PG-13 Horrors

[Yellow Jacket]

Damn, am I getting bored of these typical PG-13 piles of crap that have been released this past two years. Horrors, in my opinion, should never be PG-13. It's just a bunch of bullshit. Mostly all PG-13 horrors suck (AVP, Darkness Falls, and Boogeyman aside.) Whatever happened to horrors not being afraid to take it to the next level with their R ratings say "Screw You, Hollywood! We're making our own damn flicks!"? Now, it's like these horror directors are a bit intimidated by Hollywood. Like they don't want to piss off Hollywood and the MPAA. Hell, even Wes Craven is giving us PG-13 horrors that are crap (Cursed comes to mind.) So, whatever happened to the brave horror directors? The only ones out there are Rob Zombie, George A. Romero, John Carpenter, and a few others. So, what are your opinions on these PG-13 horrors?

[AUSTIN316426808]

Some are good some aren't, I don't care what the rating is as long as it's good. I'm not really into seeing a bucket of blood thrown into every other scene so if it's not that gorey I don't mind the only thing I'm looking for is a good movie no matter how much or how little of something is involved(gore,nudity ect.)


To say the person that made Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes isn't a brave director is a bit of an exaggeration imo, sometimes the studio has more say than the director which I hate but also understand since they pay for everything. Craven can get just as sick as any horror director out there so it's my belief that if he was given full creative power that Cursed would've been a much better film or at the very least not some kiddy WB shit it turned out to be.

[Yellow Jacket]

originally posted by AUSTIN316426808
Some are good some aren't, I don't care what the rating is as long as it's good. I'm not really into seeing a bucket of blood thrown into every other scene so if it's not that gorey I don't mind the only thing I'm looking for is a good movie no matter how much or how little of something is involved(gore,nudity ect.)


I feel the same way u do. I just feel that alot of PG-13 movies could be better. Too many of them feel like the same rehashed story if u ask me. But, that could just be me.

To say the person that made Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes isn't a brave director is a bit of an exaggeration imo, sometimes the studio has more say than the director which I hate but also understand since they pay for everything. Craven

Good point! I forgot about that. Sorry!

[darknessprevail]

Yea, I know. The only thing that the PG-13 movies have is mild language for the tiny tots. By the way I like your May avator :D

[Yellow Jacket]

originally posted by darknessprevail
By the way I like your May avator

Thanks!:D

[ItsAlive75]

It goes both ways. There's a lot of shitty R rated movies out there too (Alone in the Dark).

The Ring and The Grudge were pretty good, Boogeyman sucked.

Goes both ways.

[jenna26]

Originally posted by ItsAlive75
It goes both ways. There's a lot of shitty R rated movies out there too (Alone in the Dark).

The Ring and The Grudge were pretty good, Boogeyman sucked.

Goes both ways.

I agree, a horror movie does not have to have an R rating to be a decent horror film. And there are many R rated films that aren't any riskier or in general, any better than the PG-13 films. I wasn't pleased with The Ring because my expectations were too high, but I enjoyed The Grudge and think it is better than several horror films of the last few years.

I am however extremely tired of studios interfering with a director's creative vision and exerting control over how far they are allowed to go. That bugs me. Craven should have been allowed to make the movie he wanted; and I am certain it would have been far more successful for everyone involved.

[ItsAlive75]

Originally posted by jenna26

I am however extremely tired of studios interfering with a director's creative vision and exerting control over how far they are allowed to go. That bugs me.

I know how you feel. That's what killed two of my favorite childhood loves... Ren & Stimpy and Calvin & Hobbes

But unless you're making an independent movie, there's really no other choice. It's either make your vision without funding or marketing (thereby all but negating your chances of getting your work seen) or do what "the man" tells you and get your work seen... and make money.

[Gnaghi]

Poltergeist was pg nuff said. Ok i lied not nuff said. Theres always a chance in a good pg-13 horror movie. I really dont go by ratings but NR is the best.

[ItsAlive75]

Originally posted by Gnaghi
I really dont go by ratings but NR is the best.

Y'know what I hate now? Is those "unrated" DVD's, with maybe about 10 extra minutes of footage.

Sorry, the NR rating made me think of it.

[Chainsaw Guy]

What the fuck happen to blood and guts just spewing everywhere. And theres these people who wouldn't be able to see a horror movie unless it's PG-13 saying "The Grudge was scary!". So i think stay with R

[ItsAlive75]

Originally posted by Chainsaw Guy
What the fuck happen to blood and guts just spewing everywhere. And theres these people who wouldn't be able to see a horror movie unless it's PG-13 saying "The Grudge was scary!". So i think stay with R

Sometimes the story itself can be spooky. You don't necessarily NEED tons of blood and guts for a movie to be scary.

Rosemary's Baby and The Omen did pretty good without it.

[crippler666]

To me rating doesn't matter

Having a good plot does

But I agree with you to a certain point, if a film needs / requires gore, put it in

I like From Hell, good story line / plot, but it's violence lets it down (lack of)

The story is of Jack the Ripper (probably the most vicious killer ever, working on the principle of violence per victim)

If any film could and should have used gore, this was it, but it didn't

If the gore would have been in it would have enhanced the movie as you would have seen the violence and felt more for the victims

[jenna26]

Blood and gore have very little to do with whether a movie works or not, in my opinion. There are far more important elements; writing, pacing, direction, atmosphere. Not that gore isn't sometimes an important part of a film. And not to say I don't love a good gory film as much as the next horror fan. But it just isn't the deciding factor in whether I like a movie or not. Many films that have no gore at all (think classic) far surpass many that do. And there are many exceptional films with lots of gore. It just depends on how well all the other elements come together.

[IDrinkYourBlood]

From Hell was a piece of shit. The whole plot was so borring and it dragged on and on. Thats not really what happend either. And 10 extra minutes in a movie is fairly lengthy. I dont have a big problem with 14A horror movies, But personally Ill allways make my movies R.

[The_Return]

I really dont care what it's rated.

[jay o2 waster]

PG-13 = Big Fucking Bucks

[alkytrio666]

Originally posted by Gnaghi
Poltergeist was pg nuff said. Ok i lied not nuff said. Theres always a chance in a good pg-13 horror movie. I really dont go by ratings but NR is the best.

Well that was during the PG = R era. Ever seen Airplane? It's got it's fair share of nudity, profane language, drug abuse, sexual content, etc. It's rated PG. Same with the second one. So...Poltergeist can't count, because if it was realeased today it might get an R rating.

I think some people get too caught up in ratings. It really doesn't need to be R to be a good movie, and I think the problem is that some people walk into PG-13 movies thinking "This is gonna suck" and never even give it a chance.

[urgeok]

if its a good PG13 movie - great ...there are some very effective PG13 thrillers - but not many ... everyone here is scrambling to find more than 3 decent titles.

of all the horrors in my collection .. very few are rated PG ...

[jay o2 waster]

Originally posted by urgeok
if its a good PG13 movie - great ...there are some very effective PG13 thrillers - but not many ... everyone here is scrambling to find more than 3 decent titles.

of all the horrors in my collection .. very few are rated PG ... the only way a pg13 can be good is if before they start making it they dont care what the rating is their main concertration is making a good movie, not worring about not getting a rating so that it is accessable to more people. A larger accepted audiance is going to mean more money. Plain and simple. Thats why all these "teen horror films" are rated pg13. because if it was rated r, then half of the teens wouldn't be able to see it.

[SodaGirl]

I am a sucker for every horror movie that comes out, I have to see it just in case it's good... I am having terrible luck with the PG-13 ones though. I liked The Ring, but hated so many others... Like Grudge, Boogyman, Darkness Falls, They, White Noise...and many more.

Yet it never fails, I still feel like I have to see them... Next will probably be Dark Water.

[WaitxUntilxDark]

I don't think it's the rating, i think it's how they execute it. I like a lot of the pg-13 japanese ghost horror movies. But I hate the american pg-13 movies. If it's a slasher pg-13 flick, it probably won't work. On the other hand, if it's a pg-13 psycholgical thriller it might be good.

[Posher778]

yellow jacket, you should try the unrated version of cursed. its twice as gory and its better.

[Amalthea]

I agree, some are good, some aren't, but I hope it's the end of PG13 horror!

[Taom]

From Hell is a steaming pile of shit. I've read plenty on ole Jack, and I own Alan Moore's graphic novel From Hell, which the movie is supposed to be based on, and it is a damn good read. The problem is that the two brothers who directed/produced the flick decided to do their own thing. For one, Inspector Aberline was a middleaged, short, non-attractive fat man who was married. The whole plotline of him loving the prostitute is shear fantasy. he never dabbled in opium, and most of his character as played by Depp in the film has nothing to do with the historical person, or the graphic novel that the film is supposedly based on. I know Aberline wouldn't have been a good leading man as he historically was, but come on, how do you think his relatives think?

Also, the graphic novel was completely told from the viewpoint of Jack The Ripper, which gave the whole thing a very good feel. The movie would have been much more interesting that way, but we all know that hollywood would never take a chance on making the movie how it should have been.

Most of the movie was taken up by the love story the moviemakers stuffed into the story and not much of history, or the graphic novel remain. Hell, even the ending, with Jack's big psychotic speel to Aberline was fucked up.

I went to see this flick in theaters, as a fan of the graphic novel and hated it. But to be fair, I rented it when it came out, and gave it a second chance. Final verdict?.......It completely sucks balls. :mad:


Edit: I forgot to mention, Aberline was well respected as an investigator, yet in this flick, everybody sees him as a crack because the film portrays him as an opium fiend who has visions that help him solve cases.

[noctuary]

Taom, you are correct about From Hell. I didn't hate it quite as much as you seem to, but it really is very weak in comparison to Alan Moore's comic.

Anyway, the actual rating of a movie means very little to me. One of my favorite horror movies, The Haunting, contains very little violence, no foul language that I can recall, and is still scary as hell. If it was released today unchanged, I couldn't see it getting anything more than a PG rating. I do enjoy a gore fest as much as the next guy, but it's not the be all end all of horror.

[XFeaRX]

Originally posted by Yellow Jacket
Damn, am I getting bored of these typical PG-13 piles of crap that have been released this past two years. Horrors, in my opinion, should never be PG-13. It's just a bunch of bullshit. Mostly all PG-13 horrors suck (AVP, Darkness Falls, and Boogeyman aside.) Whatever happened to horrors not being afraid to take it to the next level with their R ratings say "Screw You, Hollywood! We're making our own damn flicks!"? Now, it's like these horror directors are a bit intimidated by Hollywood. Like they don't want to piss off Hollywood and the MPAA. Hell, even Wes Craven is giving us PG-13 horrors that are crap (Cursed comes to mind.) So, whatever happened to the brave horror directors? The only ones out there are Rob Zombie, George A. Romero, John Carpenter, and a few others. So, what are your opinions on these PG-13 horrors?

Rob Zombie often gets shat on for his intentions to carry on the '"Screw You, Hollywood! We're making our own damn flicks!"? ' ways by critics. It is a real shame.

[Taom]

I suppose I should toss in my thoughts on the actual topic, since my last post was basically a rant against one flick.

Personally, I don't mind a pg-13 rating, as long as it delivers the goods. As you guys have already stated, there are both good and bad pg-13, and in turn also both good and bad rated r flicks.
I do tend to prefer the higher rating though, as alot of the hollywood crop of pg-13 movies hardly live up to expectations.

Then again, hollywood put out alot of r rated teen slashers in the nineties, and those mostly sucked balls.

[liebesspiel]

There are pretty good PG-13 rated horror movies, but most of them suck. That's why many people think PG-13 rated movies are bad.

[sk8boarder]

There are some good PG-13 movies.
Like The Ring 1 & 2 , Grudge and The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
I do think that PG-13 movies are a little lame and the standard
for PG-13 is set too high and should be lowered.