Five horror movies you'd show to someone new to the genre

[Aedilred]

Unnecessary. This conceit that we need to control the cat and dog populations is something that was made up in the past 30 or 40 years. There have been cats and dogs for thousands of years before now and it's never caused a problem before and it isn't a problem now; it's just people tilting at windmills.

EDIT:
Actually, there was one notable time before when they tried to control the cat population. And the total net result of that effort after all was said and done was that it made the black death spread faster because there were more rats

Yeah, back in the day when your pet had an unwanted litter, you just tied them all in a sack and threw them in the well. That was a much better method of population control.

Come off it.

[Bohandas]

No I'm saying that we don't need to exercise any control over it at all.

Because we have doors.

EDIT:
and don;t say it's an introduced species. It might be valid for the cats, but Dogs are a subspecies of lupus so in many places that's simply not true. Arguably you'd be restoring the ecology in a lot of places. Not to a pristine state mind you, not even close, but to something at least more similar to a pristine state than it's been in the past 100-200 years or so

EDIT:
It's all just another stupid wolf extirpation campaign

[Aedilred]

I mean, aside from the ecological and humane reasons for pet population control (Hey! We use birth control for humans too -guess why!) your original statement that it's something invented in the last 30-40 years is straight up untrue. It's just that previously it was done through infanticide (and more widespread culling) rather than sterilisation.

It's one of those contentions that's so wrong-headed it's hard to know where to start rebutting it. But it's totally off-topic anyway.

[Rodin]

EDIT: Just had a thought. If the person you're inteoducing to the genre likes videogames or tabletop wargames then definitely show them Event Horizon as it has strong similarities to the premises of Doom, Quake, and Half-Life, and titualr ship itself is basically a WH40K space hulk



If we're talking about interpretations of movies and characters, I've always seen the Other Mother from Coraline as evocative of modern pet owners. She's got the whole creepy fake mother thing going on and the cost of living with her is unnecessary surgery. (edit: and also she'll eventually kill you)



Now I think we need to be clear about what we're talking about. There's four different things the word "comedy" can denote:
1.) A movie that is driven by laugh-out-loud humor
2.) A movie that merely contains humorous or silly elements
3.) A movie that is not a drama
or 4.) A movie that is not a tragedy

When I refer to a "comedy", especially if I've described it as "wacky" I'm referring primarily to the first definition. I suppose I probably should have said "gag-a-minute comedy" instead of "wacky comedy" as I was referring to the sort of movies associated with Mel Brooks, Leslie Nielson, Monty Python, Jackass, The Wayans Brothers, etc.. However, I don't think that Army of Darkness really meets the first definition at all. The only part that's really laugh out loud funny is the line "good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun", and if we let one liners count then every action movie ever is a comedy.

In any case, although it is a comedy (it meets definitions 2 and 3, and possibly 4 depending on the cut), it is not a comedy in the same way that Scary Movie, Young Frankenstein, and Live Freaky Die Freaky are comedies.

By your definition about 90% of comedy movies are not, in fact, comedy movies. Well, except for the old "Comedy vs. Tragedy", but that's not what we're really discussing here.

Army of Darkness is full of comedy. Moreso than any other genre other than maybe Action. Heck, the TVTropes page even calls it out in the description:

Noticeably Denser and Wackier and largely Lighter and Softer than the previous two movies, Army of Darkness eschews the Horror Comedy of previous entries in favor of being an out-and-out slapstick comedy that's relatively tame in content. Due to this making it easier to broadcast on television with minimal edits, as well as being more accessible on home video due to being distributed by a major company, it has become the most widely seen and recognized of the Evil Dead films.

Evil Dead 1 was pretty much straight horror, with a little bit of comedy.

Evil Dead 2 was a horror comedy, with the emphasis more on the horror side but still with more comedic elements than the first film.

Evil Dead 3 ditched the horror aspect so hard that it becomes a kids movie with a bit of editing. It's not even remotely scary and is a terrible example to show to someone new to the genre because it is not at all representative. Don't get me wrong - it's one of my favorite films of all time. But that's because it's hilarious and packed with memorable one-liners. Not because it's a horror film.

[Vinyadan]

I didn't get Army of Darkness. Simply put, it doesn't even try to let the watcher know the characters, so there's little interest in their fate. It also fast forwards a lot. The scene in the pit and especially the one by the windmill however were memorable (or should I say GROOVY?).

[Kyberwulf]

Dawn of the Dead 70s or Night of the Living Dead 80s remake.

The Mist. if your know you know.

The Thing. Good body horror movie.

Silence of the Lambs.

The Grudge. Just to get a little taste of other cultures scary movies.

I tried picking movies that are good as well as a decent cross selection of movies.

[MrStabby]

Hmm. For me, in no particular order:

1) Dracula (1992). No it isn't the oldest so might not get that "classic film" mark, but I think it is arguably the best rendition of the classic tale. And Oscar winning, in case this convinces your newbie. I think as a story its one of those that people should see in film (and would argue they should read the book as well). The story itself, and the characters have become embedded in our culture for a reason.

2) El Orphanto/The Orphanage (2007). To me this is the best example of a fim straddling that dividing line between mental illness and supernatural horror. The film and the plot keeps you on edge with a growing sense of dread as it pulls you in... there are a few cheap jump scares but I think they are done in a way that adds o the film rather than detracing from it

3) Corlaine - though others have written enough about this one already

4) Sucker Punch. I feel every list should have one WTF controversial element on it. Superficially a pulpy action movie about attractive young women being excessively violent in a variety of over-the-top fantasy settings but the underlying story of abuse and lobotomy adds an undercurrent of horror to it.

5) Let the right one in (2008). I felt a bit bad about having two vampire films on the list, but they have a very different style and a different feel to them as well as a very different prespective. As an intro to the genre I think its good though - you want a selection of films that collectively span the types of film they might like.

[Metastachydium]

Hmm. For me, in no particular order:

1) Dracula (1992). No it isn't the oldest so might not get that "classic film" mark, but I think it is arguably the best rendition of the classic tale. And Oscar winning, in case this convinces your newbie. I think as a story its one of those that people should see in film (and would argue they should read the book as well). The story itself, and the characters have become embedded in our culture for a reason.

Yuck. While there is no adaptation of Dracula that I particularly like, this one's uniquely overhyped.

Spoiler: Various Draculas

Show

For starters, the title is a lie. This is not Bram Stoker's Dracula; this is a cheesy reincarnation romance story using the rough trappings of Bram Stoker's Dracula. It's not the most faithful version out there and it does absolutely zero justice to the spirit of the original. The introduction (a "screenwriter's original" not based on the source material) is stupid and would be unneccessary if the rest of the story weren't distorted into the aforesaid cringy "love story"; the tacked-on ending, in the meantime makes no sense at all. I hate the costumes and the makeup (tastelessly vibrant and overdone, not to mention the deal with the ape thing (why?)) and I fervently, fervently hate how they treated Renfield and especially what they reduced Mina too.

So, from me, this gets a no. Just that, a big, fat no. (I also don't think it's that much of a horror story, but that might just be me; at any rate, it's a lot less of a horror story than the original.)

[Bohandas]

Yuck. While there is no adaptation of Dracula that I particularly like, this one's uniquely overhyped. [SPOILER=Various Draculas]
For starters, the title is a lie. This is not Bram Stoker's Dracula; this is a cheesy reincarnation romance story using the rough trappings of Bram Stoker's Dracula. It's not the most faithful version out there and it does absolutely zero justice to the spirit of the original. The introduction (a "screenwriter's original" not based on the source material) is stupid and would be unneccessary if the rest of the story weren't distorted into the aforesaid cringy "love story"; the tacked-on ending, in the meantime makes no sense at all. I hate the costumes and the makeup (tastelessly vibrant and overdone, not to mention the deal with the ape thing (why?)) and I fervently, fervently hate how they treated Renfield and especially what they reduced Mina too.)

It's a lot closer to the original than the most famous film adaptation is though. Although I do agree with you that it kind of defeats the purpose to first remove Universal's modifications to the story but then afterwards needlessly introduce a subplot from The Mummy

[paddyfool]

Hmm. For me, in no particular order:

1) Dracula (1992). No it isn't the oldest so might not get that "classic film" mark, but I think it is arguably the best rendition of the classic tale. And Oscar winning, in case this convinces your newbie. I think as a story its one of those that people should see in film (and would argue they should read the book as well). The story itself, and the characters have become embedded in our culture for a reason.

Erg, no. For one thing, you already have a vampire movie, and for another, Keanu Reeves’ “British” accent was so terrible in this movie that it broke all immersion and made it unintentionally hilarious. A better movie from the early 90s covering one of the classics would be Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein…