What makes a truly brutal, disturbing horror movie?
 

Me and my horror addicted buddies were discussing this. We all agreed that its not OTT gore that makes something truly disturbing. What is your opinion on this?

the atmosphere and powerful direction.

I would agree that OTT Gore does not make a disturbing film. Many factors do make a disturbing horror film. For example: settings, actors/actress, sound, music. Gore used properly with good timing can add to the effect but there is a lot to it and I am only a mere film watcher lol I guess I have too many points that I think make a disturbing horror film.

This should be an interesting discussion. Looking forward to hearing other points so I can get mine in line lol.

Mothman you always have the words im looking for lol.

GOOD topic... Subject matter weighs very heavily. A lot fo the power in Man on Fire was the fear that the little girl was dead. on top of that, the fear that something bad had happened, the kinds of things no little kid should ever have to endure.

Suggestion is often more powerful than showing. The end of se7en would have been cheesy if they had shown what was in thie box, but was SO much more effective just seeing the look of horror on Morgan Freeman's face, and Brad Pitt's breakdown.

I think the main villiain has a very big part in it. I always find relentless sadism very disturbing, which is why I was genuinely effected by Wolf Creek, where the main villian is nothing short of vile.

I definatly agree there. Its all about the atmosphere (thanks mothman hehe) of the film, you can feel that something truely terrible is happening/ about to happen but it holds back just a little to leave you, well scare to know what is being held back. (I hope im putting this across right lol).

However I would say gore used at times really puts the message across just how brutal the killer is. You can go the whole film hearing and knowing the killer is bad but just one good gore scene and you have the visual knowing and you are disturbed.

Im not good with writing what I mean lol I hope you can all understand.

Yes I would agree with this also. The actor/actress playing the villian is important. However it is up to the rest of the film to portray this also.

suffering and pleading bothers me. like the scenes in Hellraiser where the hammer vitims plead for their life and just get smashed anyways.

My thoughts exactly.

Well written, well acted characters play the most important part...Devil's Rejects comes straight to mind.

Yea the pleading does just make you want to yell Stop just stop it. It makes you think, makes the characters more real I guess. Then when the victims are killed anyway you really do hate the villian character and even thought you know its a film you think how could anyone do that. Least thats what I think at times lol if im just talking crazy tell me to shut up lol.

I saw The Devils Rejects last night. What a disturbing movie, man.

you dislike the film?

im not a huge fan of any of the firefly characters, i enjoy Bill Mosely though.

the best character in the movie was easily the sheriff though. my favortite scene was when he was just looking in the mirror rehearsing what he was gonna say to them when he met them. awesome scene. good actor.

The thing that really freaks me out is all the people that idolize Sheriff Wydell. Great character, but man...he wasnt any better than the Fireflys. Look at the IMDB boards, so many people put him on a pedastel - methinks they missed the point...

the general imdb forum member is an absolute idiot.

...................................

how was he no better than the fireflys? he seeked revenge for his brother. sure, he could have been a little nicer, but the dude was a bad ass. its what i liked about the film...theres no good guys. everyone's damn mean.

SPOILERS








I always thought a really powerful, disturbing scene was the showdown between Gene Hackman & Leonardo DiCaprio in The Quick & the Dead. When Leo gets shot aqnd is bleeding on the ground, realizing he's going to die always really got to me.

The end of Dead Man

SPOILERS

Johnny Depp is sent out into the river to die in a canoe, an indian ritual type thing. but while hes dying, he sees the man whos been tracking him down approach his good indian friend from behind. he is too close to death to call out or warn the indian, so he watches them both kill eacthother, and there was nothing he could do about it. then he passes away. that just really sucks, you know?

this is only my opinion from my expieriences....

1. you must have creepy villians: must be sadistic,yet be smart to set up deaths etc.

2. emotion: make the audiance put them selves in their position,that will truly make a film scary

3. gore: you cant just splatter shit on the walls...the way you kill,torture,maim a actor will really hit home

4.story:dont be like hostel,make a smart,interesting,scary story....think SAW...the saw movies had great stories that came all together at the end

5.characters:you must have interesting characters...if the audiance likes them they will be attached and when they get butchered in comes in the emotion

thats the best i can do if i ever made a film i would focus on those 5 things

What makes a film disturbing is when you feel you are in the hands of an irresponsible filmmaker - one who takes a horrific situation (which most of us aficionados consider fun escapism) and pushes the pain/fear/suffering into extremely realistic territory.

And long, subjective takes, not quick loud edits, bring that sense of verite to life.

totally. unknown actors help a ton.

I think showing anything that makes people realize how depraved and disgusting their fellow man can be does the trick.

Atmosphere and mood are one of the biggest parts. The way high tension was filmed, the atmosphere was awesome. I was sitting on the edge of my chair. The music was perfect as well.
But also to be disturbing there has to be the element of reality. Thinking this could happen is the bit that disturbs you. This is what made the August Undergrounds and Irrevrsable disturbing.
Freddy v's Jason however doesnt bring this ;)

Killing children and cute animals are always big ones. I liked the way a kid was used in the original Assault on Preceinct 13 and animals in Equilibrium.

Yeah but it really depends on what it's used for. In AoP13 it was used to create the story, to give the father a need for revenge so the gang could be incited to hunt him down. If it's a simple slasher flick and they show a kid get killed in a more dramatic way (the big eyes, the sappy music) than an adult then yeah, it's just the lack of good ideas. I think the problem with killing children (in movies) is that they treat it differently than the adults. If they showed true equality in the brutal slaughter of adults AND kids I think it would be more disturbing and less cheap emotional manipulation.

That's why it has such an impact, it's the closest thing they can show comparable to killing an angel.

Yep, just using something proven to draw from the audience the emotion you want instead of trying to develop something new and powerful.

I think that it needs to have a sense of reality, which is why Last House On The Left was disturbing...

unexpected twists

Jesus freaks. There is simply nothing scarier.

lmao thats a good one you gotta have the bible bashers in there.......especially the ones with the squint eye and greasy hair trying to convert you AAAAARRRRRRR get off my property ya bastards im happy worshipping the cereal box on my kitchen table i dont need a new god! :p

That's what my movie DAMNED is all about:D

and apparently genital torture :)

Simple answer, something that a particular viewer finds brutal and disturbing.

Hostel for example, I think it's dumb for the most part and then decent for the last 25 minutes and anything in it that was supposed to be percieved as brutal or disturbing I personally found to be mild.

On the other hand I find Requiem for A Dream to be extremely brutal and disturbing while someone else may think it's dumb as I think Hostel is.

All depends on individual perception.