Thanks, Nikki. I love Horror flicks. It's really too bad that there aren't enough high quality films in that genre.
I wonder if the list includes the first Gremlins. That one had some really shocking moments...if they're including crap like Scream, I think Gremlins qualifies.
I assumed 1 was Halloween.
I don't remember anything about the first Gremlins except that it scared the living fuck out of me as a child. I'm pretty sure I thought they were living under my bed at some point and woudln't go to sleep until Daddy scared them away or something.
Halloween is #1, all is right in the world.
Today is going to be Friday The 13th Part 2.
Today is going to be Friday The 13th Part 2.
I like the series, but I'm not sure any of them should be near a top 31.
Could the 500 gallons of blood one be carrie? They had to shoot the blood scene like 50 times or something.
15. 'The Blair Witch Project (1999)
This 'movie' was fucking ridiculously scary.
Today is going to be Friday The 13th Part 2.
I like the series, but I'm not sure any of them should be near a top 31.
Could the 500 gallons of blood one be carrie? They had to shoot the blood scene like 50 times or something.
Number 13 has got to be The Shining (elevator scene)
I don't think anyone would rank Pet Semetary that highly. Unless they were ranking the Ramones song.
Today's was:spoiler (click to show/hide)Nightmare on Elm Street[close]
13's a good spot for it, I think. It still holds up, even today, but I probably wouldn't put it in the top 10.
I don't think anyone would rank Pet Semetary that highly. Unless they were ranking the Ramones song.
Normally I groove with your opinion, but you might be smoking crack. It had flaws, and they were numerous, but Pet Semetary is one of the scarier horror films ever made. You cannot tell me that creature in the bed squalling and the evil zombie baby were not horrifying.QuoteToday's was:spoiler (click to show/hide)Nightmare on Elm Street[close]
13's a good spot for it, I think. It still holds up, even today, but I probably wouldn't put it in the top 10.
I probably wouldn't top 10 it either, but it does hold up well! Especially since it introduced us to Johnny Depp.
Number 13 has got to be The Shining (elevator scene)
I never read Pet Semetary. I only like his early stuff, like Carrie, The Shining, and Salem's Lot (looking at a list, that may be ALL I like novel-wise). Quality wise, he was a much better short story writer than a novelist, especially early in his career before he was huge. He displayed strong knowledge of the form, and produced a lot of tight stories, and he was adept at writing stories in the form of others (see, for example, Jerusalem's Lot), which also shows mastery.:lol TVC talking as if he's some master writer :lol
I know he was an English major, and while his work isn't "academic," there's a lot of evidence that he took his shit seriously while in school. The short story thing is one bit of evidence. Writing good short stories is partially talent, partially knowledge of the format, and how tight it needs to be. As a matter of fact, I'd say people not learning the form is why the short story is largely dead; same reason poetry is. They are like the maths of writing.
In addition, King, at his best (again), shows a naturalistic bent in his novels (but usally not his short stories, although there are exceptions. I think it's difficult to pull off naturalistic writing in a compressed format), which is probably part of the reason people think they are such effective horror books. This also displays knowledge of English, since his novels are so famous for taking every day things and turning them into horror. If you are going to make the mundance terrifying, what better language is their to use than that of naturalism? I think evidence will show that going with naturalistic writing wasn't just by chance--most of his short stories do not display this tendency--so we can only believe that the decision was one based on his education and expertise.
But in the 80s, I am assuming when his addictions took over, the naturalism got replaced by tendencies that leant towards shock, and the tight naturalism got replaced by long-windedness. It might be a funny thing to say, but when you are working primarilly in horror, I think gore and shock might be the logical extreme of intentional naturalism. During this transformation, though, although (at least in some things) the naturalism inherent in the plots remained, it all but disappeared in the language.
I'm not a very big fan, though. I find his early books entertaining and his short stories should be (and often are) used in college classes to teach the form. He gets a lot of shit, but as someone into writing and literature, it's nice to see someone that takes their writing seriously, even if it is in a genre that is slight.
I never read Pet Semetary. I only like his early stuff, like Carrie, The Shining, and Salem's Lot (looking at a list, that may be ALL I like novel-wise). Quality wise, he was a much better short story writer than a novelist, especially early in his career before he was huge. He displayed strong knowledge of the form, and produced a lot of tight stories, and he was adept at writing stories in the form of others (see, for example, Jerusalem's Lot), which also shows mastery.:lol TVC talking as if he's some master writer :lol
I know he was an English major, and while his work isn't "academic," there's a lot of evidence that he took his shit seriously while in school. The short story thing is one bit of evidence. Writing good short stories is partially talent, partially knowledge of the format, and how tight it needs to be. As a matter of fact, I'd say people not learning the form is why the short story is largely dead; same reason poetry is. They are like the maths of writing.
In addition, King, at his best (again), shows a naturalistic bent in his novels (but usally not his short stories, although there are exceptions. I think it's difficult to pull off naturalistic writing in a compressed format), which is probably part of the reason people think they are such effective horror books. This also displays knowledge of English, since his novels are so famous for taking every day things and turning them into horror. If you are going to make the mundance terrifying, what better language is their to use than that of naturalism? I think evidence will show that going with naturalistic writing wasn't just by chance--most of his short stories do not display this tendency--so we can only believe that the decision was one based on his education and expertise.
But in the 80s, I am assuming when his addictions took over, the naturalism got replaced by tendencies that leant towards shock, and the tight naturalism got replaced by long-windedness. It might be a funny thing to say, but when you are working primarilly in horror, I think gore and shock might be the logical extreme of intentional naturalism. During this transformation, though, although (at least in some things) the naturalism inherent in the plots remained, it all but disappeared in the language.
I'm not a very big fan, though. I find his early books entertaining and his short stories should be (and often are) used in college classes to teach the form. He gets a lot of shit, but as someone into writing and literature, it's nice to see someone that takes their writing seriously, even if it is in a genre that is slight.
Those monkeys are still creepy.
Halloween is #1, all is right in the world.
I watched horror movies at a young age but I still get freaked out about them, to the point of hiding my eyes behind my hands. Of course I used to be scared to death of the monkeys in The Wizard of Oz.I started watching them when I was like 4 so they don't really affect me.