on tv tonight, it sucked. zombies running, wtf is that crap? never seen anything like it.