Beautiful Horror Movies

This set of movies are all built around the idea that they’re a treat for the eyes and ears. Even if you don’t like the plot or characters, you can still enjoy the visuals and sound. They’re all undoubtedly horror, but still beautiful.

Food for for thought: how does beauty play with fear in these stories? Do you find that auditory and visual richness enhances the horror, or detracts from it? Would the addition of more senses, if it were possible for you to experience smells, textures, or tastes from the movies, add to this? I think it’s interesting that all of these movies focus on women, and that all but one focus on matters of sexuality and reproduction–what do you think of that? Are there other movies you’d add to this list? Why?

A skeleton pacing back and forth.

Trapped!

For this list, all of the movies focus on people being trapped in one place. The main plot of the movie takes place in a single room, building, or in one case train. Solid walls, locked doors, and close quarters keep the protagonists of these movies up close and personal with the horror. Sometimes there’s a chance of escape. Sometimes there’s not.

Food for thought: How does a constrained environment affect the tension of the movie? Three movies on this list involve children at risk. Does the age of the characters play a role in how tense a story is? How? Two of the movies take place at uncertain times of day, one takes place at night, and two take place in broad daylight. Does this affect the tension of a situation of a trap to you? Would these movies be more tense if there was a greater chance of escape, or would it make them less tense? Are there any movies you’d add to this list? Why?

A line of glittery red skull-and-crossbones symbols.

Horror Movies: Practical Effects Party

This list is one of movies that use primarily or entirely practical effects to make their monsters. CGI is used for enhancement, not as the primary vehicle of creation. In these movies, you could actually reach out and touch whatever fantastical creature is threatening the hapless protagonists. Here, I’ve tried to avoid a lot of the better-known practical effects movies (like Pan’s Labyrinth, The Thing, or Alien) to focus on things you’re less likely to have seen, or that used shoestring budgets to work monstrous miracles.

Food for thought: When practical effects are used instead of CGI, how does this affect the tone of the movie? Do actors behave differently when working with something physically present beside them? Why would a movie maker choose practical effects over CGI, or vice versa? In movies made before CGI was available or refined, do you think that affected the types of stories a movie could easily tell? Would decent CGI have improved any of the above movies? Do you find, as I do, that even poorly-made practical effects draw you further into a movie–or do they jar you out of it? What other movies would you add to this list?

A linear cluster of red and yellow blinking eyes.

Stop Motion Horror Movies

On this list, each movie either fully uses or incorporates elements of stop motion. If you’ve never heard of it, this is a technique of moving objects in tiny increments and taking photos at each stage to create a series of individual frames which, when put together, make the object appear to move. It can be as simple as toy dinosaurs moving around or as complex as an entire world. In horror, it can make the impossible possible.

Food for thought: Why has stop motion endured as a medium for so long? How does it affect monsters made with it? Are there some things it’s better at doing than others? How has stop motion changed from The Haunted Hotel in 1907 to Mad God in 2020? What hasn’t changed in that time? If a movie that uses primarily CGI for its monsters–like A Quiet Place or Annihilation–had used stop motion instead, how would that have affected the movie? Do you think you’d still like it? What movies would you add to this list?

A line of dancing cartoon sheet ghosts.

Horror Movies: Landscapes

In all of these movies, the horror is either the landscape itself, or an integral part of the landscape. If it’s an independent threat, it doesn’t just happen to dwell in a particular place, but is intrinsic part of the place.

Some questions for thought: Although all of these use the landscape as the key threat of the story, there’s always a more active threat to pursue the characters. Why? What changes without an active threat? All of these movies, and some other landscape horror movies like Annihilation, use a non-urban setting for their threatening landscape. Why? What does this say about what we consider to be landscapes? If an urban area counts as a landscape, then what kinds of active threats can be considered integral to them? Is Silent Hill a landscape-based horror movie? What about A Nightmare on Elm Street? I’d personally count it as a landscape horror movie, but what would you think about including Candyman on this list?

A cartoon mummy walking in place. A skull with its hand pointing right and red text reading 'next'.