Horror Film Debate

Alright, so here's some thoughts:

Horror movies are not great cinema - in fact, despite being a horror buff of sorts, I can easily count on two hands the number of horror movies that I like that are also great movies. A lot of the appeal can be in the campy violence and satanic undertones; you know, metal stuff. But this recent wave of horror remakes (with exception for the first Rob Zombie "Halloween" remake, I would say) are mainly made for people who don't like horror movies. They put asses in seats for a couple of weeks and then no one will ever buy the DVD. "True" horror movies breed fan cultures not unlike the ones I wrote about last week - they transcend their objective worth. 90% of horror remakes are lose-lose scenarios. They're bad movies, the people they should be marketed to shun them, the people they are marketed to don't like them, and they're tarnishing the names of franchises even more than unnecessary sequels already have.

And Wes Craven is dead to me. By the end of the summer, his entire Unholy Trinity ("The Last House on the Left," "The Hills Have Eyes," and "A Nightmare on Elm Street") will have been remade, and that's being generous and forgetting that he ruined his own reputation with "Scream."

Thoughts?

- Brad Sanders

 would have to disagree with you slightly about the quality of horror cinema. I don't believe that the horror film as an institution is fundamentally flawed; rather, horror films key into very animalistic and primal fears in a way that executives and movie makers long ago learned could be used to exploit viewers. Few films can get such a strong emotional reaction from viewers, and the people making horror films know that. I would also put the number of horror films that I consider great movies in the single digits, but I don't think that necessarily says anything about the genre.

I agree that horror remakes are usually just a waste of time for everyone involved. Maybe I'm just sounding like an old guy, but I think horror films may have already peaked as far as shock value goes. Most of the horror remakes I've seen in the last decade or so derive their scariness just from violence and gore - the grossout. They seem to be marketed as an even scarier version of a preexisting movie. But the horror films from the late '70s and '80s aren't much softer than their horror remakes. Romero's Dawn of the Dead has as much people-eating as the remake and I would say it's just as graphic. Shock value seems to be the main selling point of these remakes, but it's already been done. Where is there to go?

- Brian Marks

I agree that it doesn't make the genre less legitimate; there was a time when I primarily watched horror movies, and they attract some of the most serious fans of anything in pop culture.

And I definitely agree that the gross-out factor is the primary tactic used by new horror directors despite the fact that everything has been done. More obnoxious than that, even, is the propensity of these directors to show the breasts of sexy ladies and get a cheap scare out of the audience by having something loudly pop onscreen. The formula is painfully easy to master, and the product is never anything worthwhile.

Adding insult to injury, the only great horror film of the last decade, "Let the Right One In," is being remade in English this year and retitled "Let Me In." It's only been three years, for Satan's sake! Leave it alone! Remakes and reboots are running rampant throughout Hollywood, but nowhere is it more evident than in horror.

- BS

Wow, "Let Me In." I wonder if that has sexual undertones.

I'm sure we could bash horror remakes for hours, but are there any remakes that you think actually work?

- BM

I think the first "Halloween" movie by Rob Zombie and the remake of "The Hills Have Eyes" were the closest thing to good. "Halloween" gave back story if that's what you were into, personally, I think the greatness of the original lies in the total lack of a Michael Myers back story. And "Hills" put an unfortunately modern twist on the Craven classic, but did some stuff in the realm of visuals that Craven probably wishes he had access to in 1977. And "The Ring" is a totally acceptable reimagining of "Ringu" as well. Otherwise, none that I can name. You?

- BS

I haven't seen the new "Hills Have Eyes," although it seems like the rare remake that actually had a few okay reviews thrown in. I like bits of Rob Zombie's "Halloween," but the acting was the most frightening part of that movie. I think Rob Zombie does interesting things with horror movies and has a great knowledge of the genre, but he is incapable of getting an actor to do anything believable, or even picking actors who have that capacity. It might help if he stayed away from friends and family members.

I have an admiration for "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" that I'm not very proud of. Maybe it's because it was the first horror remake I can remember seeing, before I was sick of them. I admire something about how nihilistic that movie is, and think it has a great sense of atmosphere. But the cast isn't anything great, as is expected, and by trying to give a back story to the Leatherface character, they make him seem like a little kid with an anger problem.

But I can't really say there are any horror remakes I'm in love with.

- BM

I can get behind that criticism of Zombie. I used to worship him as a director and I'd say that The Devil's Rejects is one of the best horror films of the last decade, but the acting is terrible. It used to be okay because it was supposed to be campy, but if he's going to keep making "real" movies, he needs to get some real actors and not just his damn wife.

Not to mention "House of 1000 Corpses" is the only semi-parody of that campy, schlocky 1970s style that actually transcended it and became a really good movie on its own merits. In fact, I'd say the right thing to do rather than remake, reboot, or make sequels to old horror movie is to pay homage to them as Zombie did with his first two films. He should be an example to directors interested in doing this kind of stuff - of course, he went and broke his own rules and continues to, but hey, he tried for a while.

- BS