MovieChat Forums > The Remains (2016) Discussion > Sign of a bad horror movie

Sign of a bad horror movie

posted 8 years ago by lazarillo
3 replies | jump to latest

There is often a clear sign that a horror is going to be bad, or at least not so good (which is the case here). First, they cast a really "hot" girl in the movie even if she is really not quite right for the part--the actress, Brooke Butler, who plays the "teenager" in this is actually about 27 in real life. Then you have her ALMOST get naked several times, in non-nude shower scenes (check) or non-nude (or in this case interrupted) sex scenes. The message this always sends is 1. that your horror movie is so weak that you need to distract from the horror elements with completely gratuitous "nude scenes" and 2. that your horror movies is so low-rent (or so PG-13) that you can't even include ACTUAL gratuitous nudity.

This minor element does not GUARANTEE a horror movie is bad (i.e. this one is fair to middling and there are a few movies with "gratuitous NON-nude scenes, like "Contracted", that might actually be decent), but it is always a BAD sign

"Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream"

[–] MagJ100 8 years ago

Hahaha, sooo true, if you look at the 70's/80's slashers like Friday the 13th, with all the nudity in them, they were suppose to be "B" horror flicks, that was their charm.

Weird that I liked this movie, I'm picky usually with my favorite genre, but it honestly kept us entertained. I've seen MUCH worse horror movies
made in the past 10 years. I can't stand the 'found footage' or 'shaky cam' films. I never got the appeal with Blair Witch, yawn.

[–] Henahey41 8 years ago

I like this movie as well

[–] heyteegs (1207) 4 years ago

It was a dull script with unlikable characters.