Horror films I wish I hadn't seen...
Following an anticlimactic cop-out of a “finale” to The Walking Dead last month, I withdrew paid viewership from FOX channel and made some changes to the cable plan. So it was by accident that I channel surfed and landed on CI Network, where real life crimes are recounted and analyzed in edu-documentary style.
Three weeks in and programs such as The First 48, an excellent FBI Criminal Pursuit, and raw-footage centric Real Interrogations have quickly become weekly must-sees. Suffice to say, the hubstation HD is working extra hard and recording on a daily basis.
Apart from real life crimes being darker [thus scarier] than Hollywood fiction or run-of-the-mill soap horror, I could only imagine because they appeal to the couch detective/psychoanalyst in me. But when a random Google search on one of CI’s featured outlaws, Mario Centobie ran up a fascinating article on Cracked.com, I was a little alarmed — at myself — I ended up searching for all 6 parts because they are actually interesting to read.
Why are these urban tales intriguing? Is there a correlation between them and being a horror fan? Also, why hasn’t Hollywood caught up with a film based on Glen Tucker, the plastic surgeon who mutilated his patients for gratification?
According to pop-psych 101, addiction to horror can be explained by the excitation-transfer theory. Basically, some of us are motivated to seek out stimulus that produce pleasurable psychochemical effects — we need to obtain a certain “high” so as to feel satisfied. Therefore, when watching something scary generates adrenaline; the tendency to want scarier, even more terrifying experiences again and again to satisfy the craving steadily increases. I wonder if the same theory explains video game, nicotine or even exercise and gyming addictions. But I digress.
This entry really came about after seeing a backlash on Sightseers at various review sites and IMDB. Some mentioned how morbid, gory or graphic it is. And instantly, the first thing that came to mind was, “Well if you think this is bad, then you really don’t want to see [insert name of *beep* up horror film]…”
There are many variations of so-called frightening or terrifying films. Granted negative affect is a subjective concept because what scares one may be vanilla for another, there are certain films imo that cross the line from being plain horror to unforgettable disturbia. The kind that not only raises chemical high, but invokes feverish dread that lingers because something about it activated vivid long-term memory.
I’m not talking about stock horror or positively mundane torture porn with the likes of SAW, Hostel, Scream, Vacancy, The Sixth Sense or Paranormal Activity. But the kind that sometimes I really wish I hadn’t seen in the first place. Disturbing, nightmarish stuff [not necessarily all supernatural] that leave a mark long after all credits are done rolling. For example, Ju-on: The Grudge (according to my friend Micah, an organic badass) has forever changed the way he looks at the bedroom ceiling. It has created the same effect for looking under a creaky bed.
You get the drift.
cinemainterruptus.wordpress.com
Three weeks in and programs such as The First 48, an excellent FBI Criminal Pursuit, and raw-footage centric Real Interrogations have quickly become weekly must-sees. Suffice to say, the hubstation HD is working extra hard and recording on a daily basis.
Apart from real life crimes being darker [thus scarier] than Hollywood fiction or run-of-the-mill soap horror, I could only imagine because they appeal to the couch detective/psychoanalyst in me. But when a random Google search on one of CI’s featured outlaws, Mario Centobie ran up a fascinating article on Cracked.com, I was a little alarmed — at myself — I ended up searching for all 6 parts because they are actually interesting to read.
Why are these urban tales intriguing? Is there a correlation between them and being a horror fan? Also, why hasn’t Hollywood caught up with a film based on Glen Tucker, the plastic surgeon who mutilated his patients for gratification?
According to pop-psych 101, addiction to horror can be explained by the excitation-transfer theory. Basically, some of us are motivated to seek out stimulus that produce pleasurable psychochemical effects — we need to obtain a certain “high” so as to feel satisfied. Therefore, when watching something scary generates adrenaline; the tendency to want scarier, even more terrifying experiences again and again to satisfy the craving steadily increases. I wonder if the same theory explains video game, nicotine or even exercise and gyming addictions. But I digress.
This entry really came about after seeing a backlash on Sightseers at various review sites and IMDB. Some mentioned how morbid, gory or graphic it is. And instantly, the first thing that came to mind was, “Well if you think this is bad, then you really don’t want to see [insert name of *beep* up horror film]…”
There are many variations of so-called frightening or terrifying films. Granted negative affect is a subjective concept because what scares one may be vanilla for another, there are certain films imo that cross the line from being plain horror to unforgettable disturbia. The kind that not only raises chemical high, but invokes feverish dread that lingers because something about it activated vivid long-term memory.
I’m not talking about stock horror or positively mundane torture porn with the likes of SAW, Hostel, Scream, Vacancy, The Sixth Sense or Paranormal Activity. But the kind that sometimes I really wish I hadn’t seen in the first place. Disturbing, nightmarish stuff [not necessarily all supernatural] that leave a mark long after all credits are done rolling. For example, Ju-on: The Grudge (according to my friend Micah, an organic badass) has forever changed the way he looks at the bedroom ceiling. It has created the same effect for looking under a creaky bed.
You get the drift.
cinemainterruptus.wordpress.com
List activity
614 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
8 titles