Best Horror Movies of All Time

[Paul Farquhar]

This is not so much a response to your post but I response to the idea that the exorcist depends on personal belief to be scary.I hear this a lot with the exorcist, but I don't know that it is so true. You don't have to believe in vampires or come from a culture where vampires exist to find them scary (just like I found horror movies grounded in Buddhist concepts, non-theistic ideas and folk beliefs outside my own scary if well executed---as any scary horror movie needs to be). I showed my wife the Exorcist, and she was raised Buddhist in a Buddhist country. She found it terrifying. I am not saying everyone will find The Exorcist scary. That is a very subjective thing. What scares me might not scare you.

You don't have to be Catholic to believe that evil spirits are a real thing. But I definitely don't, which is why I found it dull rather than scary (and for a long time was baffled by what all the fuss was about). It's a movie that depends on "it could be real" to be disturbing. Vampire movies, on the other hand, are generally made for people who do no not believe in vampires, by people who do not believe in vampires. They don't really on "realism" for scares, they use other techniques.

 

[Mannahnin]

You don't have to be Catholic to believe that evil spirits are a real thing. But I definitely don't, which is why I found it dull rather than scary (and for a long time was baffled by what all the fuss was about). It's a movie that depends on "it could be real" to be disturbing. Vampire movies, on the other hand, are generally made for people who do no not believe in vampires, by people who do not believe in vampires. They don't really on "realism" for scares, they use other techniques.

Eh. I think immersive techniques help most people suspend disbelief in either case. I don't buy into Cathologic cosmology at all myself, but I think The Exorcist presents a very grounded and realistic world, presents effective naturalistic medical and psychological horrors particularly in the hospital sequences, and roots the unnatural in that world very well.

I can see folks finding it dull based on the pacing, certainly younger folks, but I thought the slow burn and establishment of the setting and characters was effective.

 

[Guest 85555]

Eh. I think immersive techniques help most people suspend disbelief in either case. I don't buy into Cathologic cosmology at all myself, but I think The Exorcist presents a very grounded and realistic world, presents effective naturalistic medical and psychological horrors particularly in the hospital sequences, and roots the unnatural in that world very well.

I can see folks finding it dull based on the pacing, certainly younger folks, but I thought the slow burn and establishment of the setting and characters was effective.

Yeah like I said, I was in an atheist phase when I first saw it (I was raised very religious but at that point in my life I didn't believe in anything spiritual). I still found it very scary. And half or more of the people I know who love the film aren't religious, nor do they find the premise of the movie plausible as something that could happen in real life. I think the immersion isn't so much important for getting the audience to believe that demons are real, it is important for getting the audience to believe the events in the movie are happening (which his true of all movie staying to suspect disbelief) and for the subtle psychological horror of going from this medical mystery to the realization that it is something demonic (and again this is true of any horror movie trying to build around that kind of ambiguity).

I agree on the pacing. Exorcist is slow, even by the standards of the time in many ways (You can go back and watch plenty of horror movies from that time that don't feel as agonizing in their pacing: there is definitely a 'hangout movie' element to it, where you have to want to spend time in in that world with those characters as they try to solve the possession). But I think this is why it works as a movie for me. To your point I like how it establishes the setting and characters effectively.

 

[Guest 85555]

You don't have to be Catholic to believe that evil spirits are a real thing. But I definitely don't, which is why I found it dull rather than scary (and for a long time was baffled by what all the fuss was about). It's a movie that depends on "it could be real" to be disturbing. Vampire movies, on the other hand, are generally made for people who do no not believe in vampires, by people who do not believe in vampires. They don't really on "realism" for scares, they use other techniques.

See my other post, but if this is your reaction, it is your reaction. I wouldn't try to talk you out of it. But I do think what you are describing is not a universal reaction to it (lots of people who don't believe in evil spirits still find the film scary). On realism, I don't think it is serving the supernatural element. The main thing the realism brings is the medical horror of the first half of the movie. The realism is what makes the pain and frustration of the daughter and mother feel believable. I will agree most vampire movies are a different style of horror. I do think the Exorcist has a lot in common with Dracula if you read the books). But lots of horror movies that have nothing to do with evil spirits are take this believable and grounded approach. I don't think there has really been a realistically grounded horror movie that either succeeded or failed to make me scared because it was outside my worldview. If the film maker can make the characters, the setting, and the events believable, and it is a well executed film, then I am probably going to buy into the horror.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Dracula if you read the books

I’ve read the book, it’s all about repressed sexuality. Not very scary, but at least entertaining.

 

[Guest 85555]

I’ve read the book, it’s all about repressed sexuality. Not very scary, but at least entertaining.

That is there in both, but I didn't find it to be so much of the core theme of the exorcist (for me it was much more about loss of faith in modernity). On Dracula, I think it is a lot harder not to read the repressed sexuality theme. But that is a whole other debate. My point of the comparison was the books are similarly grounded, and even have a lot of similar approaches to horror (and situations: it is hard not to think of the the medical horror of the Lucy section of the book when Regan starts going to doctors). Dracula grounds itself by being a compilation of recovered journal entries, news paper articles, etc. And it is also about an ancient evil the world no longer really believes in appearing in a modern setting (at least modern for when it was written). When I read either one they just hit a lot of the same horror notes for me, and they have a similar feel somehow

 

[dragoner]

I came close to putting this on my list.

My "aunt's" brother was cinematographer on this one. He passed away a year or two ago.

He did a great job on the movie.

 

[Guest 85555]

Incidentally if people do get the exorcist they should be aware that some versions of it are revised by Blatty. I re-read a few years ago and there were lines and sections in it that definitely weren't there that last time I read it. I quite like Blatty's writing style. I recommend his other books, not just the Exorcist

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Dracula grounds itself by being a compilation of recovered journal entries, news paper articles, etc

The epistolatory novel was a very common format at the time Dracula was written, it was more standard practice than stylistic choice.

 

[Guest 85555]

The epistolatory novel was a very common format at the time Dracula was written, it was more standard practice than stylistic choice.

That is true. First person in general was more common too. But that framing still helps create a sense of believability, kind of like found footage today. And it wasn't the only approach Stoker could have taken. He still had a choice even if it was a very common format.