20+ Found Footage horror films that are actually good

[horrorhorror]

From this found footage list (http://www.gameslikezone.com/best-found-footage-horror-movies/), off the top of my head, I really enjoyed The Bay --- perhaps one of the better horror movies released in recent years that not everyone has caught. Exists is probably one of the better creature-feature films out there too.

I'd say Grave Encounters was surprisingly good, and so is As Above, So Below (although it's a bit shaky in bits).

The original Creep was really good at gradually squeezing the tension, although I didn't like the sequel much at all.

Any FF horror films you guys caught lately that are worth checking out?

[DeadbeatAtDawn]

The Den, Willow Creek, Exists and JeruZalem are the ones I like.

[Sculpt]

Lately? I'm not really looking to see found-footage these days. I have to get a big recommendation first. It's not that I don't like the format, but it's got to fit the plot like a glove.

Without regard to "lately" I thought these were good: Cloverfield, Chronicle, Blair With Project, VHS, VHS2, and not really horror, but I was surprised I actually liked Project Almanac. Some that were alright were Den, Paranormal Activity, Europa Report. Always thought Rec was a time waster. I was disappointed with Grave Encounters because, knowing what I know about the alien abduction thang, it could have been something so much more (and I don't mean special effects).

[hammerfan]

The Den, Willow Creek, Exists and JeruZalem are the ones I like.

JeruZalem was amazing! I wasn't too sure about it at first (the chicks bugged me), but, turned out great.

[Elvis_Christ]

No Mordum or American Guinea Pig - Bouquet of Guts & Gore?

[Oro13]

Can’t believe how many of these lists ignore Cannibal Holocaust.

Started the genre and is one of the most effective in terms of disturbing subject matter and some extremely effective depictions of violence and gore. So much so that Deodato was charged with obscenity and accused of it being a true blue snuff film when it was released. If you dig found footage, it’s definitely worth a watch.

Warning: it does contain on screen animal cruelty.

[hammerfan]

Warning: it does contain on screen animal cruelty.

That right there is why I will NEVER watch it

[Oro13]

That right there is why I will NEVER watch it

I totally understand.
It’s hard to get past that stuff, but so many movies did it before the AHA became a thing.

Films like Stagecoach, Ben-Hur, First Blood, and Cimino’s infamous borefest of a flop Heaven’s Gate, all sport scenes and multiple allegations of animal cruelty or death. Hell, the award winning Apocolypse Now features a scene of a water buffalo being hacked to death with a machete on camera. Even modern films are still guilty of it, but they are just more careful about what they show.

Point is, while I certainly don’t enjoy, seek out, or advocate it, it’s something that has happened in a lot of movies and, though despicable and unnecessary in the extreme, it won’t stop me from viewing a flick just because it contains it. But I do completely understand not wanting to see it so blatantly displayed ( I just skip past those scenes in subsequent viewings, never need to see them again ). Though if you or anyone else are curious about the film ( or any others in the genre like Ferox, etc ) there do exist cuts of them that remove the scenes of animal cruelty entirely. Just food for thought.

[Sculpt]

I totally understand.
It’s hard to get past that stuff, but so many movies did it before the AHA became a thing.

Films like Stagecoach, Ben-Hur, First Blood, and Cimino’s infamous borefest of a flop Heaven’s Gate, all sport scenes and multiple allegations of animal cruelty or death. Hell, the award winning Apocolypse Now features a scene of a water buffalo being hacked to death with a machete on camera. Even modern films are still guilty of it, but they are just more careful about what they show.

Point is, while I certainly don’t enjoy, seek out, or advocate it, it’s something that has happened in a lot of movies and, though despicable and unnecessary in the extreme, it won’t stop me from viewing a flick just because it contains it. But I do completely understand not wanting to see it so blatantly displayed ( I just skip past those scenes in subsequent viewings, never need to see them again ). Though if you or anyone else are curious about the film ( or any others in the genre like Ferox, etc ) there do exist cuts of them that remove the scenes of animal cruelty entirely. Just food for thought.
When you mention horses being injured in Ben-hur and such, I think many would make the distinction between displaying real animals being killed for the film, as opposed to horses falling down. For one, most people don't want to see the former, whether it's fake or not. And two, they don't want to financially endorse it either.

Some people may seek out a play where, in one part, a character's girlfriend/boyfriend breaksup with them, but they don't want to literally see it happen to a real person (some Jerry Springer fans did). There's a strong distinction between theatrical drama and reality. Most people aren't seeing Ben-hur to watch horses be tripped by wires. Rather they are assuming the film-makers aren't really harming the horses. When they found out the truth, they were against it.

To be fair to Cannibal Holocaust (1980), from what I read, all the of animals are eaten by real natives -- that is, in the story narrative, with one exception, the real animals are being killed for food, they aren't being tortured. The one exception is a pig being shot by a character 'because he's going crazy', not because he intends to eat the pig. And I think this is a distinct infraction. Instead of employing (I assume) a non-precise shot, it wouldn't have been difficult to use film craft or special effects there.

[Oro13]

I get where you’re coming from, and I’m not arguing in favor of financially supporting filmmakers that knowingly perpetrate violence against animals, merely stating that it happens more often than we’d think in films ( particularly older ones ) and watching them doesn’t condone the behavior anymore than watching Thriller: A Cruel Picture means you are cool with desecrating corpses on camera, or liking Texas Chainsaw Massacre condones using real remains for props and unsafe work conditions for actors ::big grin::

As for not wanting to see these depictions of actual violence towards animals, like I said, I totally understand. But the argument that you’re financially supporting them which, by extension, means you advocate that type of behavior, is moot. They made their money already, and regardless of whether it’s a low budget cannibalsploitation movie or an award winning film that’s considered a classic, the damage is done and they got away with it. As for Cannibal Holocaust, the movie that takes place around these scenes is worth watching if you’re a fan of the genre and wanted to see where it all started. As well a seeing one of the most effective and disturbing horror films of all time.

[Sculpt]

I get what you're saying. And I certainly wouldn't make crazy assertions that people who see The Twilight Zone support actors getting decapitated by helicopters. I'm trying to be very plain about the choices people make.
... But the argument that you’re financially supporting them which, by extension, means you advocate that type of behavior, is moot. They made their money already, and regardless of whether it’s a low budget cannibalsploitation movie or an award winning film that’s considered a classic, the damage is done and they got away with it. ...
If I understand you correctly, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one point. Producers and financiers are watching profits. They can see how often Cannibal Holocaust (CH) is purchased and rented... it's available at Amazon.com. No, you can't fund the film via time machine to 1980, rather, of course I'm talking about future films. More specifically, if they see there's audience dollars for scripted animal killing (for food or whatever, like in CH), it will increase the likelihood that more films like that get produced.

As far as a know, there isn't anything illegal (today) in Cannibal Holocaust, except possibly the shot pig (not sure). So yes, your current dollars will influence future films. I don't really think that's debatable. I agree it's difficult to isolate animal killing when CH is about more than that, but it's easy to make the case it was significant. Not purchasing it for that reason has a real-life effect on future films. I think you can argue the level of influence, but not that there isn't any.

[Oro13]

If I understand you correctly, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one point. Producers and financiers are watching profits. They can see how often Cannibal Holocaust (CH) is purchased and rented... it's available at Amazon.com. No, you can't fund the film via time machine to 1980, rather, of course I'm talking about future films. More specifically, if they see there's audience dollars for scripted animal killing (for food or whatever, like in CH), it will increase the likelihood that more films like that get produced.

As far as a know, there isn't anything illegal (today) in Cannibal Holocaust, except possibly the shot pig (not sure). So yes, your current dollars will influence future films. I don't really think that's debatable. I agree it's difficult to isolate animal killing when CH is about more than that, but it's easy to make the case it was significant. Not purchasing it for that reason has a real-life effect on future films. I think you can argue the level of influence, but not that there isn't any.

I would tend to agree with you if we were talking about a more recent film or one that was still in theatres, but we’re talking about an almost 40 year old movie that’s bounced from one distributor to another and comes in various cuts
( many of which feature the content in question removed ). Also, for as vapid and adept at missing the point as Hollywood production companies are, I seriously doubt even THEY would look at increased sales/box office for a film like Cannibal Holocaust/Cannibal Ferox/Jungle Holocaust/etc., and all they’d take away from it is “ We need moar movies with senseless animal killing in them, by George, that’s what people want to see!!!” ::wink::

If anything, I’m assuming they’d think making a modern entry in the cannibal genre might be lucrative, right up until they let Eli Roth stick the same annoying douchbags from Cabin Fever in it ( plus his wife ) and it ends up being a dumpster fire with nice cinematography. Besides, the amount of fines and bad press ( and possible jail time ) from something like animal cruelty or death these days, is the kind of thing that tanks studios and torpedos careers. No one would touch it, let alone get the green light/funding to film it. Ask Cimino if it was worth dynamiting that horse in Heaven’s Gate.

I understand the concept of voting with your dollar, and I agree that we should not support media that features immoral/illegal content, but in regards to a 40 year old found footage cannibalsploitation flick that ran the gamut of censorship/bans/controversy before most people these days were even aware of it’s existence, I don’t think renting/purchasing it ( edited or not ) sends a message to anyone beyond “ that person must like cannibal flicks with wildly innapropriate, yet beautiful scores. “ Just my opinion though.

[Anthropophagus]

I`m a meat eater and know how we get the food to our tables but i do not agree with prolonged agony of animal suffering.The turtle scene is horrendous as is the one with the rat thing,not sure what it was.Gutting it while alive is barbaric no matter what your viewpoints are.Kill the animal with a blow to the head but never let it suffer.

That said i love Holocaust but always fast forward those scenes.

[X¤MurderDoll¤X]

the vhs movies
the den
rec
creep

most found footage stuff is forgettable tho