Here's something I can't figure out.
Both you and I really like horror movies. I think it's safe to say that the both of us have good taste in movies in all genres.
Indeed.
So let's say we both agree that Interstellar, Clockwork Orange, Inception and the Godfather are all GREAT movies. Like not great as in "I personally really enjoyed it," but rather in a groundbreaking and widely appreciated as high level movies type of way. If you and I rated those movies as 8.5+ on a 10 scale, most people would agree. In fact, that's exactly where these score on IMDB with a very high sample size.
Yes, all of those movies are in my personal favorites. In fact, the very movies you listed off could all be considered among my absolute favorite, 10/10 films.
On the other hand, let's say we both agree that some amount of Poltergeist, The Ring, 1408, 28 Days Later and Texas Chainsaw Massacre are all great horror movies.
Definitely. That'd be on my must see list of horror films. 1408 really took me by surprise too, didn't expect that.
I'm not sure about you, but when I rate horror movies my main factor is whether it's scares me or not. To scare me, a movie needs to (a) have some level of reality to it and it needs to (B) immerse me in the atmosphere. It needs to disturb me and make me feel like shit when I'm done watching because I can't get the idea out of my head that even though the events in the movie couldn't happen to me...maybe they could! My sub-conscious needs to trigger that fight or flight response even though I KNOW in my conscious mind that I'm not going to be pulled into a television set, murdered by a chainsaw wielding ghoul wearing a human skin mask, trapped in a hotel room that can actively drive me insane or get my face mutated by a little girl that crawls out of a television set.
This is exactly why I watch horror movies.. To feel...
something.
So many movies leave me feeling only as though I've killed time; I'm simply indifferent about the experience - so they feel vapid.
Horror movies, more so than any other genre, are the easiest films to make, requiring the least effort, that can still evoke an emotional response. So to me, it only makes sense to watch horror films more than anything else, because the likelihood of experiencing something is a great deal higher.
There are horror movies that are also truly great movies like The Shining and Silence of the Lambs but I think it's safe to say that my sample list consists of very scary movies whether they're truly "great" movies or not.
Agreed.
Not sure about you, but by horror movie standards I'd give all of those 8+...EASILY. Those movies all make me react against my will to things like abandoned houses, hotel rooms, television sets, ringing phones, etc etc. Real visceral and instinctive stuff...they're EFFECTIVE. That doesn't mean they're as great as Godfather, Clockwork or Interstellar...but they are all GREAT horror movies.
I'd give each of those movies at least a 9; in fact, 28 Days Later for me is the only 9 on the list (it was a 10 when I first saw it though). After a few years, the plot seemed to weaken a bit in the third act and suspension of belief became a bit harder to sustain.
I just wish they Danny Boyle spent a bit more time developing the narrative of the soldiers, and why they were just as dangerous - if not more so - than the zombie hordes. I understand that was the end game of the film, as are all of Romero's zombie films (I think
@The Human Q-Tip missed this point in his criticism).
But had Boyle demonstrated just how psychologically damaging the end of the world would be for a group of 18-20-somethings only a few weeks removed from their parents and lives, then I think the very short period of time that caused their break from reality and caused them to rationalize rape and murder would be easier for the audience to accept. Because on later viewings, it seems almost forced; as in, you might be tempted to use your own moral judgement in place of theirs and question whether or not all of the soldiers would be so willing to carry out these rapes.
But thinking more and more about it, I think Boyle can't really be questioned on this point. Remember De Palma's
Casualties of War? So, yeah, I think it's a very realistic scenario, and questioning it only means we're not willing to accept it for whatever reasons.
So with all that said...how the FUCK are these movies getting 6 and low 7 range scores on IMDB.
Lots of folks downvote movies they've never seen. Lots of folks downvote horror movies particularly because they don't like the genre.
What happens on IMDB is that the older a film is, up to a certain point, the closer it approaches the mean (5) score for the population as a whole.
For niche, classic, and foreign films which have a limited and specific audience, the scoring is actually inflated, such that every foreign horror film regardless of quality is likely rated a 6-8. Classic movies generally are rated higher today than they would be in their own time.
By what standards are people rating these movies that there's such a disparity between what horror movie buffs and the average viewer think about horror movies?
Do I like horror? No? Downvote.
It's weird.
It's the same reason Interstellar wasn't even nominated. Science fiction, horror movies, and suspense-thrillers aren't very well appreciated by many artful types.
And I don't think that's generally stereotyping them as much as I'm simply recognizing there is an element among filmgoers that pushes back against these genres because they consider them cheap or lacking of quality - for whatever reasons.
It's a fucking travesty that 28 Days Later and Poltergeist get 7.4s on IMDB. Those movies are AMAZING.
I can believe it though, as in, it makes sense. When we were growing up, movies like Poltergeist were literally terrifying; but today, many are likely desensitized. It may not hold up well for others.
Also, if you aren't familiar with Spielberg's style, then you might watch the movie and subconsciously consider it either and outdated directorial style or overused - because so many other directors since have mimicked elements of Spielberg's approach to filmmaking.
28 Days Later has many critics who aren't into the gore, or even zombie fans who are somehow ideologically opposed to the idea of running "fast zombies." In their view, slow "walker zombies" who shuffle about are a backdrop to a Romero-esque dystopian future, and any other interpretation of this is somehow missing the point of the zombie genre.
Frankly, I think that's bullshit, and I really liked the 28 Days Later rabies/"Rage" approach. It was refreshing because up to that point, no one else had done it. Then tons of movies copied the idea including Rec which is highly regarded but nowhere near as good (has a 7.5 on IMDb vs 28 Days at 7.6, oddly enough).
Same reason a sub gets off on a bull fucking his hotwife...
Lol...!
