Horror is like comedy. Woody Allen's comedy is going to be very different from Ben Stiller's comedy which is going to be different from Adam Sandler's comedy which is going to be different from Judd Apatow's comedy. They're all comedy, but they're all very different types and you can enjoy all of them. Horror is the same way.
Sometimes mortals can be more horrible than monsters.
God, people say 'Black Mirror' was horrible - it's nothing compared to the stuff that happens in 'Grimms' Fairy Tales.' It's mind-bending.
Psychological horror is more interesting to me than the explicitly physical.
The Exorcist doesn't get me, but The Omen does.
At the end of the day, a "jump scare" scares the audience for the moment. Slow burn horror ideas scare people forever.
When people make a horror movie, it's a few months. This is years of horror, that these guys have to play out. It just hit me and I was like, "Wow, that's heavy."
There are a few images in 'Exorcist 3' that scared me - people crawling on ceilings, etc. - but nothing beats the original. Even the book scared me to death.
Horror is always aware of its cause; terror never is. That is precisely what makes terror terrifying.
Today's ghost stories tend to be much more physically or psychologically violent. The Victorians were much more leisurely about what might or could happen, building suspense layer by layer rather than punching you in the face.
It is a tribute to the peculiar horror of contemporary life that it makes the worst features of earlier times -- the stupefaction of the masses, the obsessed and driven lives of the bourgeoisie -- seem attractive by comparison.
I'll tell you - what I can tell you is that I know when I saw 'Zodiac' and then again when I saw 'No Country For Old Men,' there was a moment in each of my viewing experiences where I went, 'Dammit, this is scarier than 'Silence Of The Lambs.''
