Horror Movie - 28 Days Later

[scullars]

In light of the thread about how many people are desensitized to horror these days, I wonder whether anyone can be unsettled, at least. I must be more sensitive then most. For example, a few years back, I literally jumped when a ghost casually flitted across the screen in The Sixth Sense, taking me by surprise. Just recently on cable, I caught the movie 28 Days Later, which actually inspired a nightmare. And after the movie was over, I found myself staring warily into dark corners while outside a pair of running feet set my pulse racing.

For a quick synopsis, a rage virus overtakes London when animal rights advocates release an infected chimpanzee, thinking they are doing a good thing. Unfortunately for them, they are the first casualties of a man-made virus that infects and turns a human into a raging maniac within a matter of 10 to 20 seconds. A few scenes later, the protagonist awakens from a coma after London has become a ghost town, and finds out the hard way from several survivors just what has happened.

The "zombies" are indeed frightening, as is the premise. Faces distorted with rage and maybe hunger, bloodshot eyes, and the agility to nearly outrace their prey, these creatures made for some harrowing scenes.

Has any other movie ever caught you guys by surprise? I mean, yes, it is harder to be frightened these days, but has something in a movie or book just unsettled you, if not necessarily frightened you?

[maestrowork]

If you guys are going to discuss plot, can you put a SPOILER ALERT at the beginning of your post?

Thanks,

[scullars]

Oops, sorry. Although, the synopsis doesn't give away the story's twist. I've found similar synopses in the reviews of the movie.

[three seven]

I'm afraid to say that I watched The Grudge very much in the manner of an eight year old girl.

[Anatole Ghio]

The whole issue of desensitization is an interesting one. It is true that over time, one becomes less afraid of old icons. It is a natural physiological reaction, and one that therapists use to help people overcome irrational fears.

However, the belief that one is thus less afraid in general is a mistake, I believe. One is just less afraid of the old, familiar things. If something new is presented, or something old is given a fresh spin, it is just as easy for our buttons to be pushed as when we were not desensitized. Fear is a primal reaction, after all, so once the frame of the unfamliar or the unknown is created, that primal response of fight or flight and the adreniline kick behind it becomes uncovered.

I find myself getting scared by a lot of the asian films lately, for a couple of reasons.

1) Cultural: already there is a difference is the cultural meaning behind the tropes being used, and in the style of presentation. They tend to spend more time on each shot, so the pace is a little slower at points, which helps to develop a false sense of security and lower ones guard. There is also a strong emphasis on famliy and society, so themes of alienation and honor are very important. This all helps to develop the feelong of being in an unfamilar place, coming from a western perspective.

2) Many of these film makers have either gone to film school, or developed through television, so their skills are better than some schlock director. Ju-on, The Ring, The Eye... all are technically well shot and composed.

The Ring is one of the scariest movies I have ever seen. Ju-on was one of the most unsettling. The Eye was a well made film that had a couple of scenes that are scary enough to show no one is completely desensitized.

As far a 28 days later, all that has been given away of the plot is like the first 5 minutes... so you can watch it and the movie isn't spoiled. I really liked 28 days later... only a couple of the scenes were really horrifying... the whole movie was more unsettling, and I really responded to the existential undertone to the film (this is a motif Danny Boyle uses in in films, protagonists struggling with an existentail dilemma).

So I do agree getting the scare is harder in our current culture... just not impossible.

- Anatole

[scullars]

By the way, The Ring 2 (correct title?) opens today. Salon has already reviewed it. I remember liking the laid back mood of the first; it wasn't out to give you the jumps with every scene. It let some of the suspense build up. Also, the camera work was interesting.

Another thing about 28 Days Later is how near it is to being a possibility, not so much the turning into a raving maniac, but how quickly we could be overtaken by a man-made viral pandemic.

[jdkiggins]

Another thing about 28 Days Later is how near it is to being a possibility, not so much the turning into a raving maniac, but how quickly we could be overtaken by a man-made viral pandemic.

I thought I saw this, but after your short synopsis, I'm not sure now. I don't go to the movies much, I wait until they are placed on cable's ON Demand. I think my brain has lost a few cells the past couple days, I recall seeing 28 Days Later in the listing, but I don't recall the description you've given. Hmmm. I'm outta here to see if it's still listed. :)

Joanne

[maestrowork]

28 Days was good -- did you see the alternate ending? But the best horror last year was the remake of Dawn of the Dead. Wow. I almost peed my pants.

[Ivonia]

28 Days was good -- did you see the alternate ending? But the best horror last year was the remake of Dawn of the Dead. Wow. I almost peed my pants.

Bah, I hated the Dawn of the Dead remake. Too many flat characters (honestly, there were maybe 3-4 characters you were even concerned about in it, and I didn't understand exactly how the security guard chief went from being a total jerk to a total nice guy, it just sort of happened), and they broke the "zombies are slow" rule, yet kept the "hordes of zombies" rule, making the zombies less scary overall and more of a comedy (I was laughing when I saw people who were slow or what not suddenly gain super speed when they turned into a zombie lol. Maybe athletes should take what the zombies have in them instead of all those supplements hehe).

What made the original Dawn scary with the tons of zombies was the fact that you could fight a couple at a time reliably, but when there's like 20 of them, it's a lot harder, if not impossible. So yeah, they were slow, but unless you had infinite ammo (seemed like they did hehe), a high ledge where they couldn't get to you, and a lot of time on your hands, there was no way you were going to be able to kill all those zombies (shame they don't sell flamethrowers or rocket launchers in mall gun stores). But that's just my gripe with it, otherwise it wasn't too bad (I liked how the movie was supposed to take place in Milwaukee, WI, my hometown hehe).

Regarding 28 Days Later, I have to say, that beginning part was pretty freaky. I also liked how they would just kill people if they thought they were infected, unlike other horror movies, where they usually wait until the person turns before killing them. That was definitely something different and cool, because you weren't sure who would survive and who wouldn't. It wasn't the greatest "zombie" movie I've ever seen (I really loved the Night of the Living Dead remake), but it was certainly one of the better ones.

[BlueTexas]

I'm afraid to say that I watched The Grudge very much in the manner of an eight year old girl.

Don't feel like you're alone on this...my husband freaked at the bed scene, right after teasing me for jumping at the first scary scene we see. If I make that noise at 2am, he'll sit bolt upright in bed with a racing heart for a minute before he realizes it was me and whacks me with a pillow :)

[three seven]

I know what you mean. I was walking the dog in the woods the other day and I heard it behind me. Turned out to be a tree creaking in the wind, but it certainly got my attention...

[BlueTexas]

I know what you mean. I was walking the dog in the woods the other day and I heard it behind me. Turned out to be a tree creaking in the wind, but it certainly got my attention...

I wonder why certain noises, like natural sounds such as this one, stay with us and give us chills so much longer than the rest of an experience?

[maestrowork]

Don't feel like you're alone on this...my husband freaked at the bed scene, right after teasing me for jumping at the first scary scene we see. If I make that noise at 2am, he'll sit bolt upright in bed with a racing heart for a minute before he realizes it was me and whacks me with a pillow :)

Really? I was usually very scared at horror movies, but the Grudge bored me. The only good scene, I think, was with the sister and the security camera... that was freaky.

[BlueTexas]

Really? I was usually very scared at horror movies, but the Grudge bored me. The only good scene, I think, was with the sister and the security camera... that was freaky.

That was the best scene to me, especially since one of my hobbies is trying to capture video footage of ghosts. If I saw that in the viewfinder, I'd have my proof but I'd probably be too unnerved to ever view it again.
My husband said the thought the movie scared him because it was so suspenseful. But really, I think he's scared of ghosts :)

[Anatole Ghio]

I haven't seen the American version, but that scene in the Japanese one was one of the truly scary ones in the film... mostly the film was just really unsettling to me. Spolier: The seance near the end also kind of freaked me out, and just the look of the little kid.... brrrr.

- Anatole

[jdkiggins]

The Grudge was one movie I did go to see. I thought the previews were better than the entire movie. The camera scene was pretty good. When the cat jumped out was a scare, but that was only because I was so bored it surprised me.

There were a few other horror movies advertised that I haven't been to see; Saw and Two. Again the previews looked great, but I'll probably wait until they come out on cable.

Joanne

[maestrowork]

I've read some bad reviews of the Ring Two. The first one was excellent, I think. I have a feeling they are having sequelitis again. That's a shame. I don't think Hollywood knows how to make horror films anymore. They have to borrow from Japan (the Ring was actually a Korean film originally) and then ruin it...

Meanwhile, the trailer of Amityville Horror looks really scary...

[CindyBidar]

Re the security camera footage in The Grudge: Am I the only one who finds the erratic movements of "ghosts" in newer movies to be really creepy? The same technique was used in The Ring and Gothika, with equal creepiness, IMO.

[QuietDreamer]

28 Days Later was a good spin on an old idea. Dawn Of The Dead had it's moments, haven't seen the Grudge or the Movie Saw, but from what I read they have very scary concepts. Only a matter of time before I see if they pulled them off well enough to give me the wilies.

Chris

[Ivonia]

The Grudge had its scary moments. Like others here have posted, the security camera scene was pretty scary (particularly when the police chief views it), but the scene just before that (where the girl was in the staircase) freaked me out too, having worked in a similiar building before.

However, her "death" doesn't seem as scary as the Japanese one. Although they both get killed the same way in both versions, the Japanese one doesn't simply have the girl hide in bed.

SPOILER below:

She actually turns on the TV, and the image starts to get really messed up, then the ghost comes from under her bed. (I've done stuff like that before, turning on the tv if I'm really scared, and it doesn't seem to help much unless I'm watching something really funny).





I went and saw Ring Two this weekend. Overall it's kind of scary, but they seem to focus more on scenes that make you jump rather than the creepiness of the atmosphere like the first one. Also:



SPOILER:


Samara walking around the TV doesn't seem as scary this time, probably because we're all used to it now. For some reason too, her face isn't as scary this time around. It was creepy as heck in the first movie (remember her face at the end?), but it seems they forgot to age/waterlog her face like they did her hands.

[Fractured_Chaos]

Zombie movies are just too hokey (IMO) for me to get scared at. Grossed out, maybe. But I just can't seem to suspend disbelief enough to be effected by them too much, and I often find myself laughing at the wrong moments.

Of course, I'll still watch them for the cheese factor.

The original "Night of the Living Dead", is a classic, and I love it. But as for any modern Zombie movies...there is only one that really kicks much a**, and that's "Shawn of the Dead".

THAT is what a zombie movie should be! :ROFL:

Now, "The Grudge" was, IMO very good. Not great...but better than alot of stuff that's come out lately. I just could not get into "The Ring", although, I understand the original Japanese versions are much better.

I don't know...I guess a "horror" movie just doesn't have the time to build up the suspense, and the dread that a book can, and maybe that's why movies categorized as "horror" just don't disturb me that much.

On the other hand (And I know I've mentioned this before), there are certain sci-fi movies that sent chills down my spine, and kept me awake at night.

The last Horror flick that did that to me, was "The Exorcist".

[Hang of Thursdays]

I wonder why certain noises, like natural sounds such as this one, stay with us and give us chills so much longer than the rest of an experience?

Because we evolved from early, arboreal primates. Recognizing and being attuned to natural noises was a crucial part of what kept our ancestors alive, and nowadays -- now that we don't have cheetahs crawling up our oak in the middle of the night -- that particular trait's sort of useless, but it's still there.

[Hang of Thursdays]

The original "Night of the Living Dead", is a classic, and I love it.

I couldn't sleep, one night, so I watched that movie about two years ago, on TCM, for the first time, at about three o'clock in the morning. It didn't help my insomnia any.

The sheer inevitability of all those zombies just coming and coming and coming and coming and not stopping.

SPOILER....



That part, near the end, where the little girl that's been comatose in the basement turns into a zombie creeped me out to no end...Scary scary stuff. The black and white helped immensely.

[Anatole Ghio]

First off, I want to say it's great everyone is posting spoiler alerts in this section, it's just a courtesy that even though you don't get thanked every time you do it, there will always be someone reading it who will be thankful for it.

On to zombies... because of modern technology, cyrogenics, nanobots, viruses, genetic splicing and a thousand other things, these creatures date better than some of the other traditional monsters. I've seen em fast, slow, stupid, intelligent, organized, disorganized... whatever, it all works for me.

About Night of the Living Dead, what I love most about the first is how the ending reflects the time period the movie was made in. So because it's an independant film made in Pittsburg without studio financing, it's already an indie film, and add to that it's themes of racial conflict, social strife, and the futility of resisting society (here I'm reading the zombies as a social body simply to draw up comparisons with other films of the time period that had this theme)... and one could argue this movie was as much an 70's film as any of dozens going from Easy Rider to around Star Wars, where the climate of movies began to change.

I love the way the film ends (semi spoiler), with the step printing instead of regular film. It really brings you out of the movie, which makes it all the more disconcerting and strange.

- Anatole

[scullars]

and the futility of resisting society (here I'm reading the zombies as a social body simply to draw up comparisons with other films of the time period that had this theme)... and one could argue this movie was as much an 70's film as any of dozens going from Easy Rider to around Star Wars, where the climate of movies began to change.



The movie that really showed the futility of resisting society was the 1970's remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.



SPOILER...




When the movie sneakily switches from Donald Sutherland's perspective as protagonist to that of Veronica Cartwright's, it takes you by surprise. You think he's still the hero and lo and behold he's become one of them. The original as well as the 1994 remake with Gabrielle Anwar at least gave you some hope at the end (although it provided an extra chill when the beloved younger brother was overcome and the sister had to take measures to deal with him).

[BlueTexas]

Re the security camera footage in The Grudge: Am I the only one who finds the erratic movements of "ghosts" in newer movies to be really creepy? The same technique was used in The Ring and Gothika, with equal creepiness, IMO.

Don't forget the spider-crawl thing in The Exorcist. That one's high on the creepy scale, too.

[Ivonia]

Don't forget the spider-crawl thing in The Exorcist. That one's high on the creepy scale, too.

Oh man, now that you mentioned that, I just remembered watching Exorcist: The Beginning just recently.



SPOILER:



Although the "demon" looks the same as in the other exorcist movies, they do the spider crawl thing too, although it's on a cave wall/ceiling. Seemed a little too fake because she moves too fast to be somewhat believable, but it's still freaky.

[jdkiggins]

Don't forget the spider-crawl thing in The Exorcist. That one's high on the creepy scale, too.

I do that spider-crawl thing on my bedroom floor when I wake up every morning.
:Jump: :roll: But I'm not that fast. :Shrug:
Joanne

[Torin]

I didn't find "The Grudge" all that scary. There were a few startling scenes, but overall it wasn't all that frightening. My 12 year old daughter wasn't scared, either.

"28 Days Later" was a bit slow going in the beginning, but I rather enjoyed it. I really liked Brendan Gleeson's character, and he's turning up in everything lately. I see he's going to play Mad-Eye Moody in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

I think the last movie that I found remotely scary was "Magic" with Anthony Hopkins, which I saw when it came out in the theatres. In 1978. I was probably easier to scare then. :D

Torin
http://www.cebarrett.com

[maestrowork]

I just saw and reviewed The Ring Two.... let me tell you... I'm easily scared (and the first one scared me). But this one? Nope.

[scullars]

I think the last movie that I found remotely scary was "Magic" with Anthony Hopkins, which I saw when it came out in the theatres. In 1978. I was probably easier to scare then. :D

Torin
http://www.cebarrett.com

I remember reading the book the movie was based on. It was a creepy read, and I was all of maybe ten or eleven. It was around the same time I read Stephen King's The Shining.

[Wandering Sensei]

As I said in another thread, I don't scare that readily. And most horror movies are so hokey and predictable that I'm usually 5 to 10 minutes ahead of them, at least. I'd probably be throwing popcorn at the screen if I didn't have to clean it up later. (I usually wait until they're on cable or On Demand.)

There are some movies and scenes that creeped me out and left me feeling disturbed later. There are some scenes in Lord of the Rings that were creepy, like the when Legolas, Gimli, and Aragorn go into the caves to try to convince the ghost warriors to help them against Sauron and these ghostly hands start grabbing at them. The part with Frodo and Shelob freaked me out, too, but then I'm afraid of spiders. Our first quick glimpse of the eye of Sauron, when Gandalf made to pick up the Ring, was creepy to me, as was our first glimpse of Gollum, when Frodo saw him following them in the Mines of Moria.

The Sixth Sense didn't scare me so much as disturb me. Part of it was because, if you assume that the spirit lives on after physical death, I could convince my mind that this was possible. And no, the first time I saw it, I didn't see the ending coming, even though the clues were there. (Don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it.) The first part of Signs creeped me out. And the Blair Witch Project made me sleep with a light on, and that's unusual for me.

I think what scares me is if I'm convinced that it could possibly happen, if my suspension of disbelief is engaged. And, odd though it sounds, I think the advent of quality special effects has not helped horror movies. Anyone remember The Haunting of Hill House? I think that was the original title. A lot of the creepiness of it comes from the fact that you never see the monster. You see what it can do. You see the effect it has on the characters, but you never see the monster itself. So your imagination has free reign. The first part of Signs was creepy because you didn't know what was out there. But when the aliens show up, I felt deflated, in large part because of the logic holes in the movie that you could drive a semi through.

Real monsters scare me more than celluloid ones. 9/11 had me shaken for weeks afterward. Klebold and Harris and all their ilk scare the bejesus out of me. That was partly because of the nearness of it. My office where I worked then wasn't more than five miles from Columbine when it happened. The Day After and Threads scared me way more than any vampire movie. And I couldn't watch Mommy Dearest. I turned it off after about 20 minutes. Still can't watch it to this day.

I can't watch the Chucky movies, though. I have a phobia about dolls and puppets and that sort of thing. With some exceptions. I like Muppets, for instance.

[WVWriterGirl]

The video game "Resident Evil" and all of its incarnations have given me nightmares in the past. When my boys bought the "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" movie, I didn't watch. Made it about 10 minutes into it and then retired to my trusty computer.

There's another movie that scared the crap outta me - can't remember the name of it now, but it's got Christopher Walken as a fallen angel or something in it. After seeing that, even watching him dance in the "Perfect Weapon" video creeps me out.

WVWG

[Liam Jackson]

Is it possible that while the masses are desensitized, the horror fan willingly suspends not only his disbelief, but also pushes this desensitization into a neutral corner?

I remember a unversity "professional" grad student discussing this same issue years ago. Her take is that people want to be scared by fiction stories and movies, because people know they can ultimately control that type of fear. That's a winnable war.

She also drew a distinction between madness and evil. To paraphrase, evil scares us on a higher level of consciousness, because evil is deliberate. Malice of forethought. Madness, however, scares us on a primal level because its tied to instinct...."always fear what you cannot control," and madness is largely uncontrollable.

Her contention was that people love evil. It may be faceless, but we at least have a hard-target adversary. With madness, you're pretty much up a creek, as it can strike anyone, at anytime, then melt away to the abyss and await the next victim.
Personally, I think the grad student spent too much time analyzing S. King's Danse Macabre.

An old gunnery sergeant once told me "Hell, don't be afraid to be afraid. Just recognize it for what it is. It's a goddamned defense mechanism and it needs oiled once in a while. So get yer *** out there and cut through that goddamned concertina wire, while I spit some 60 ammo three inches over the top of yer pointed little maggot-head."

Looking back on those days from an older, (and hopefully, wiser perspective) I think Gunny had a really good point. :)
Maybe people need a good scare, once in a while. And if that's true, better it come from a paperback than crawling under barbed-wire with that fool shooting at you.

[scullars]

I just re-watched the movie yesterday morning (always a preferable time to watch a scary movie) and I get the true premise. The zombies are a mere distraction, an illusory fear. The real fear is man gone amok.


SPOILER





The "rescuers" reveal themselves just as monstrous, if not more so, than the actual "zombies" only because they are the ones who are supposed to have some humanity left, but make a conscious decision to flout the laws of humanity and decency in a selfish agenda to satisfy their baser needs. Which, when you think of it from a military perspective, is wonky. They were concentrating on the wrong battle, fighting for something less than honorable.

[MacAllister]

My gawd...Liam read my master's thesis...who'da thunk it?!

[scullars]

From a theological perspective, it can be argued that evil is a spiritual flaw whereas madness is a physiological flaw. Even given the mercurial nature of madness, it may be something that can be "cured" or ameliorated by man; true evil, as has been preached from different religious perspectives, can be overcome only by a higher power. And in that sense, man does not have control over true evil.

[Fractured_Chaos]

Is it possible that while the masses are desensitized, the horror fan willingly suspends not only his disbelief, but also pushes this desensitization into a neutral corner?

I remember a unversity "professional" grad student discussing this same issue years ago. Her take is that people want to be scared by fiction stories and movies, because people know they can ultimately control that type of fear. That's a winnable war.



Wouldn't that also hold true for people who love rollercoasters, funhouses, sky-diving, and the like, though?

[Fractured_Chaos]

From a theological perspective, it can be argued that evil is a spiritual flaw whereas madness is a physiological flaw. Even given the mercurial nature of madness, it may be something that can be "cured" or ameliorated by man; true evil, as has been preached from different religious perspectives, can be overcome only by a higher power. And in that sense, man does not have control over true evil.

In a sense, I think that you have a point. But look at it this way, as well. An athiest can still recognize "true evil", and doesn't have to believe in a higher power to do so.

A good example would be Jeffery Dahmer. Legally, he is not insane (IOW, he's not a psychopath, but a sociopath). He is well aware of the differences between good and evil, acceptable behaviour and not. He is just incapable of any empathy.

Yet, look at what he did? IMO, this person could qualify as truely evil.

[Liam Jackson]

Wouldn't that also hold true for people who love rollercoasters, funhouses, sky-diving, and the like, though?

I'm not sure. While I see a connection, I tend to draw a distinction between adrenalin-filled thrills and being scared ****less. Maybe others do connect those dots more solidly then I do.

[Liam Jackson]

I think the religious definition of evil is actually very narrow, and to some degree, self-serving. (self-serving to religion, that is.) After all, If you don't have supernatural evils, you don't need supernatural protectors.

With the much broader, secular definition, we can see acts of evil (deliberate acts of harm) perpetrated nearly every hour of every day.
A man beating his wife and children beyond recognition. A woman using lit-cigarettes to "discipline" the kids. Hitler overruning the Czechs. Speaking of Hitler, was he evil according to religuous definition, meaning only a higher power could defeat him? Perhaps, and that debate will continue until the end of time.

Some examples to consider.
The guy that feeds dishes of anti-freeze to the neighborhood's roaming animals is an evil bastard in my book. But I don't need an act of God to stop his sorry ***.

Dahmer, while "technically" sane (because the Proesecutor successfully killed his "guilty by reasons of insanity" attempt, was perhaps both mad and evil. Sane people, by societal norms, do not eat the dinner guests. He is also characterized as evil as defined by religious entities, because "no human being is capable of such horrific acts without some kind of demonic influence." Therefore, the religious folk contend, his capture and imprisonment was the result of Divine intervention.

(I happen to believe in the existence of supernatural evil, but I think it's invoked as a defense/excuse far too many times. Just a personal thing.)

So, what's the answer? I have no idea. However, I do know this. Evil, I can deal with. Evil is just the obverse side of the human coin and it's generally rational when confronted by overwhleming adversity. If I thow a gun in an evil bastard's face, he'll likely surrender, choosing descretion as the better part of valor. Of course, he'll probably occupy himself by plotting my untimely demise while in custody. Been there, done that, etc... Madness, on the other hand, doesn't always see or acknowledge the gun. And THAT scares ME.

And finally, which scares you more? (And we're talking personally, rather than a broader, global perspective?) The guy who wantonly kills all the neighborhood kitties and pups, Hitler or Dahmer?

[scullars]

And finally, which scares you more? (And we're talking personally, rather than a broader, global perspective?) The guy who wantonly kills all the neighborhood kitties and pups, Hitler or Dahmer?

From a self-serving perspective, my concern for my immediate health would make me frightened of the Dahmers, but from a wider perspective, I skip a heartbeat to think of all the Hitlers who have gained power and who have yet to implement their pogroms. And my heart trembles to think it could happen within the boundaries of this country. However, because it is not an immediate danger, that fear falls a notch below the fear of a nearby Dahmer. As for the neighborhood animal killer, I would despise him, but not necessarily fear him (maybe this is because I don't have any pets).

[Liam Jackson]

<<<As for the neighborhood animal killer, I would despise him, but not necessarily fear him >>>

My daughter had an unusal take on the animal poisoner. She said, "That kind of person really scares because even mean people like kitties, and mad people would just ignore them. And what if he eventually decides he likes all that control over life and death. Just kinda sitting around, letting the idea take root, planning to esculate...So, maybe that person is just 'evil waiting for madness to happen'."

[Fractured_Chaos]

<<<As for the neighborhood animal killer, I would despise him, but not necessarily fear him >>>

My daughter had an unusal take on the animal poisoner. She said, "That kind of person really scares because even mean people like kitties, and mad people would just ignore them. And what if he eventually decides he likes all that control over life and death. Just kinda sitting around, letting the idea take root, planning to esculate...So, maybe that person is just 'evil waiting for madness to happen'."

Your daughter has a good point. IIRC, don't Serial Killers generally start out torturing, and killing small animals before moving on to humans?

[Liam Jackson]

It depends on the profiler. The FBI and other government think-thanks have developed a precusor list of historical behavioral attributes with regard to the serial killer. However, behind closed doors, there have been some bitter disputes among experts about that list. The current list certainly does not represent a concensus opinion.

It's true that some notable Sks exhibited abhorrent behavior (torture, token imprisonment, etc...) early on. However, many had no such history, so it's not a conclusive attribute.

(If you're asking my professional opinion, I think it's indisputable that the vast majority DO share that behavioral trait.)

NOTE: Thank you all for a very civil and interesting discussion of a sometimes difficult subject!

[MacAllister]

IIRC, there is at least _some_ evidence of a medical history for some serial-killers that includes traumatic brain injury (TBI).

There is also some strongly suggestive evidence of this in domestic violence studies.

[Fractured_Chaos]

Serial Killers have often facinated me, no end.

I guess part of that could be growing up in Wichita during the hey-day of BTK, and having a father who was a cop, working the crime scene of the first murder.

I watched my community go from open and welcoming, where you could always expect your neighbor to at least wave, and no one bothered to lock to doors....

To a sealed-up, frightend, stand-offish place where everyone was suspicious of everyone else.