|
|
Post by Flyboy on Jul 18, 2009 18:42:49 GMT -5
Lucio Fulci's Zombie. That movie, to me, was just pure gore, beautiful gore! Amazing effects! Really puts most modern "horror" movie effects to shame. Amen! I love when older movies with some great practical effects put a lot of these modern day CGI wankfests to shame.  |
|
|
|
Post by necrobert on Aug 28, 2009 22:59:39 GMT -5
I'm going to have to go with Lucio Fulci's Zombie, I like it more than any of the "dead" films....
|
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Sept 6, 2009 17:10:55 GMT -5
I think that Fulci's Zombie is really good for the time it was made. I like the splinter in the eye kill, that was really nasty and brutal. Also loved the zombie flesh eating scenes, I always enjoy those scenes. The shark vs Zombie scene was kinda cool too. Some of the kills were fake looking - in the opening scene when the zombie bites the guard in the throat, the blood is way too bright - so whoever said the effects are better than modern movies must be blind. However the kills are still more realistic than the kills in Dawn which was released only a year earlier. Also no blue zombies here - the Zombies really look like dead corpses - rotten and decayed like they should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Dead Walk! on Sept 6, 2009 17:45:54 GMT -5
Hate to break it to you sonny, but bright blood doesn't equal bad effects. Know what does? Terrible computer generated images that make movies look like Call of Duty.
|
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Sept 6, 2009 18:10:04 GMT -5
Hate to break it to you sonny, but bright blood doesn't equal bad effects. Yes it does. It looks fake and ridiculous, just like too obvious CGI blood. Know what does? Terrible computer generated images that make movies look like Call of Duty. Sometimes yes, it depends on the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Sept 6, 2009 19:42:12 GMT -5
Hate to break it to you sonny, but bright blood doesn't equal bad effects. Know what does? Terrible computer generated images that make movies look like Call of Duty. I agree. At least the bright blood was made on set as opposed to being added in post production by a team of CGI "artists." And my terrible computer generated images means most of them. Haha. |
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Sept 6, 2009 19:52:59 GMT -5
Well to each his own. I prefer realistic looking blood in films. It's more shocking that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 6, 2009 19:55:14 GMT -5
The modern horror film is nothing in comparison to it's ancestors. While I do enjoy movies like Saw and the Texas Chainsaw remakes, I see them for what they are. Gratuitous gore. A horror movie is not about gore, nudity or bad language. Look at one of the best slashers ever made: My Bloody Valentine (1981). No nudity, I don't recall much bad language and the gore was very stripped down. But yet it is lightyears ahead of these new things we get today. I really think it is just the dumbing down of the audience. The modern audience cannot process a horror film unless it includes over the top gore, titties, and a slew of F words. Another fine example is The Burning. And while it did include nudity, it was not in included for monetary reasons. But now we have people making remakes and taking out the main object in the film, or wanting to do the exact opposite of what the "last guy" did. It is pure nonsense. All directors know that practical effects are worth their weight in gold, but are just too lazy to do them. Perfect example is CGI blood in Diary. That was an instant turn off, and I had a hard time taking the rest of the film serious. The horror genre was built on the films named above as well as other canon franchises such as Phantasm, NOES, and F13. I actively call modern horror "neo-horror" and something tells me that the film critics of the future will do the same just as they have with the Noir genre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Sept 6, 2009 20:11:54 GMT -5
For the most part, I prefer realistic looking blood too but CGI really doesn't do the trick. I think it looks faker than blood that isn't perfectly red.
If blood doesn't look perfect in an older flick, I won't discredit them because times were different back then & they were just getting the hang of making movie blood. Guys like Savini are pioneers & without their "fake looking blood," many movies & special effects guys wouldn't have been influenced.
|
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Sept 6, 2009 20:33:49 GMT -5
The modern horror film is nothing in comparison to it's ancestors. While I do enjoy movies like Saw and the Texas Chainsaw remakes, I see them for what they are. Gratuitous gore. A horror movie is not about gore, nudity or bad language. Look at one of the best slashers ever made: My Bloody Valentine (1981). No nudity, I don't recall much bad language and the gore was very stripped down. But yet it is lightyears ahead of these new things we get today. I really think it is just the dumbing down of the audience. Many older films also had Gratuitous gore and nudity. Cannibal Holocaust for example, or the Friday the 13th films, Fulci films, etc. The modern audience cannot process a horror film unless it includes over the top gore, titties, and a slew of F words. There are many supernatural horror films that have none of those things at all. look harder. It's funny how a romero fan like you complain about over the top gore. |
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 6, 2009 21:27:42 GMT -5
Glad to see that you didn't read what I wrote, not that I expected a neo-horror idiot like yourself to understand it.
I never complained about gore. I simply stated that simpletons like yourself cannot process a film unless gore is a main element to it. I finally understand why you don't like DAWN, because you just don't get it.
I don't consider Cannibal Holocaust a horror film. And I never listed Fulci's films as being canon to the genre, wrong again.
Try again, trollmer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Sept 7, 2009 6:07:21 GMT -5
I consider Cannibal Holocaust somewhat of a horror flick but it's more of an exploitation/shock movie than anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by omer135 on Sept 7, 2009 7:19:08 GMT -5
I like Dawn I never said that i don't like it. And what about Friday the 13th films? They were canon to the genre and had gratutious gore like the Saw films of today. It was definitely a main element to them. Same with Romero's Dead films. You can't really enjoy them if you don't like the gore. You enjoy gore just like me. The old movies are no better than the films of today, you may like them more because you grew up with those films but that doesn't make them better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flyboy on Sept 7, 2009 7:25:27 GMT -5
The gore in the Friday the 13th series is tame as hell compared to the Saw movies. Most if not all were cut to shreds by the MPAA back in the 1980s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flesh Eater on Sept 7, 2009 8:06:54 GMT -5
I only watch them for 2 years but since then I already seen hundreds of horror films so I do know about good horror. |
|
