Thanks for the heaRAB up.
Did you know there is a SAW IV coming out in October?
I only really watch the SAW movies for the gore factor, and the sillyness.
I saw 28 Weeks Later this weekend just gone, and I quite liked the movie. I will not ruin the movie for you though by saying too much about it. A lot of people always tell me to stay off some movies, but I prefer to make a judgment for myself.
I think with Hellraiser, that is the whole point. The movie was made at a time when companies didn't rely on CGI to make their monsters, they used special FX done by hand. I think they were just starting to use FX on computers shortly after, which is when I think they made the change from being a decent, scary movie to a little bit over the top.
A fine example is Alien, which has been mentioned many times on this thread. The first two aliens movies (as far as I know) didn't use CGI for the ALIENS themselves, just suits and very sweaty people inside them. I am sure they started to use CGI in the third movie, albeit a tiny amount, and that's when the franchise seemed to go downhill. Look at Alien: Resurrection. It bombed in my opinion. I think the same can be applied to the STAR WARS movies (not horror, I know, but it makes a point), where the first three didn't rely on CGI of today and came off strong, while the new Star Wars movies seemed weak by comparison.
I think that's why I liked Dog Soldiers.
So called "fright movies", which have big claims on the DVD packaging or tagline come across as something else because they spend too much time teasing and
trying to scare us all with dark corners, and noises upstairs. I suppose no one can define a "real" scare movie, but Descent is certainly in there, because it kept you in suspense the whole time without insulting my intelligence.