Honestly, I didn't see this movie as a horror. I cry at the ending...its the lead characters longing that I suppose is so scary. To feel so utterly alone in a confusing world.
On that note...maybe it is scary. But, not in the traditional sense.
Hmm...
The problem is that the concept of 'horror' has become so narrowed-down that films like this don't really qualify - but it deserves to. Horror primarily deals with Fear, and that's exactly what this film explores - Anna's fears of parental abandonment or paternal violence, that kind of thing. I think the term 'horror' is a lot more broad than people generally acknowledge. Listen to people's memories of the death of Bambi's mother and you'll realise that for those five minutes at least, Bambi was a horror film too!
shareit was in the horror section at the video store where i live.
"Up yours with a twirlin' lawnmower" - A Nightmare on Elm Street
Personally, I think it's one of the best British horror films of the last 20 years. Nothing we've done since is near as scary. I saw this when I was about 18, a few years after it had come out. Hadn't heard of it, nor knew anything about it, just saw it on Channel 4 one night. It gave me and my brother nightmares for days! Great perfomrances from the kids, shame Charlotte gave up on acting.
shareWell, I agree that visually it was a great film and it did have some scenes in it that were a bit disturbing and made me think. But it really wasn't scary.
"Oh God! I accidentally shot Marvin in the face!"-Vince Vega
horror film does not mean that it has to be gory, bloody and sick to be classified as horror flick.
This is the horror flick (well, part of it) that deals with human nature and one of the major human emotions = fear.
awsome movie btw
Born free, Live free...
I agree I didn't find it scary whatsoever, and I am always taking up for the underrated disregarded type movies. I prefer the psychological to the gory but this one just didnt scare me at all. I did find it interesting and as a kid I would've loved it, but just a cool movie but not really horror to me.
shareI don't think it's really fair to the concept of "Genre" then to just consider anything a particular Genre based on a couple emotions a film is able to evoke for a scene or two.
The whole argument is sort-of killed in your last sentence. Obviously Bambi isn't a Horror film, but it is suggested that, because of a couple key scenes and moments that are rather intense, some may have felt it as a bit horrific at those given moments. If you think about it, this notion could actually be parody material for the opposite argument.
Because you could very well reverse it and say any movie in the Horror genre that illustrates a dramatic moment or two could be swapped out of the Horror genre and placed into the Drama.
So now Poltergeist and Candyman and A Nightmare on Elm Street and The People Under the Stairs are all Dramas just because one can find a couple (or a few) moments of Drama in each film.
And now, on the flipside, we can take Steel Magnolias and Ghost and Schindler's List and Look Who's Talking and place them in the Horror categories because they all have some scenes with scary, intense moments.
Obviously we would not do this. Horror films are horror films even if they feature moments of genuine drama, while Drama films are drama films even if they feature moments of intensity or scariness. In the case of a movie like Paperhouse, clearly it is one of those films that really cannot be placed into any particular genre, although it does feature genuine enough elements that could (and perhaps should) find itself in the Horror category.
I think the bottom line is, people are enticed by the idea of the Horror genre so much, that we love it whenever one of the better films could be considered amongst it, especially being a genre that is often desensitized and dismissed as foolish because of the plethora of bad movies released under it. When we have a chance to include something so unique, so solid or well crafted into such an enticing, intriguing, and intense category as the Horror one, we argue for it and loathe the idea of others telling us that it does not belong simply because it isn't of the traditional cheap scares variety.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way
>>>I don't think it's really fair to the concept of "Genre" then to just consider anything a particular Genre based on a couple emotions a film is able to evoke for a scene or two.
Indeed - but I wasn't saying that. You can certainly suggest that my mention of Bambi is not relevant, but the reason I cite it is because I think it illustrates that feelings of horror can be evoked in a number of different ways, many of which do not conform to a set of stereotyped notions of what constitutes 'horror'.
>>>Obviously Bambi isn't a Horror film, but it is suggested that, because of a couple key scenes and moments that are rather intense, some may have felt it as a bit horrific at those given moments. If you think about it, this notion could actually be parody material for the opposite argument.
No. Because, I'm not actually saying that Bambi can be considered a horror film on those grounds, only that it contains moments of horror, despite *NOT* being a horror film.
I think if we can illustrate what 'horror' is by identifying the ways in which it manifests in stories, then we are closer to being able to meaningfully identify stories which primarily concern themselves with horror itself. Further, my point is that these days people seem to have narrower and narrower definitions of what constitutes 'horror' (it didn't scare me, there was no gore, it was a love story). I emphatically do not believe the reduction in understanding should be allowed to redefine horror as a genre - or, as you point out, allow cultural snobs to pretend something is not part of a genre they haven't properly understood or appreciated.
I do of course realise that it's a mistake to think that films can be neatly marked as being one thing or another in any case, since even if many can we will soon encounter those who defy easy classification - but I also think it's useful to define what horror is, and what themes and emotions and concepts we fell ARE consistent to the genre.
Apart from anything else, I have a fondness for 'horror that isn't horror' - i.e. stories that are not of the horror genre but which contain moments that you know to be horror, or gothic, when you experience them.
I think a lesson I got in this a long time ago came from the film 'Mad Max'. I read a review which described it as 'gothic', which made no sense to me. When I later learned what the word 'Gothic' (as a genre) actually meant, I could see the accuracy of the term... that was kind of liberating in a way...
Some films can fit in more than one category, or simply defy description. I can understand why this film is pigeonholed in the horror section, but I think that is somewhat misleading. It has touches of horror, IMO.
The movie is a horror film. Just because it's not a traditional horror plotline doesn't mean it's not horror. Fearnet knows that and so do a lot of horror fans. This is right up there with the best horror films, including Psycho and Halloween.
NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!
[deleted]
The movie has some elements of mild horror but it's more fantasy and adventure than anything else.
shareThe way something like The Dead Zone is horror.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan