2 questions in one here.

Firstly just seen the movie chaos that has a heck of a lot of violence and two relativly extended and graphic rape and murder scenes it also has a high percentage of violence.

And yet movies like the Klansman get heavily censored even though their violence is comparitvly mild and the rape scenes are a lot less graphic and do not end in murder..

So do movies get away with a heck of a lot more in the way of being able to dipict violence ect and get freed from heavy censorship if they get themselves defind as horror movies.?

Question 2 is related to question 1.
The other thing I noticed is movies like Chaos saw and hostal ect do not seem like horror movies to me.
To me horror movies are movies that contain supernatural themes monsters zombies vampires ect.

So what qualfies a movie as being a horror movie both officially and in your individual opinions.

First, you're going to get made fun of for writing your title like that. There's a lot of literary conservationlists on this forum.

Good point. Hostel was a very dirty, nasty picture (in the theater - I think there's even more on the DVD). Yet, we always here about those 'shock' scenes in dramas, where someone takes a shot to the face, and the MPAA forces an edit. For some retarded reason, I can't come up with any examples. But I always here about this stuff on DVD commentaries.

You get away with even more if you're defined as Exploitation.

Y6es th7ey d9o.

The odd spelling or grammar mistake is understandable (most people fall victim to those), but this person didn't even make the effort to proofread his thread title and remove the two conspicuous typos. That's just dismissive of our time and discernment, and the thread should be treated accordingly.

Maybe the 5 is supposed to stand for an S and the 4 is an R.

It makes more sense as "Do movies gert away with more if they arse defined as horror."

Wait, no it doesn't.

So does he think Se7en falls into this horror catagory????

--John

thi3s thr5ead ha8s pote6ntial!

Th1s thr3ad 1s Hors35h1t!!!

Se7en

What I don't understand is when a movie like Hostel gets good reviews for a "horror" flick, and then its sequel is awfully reviewed by critics, when in fact the sequel is better, has more depth, more buildup, just as entertaining (for a horror flick).

Maybe the same can be said for the Saw flicks. Do Saw fans or critics really believe that the first one is really so much better, better made, better story, than the sequels?

4ast & 4urious?

M!ch6el C8ine was in "T9e D8rk Kn1ght" as well as "Bl8me !t 0n R!0".

So says the guy called "Major Joeze"!

Tr2n?

arse defined as horror? I'll see that!

Well. I have to say, I have seen some horrible arse in my time, unfortunately, lol.

Yes, although people seem to be divided on Saw 2 as the best in the series.

explain the 4/5, I know people do that to replace letters. but letters are you replacing here? lol

Saw II was the reason I gave up on the series.

Excellent hidden reference Usanuk!!! I thought I was the only one who knew this:

The 4 and 5 are a hidden reference to the horror film Horror of Dracula, which came out in the year 1945. Actor Glenn Strange (who played the Frankenstein monster)was 45 when he made the film...it took 45 days to shoot and there were 45 actors with speaking parts in the film.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Welcome back Danol!

Errr, I think you mean House of Dracula... or is that H0u53 0f Dr4cu14?