I Love Horror – A horror blog devoted to the critical, analytical, and cynical assessment of the horror industry and horror films.

Much to the surprise of no one, Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly has received a lot of negative feedback over his list compiling the top twenty horror films of the past two decades. Instead of simply falling back on the “agree to disagree” stance, he decided to not only openly insult his readers, but contradict the very list he set out to defend.

When I decided to put together my list of the Top 20 horror films of the past 20 years, I knew that just by being honest — sticking true to the movies I find most scary, spooky, disturbing, unsettling, scary-funny, or just plain horrifying — I would inevitably inspire catcalls of outrage, righteous denunciations, and cries for my critical head. It’s not only that lists like these are meant to be fought over and argued about (personally, I wouldn’t have it any other way). It’s also that this is…horror we’re talking about. Very visceral stuff. Opinions that people feel in their guts and their central nervous systems. If, like me, you happen to find The Blair Witch Project an original and terrifying experience, one that haunted your dreams for weeks, it’s doubtful that anyone who found it an overhyped dud (“Where’s the monster?”) full of nausea-incuding camerawork is ever going to be “convinced” that it should have frightened the bejesus out of them. Apart from comedy, nothing in movies is quite as subjective as what scares — or bores — us to death.

I agree with this completely. Fear is the most subjective of emotions, and as I detailed in my earlier post on his post, any Best of… list is inevitably going to draw the ire of someone. But there are certain things that need to be taken into consideration when you compile a list such as this, primarily the impact the film has had on the industry. You decided to eschew objective decision making in favor of biased bullshit.

That said, a number of you who posted comments about my list raised issues that I’d like to address. That includes some of the movies you felt I’d left out (we’ll get to that in a moment). First, though, I’d like to defend one aspect of the list that seemed to bother a great many people. Namely: Why did I choose a number of films, like The Sixth Sense or From Hell, that struck many of you as thrillers more than bona fide horror movies?

Because the two, in some ways, are interchangeable. One might be inclined to say that horror represents the object, while thrillers tend to represent the abject; with horror, however, the lines of genre are blurred so much, it all tends to get grouped under the umbrella of horror.

Well, first of all, I did it deliberately, not to be provocative or to “stretch” the definition of horror, but — quite the contrary — to return to an old-school, almost classical Hollywood notion of horror, one that includes films that inspire shock and awe from the inside, nibbling away at our anxieties. There was some debate, for instance, about whether The Sixth Sense is a “horror film” or a “supernatural thriller.” Well, by my lights, it’s about a dead guy who walks around and a kid who’s as creeped out by the otherworldly visions that confront him as the kid from The Shining was. Just because no one ends up swinging an ax doesn’t mean that you don’t get the heebie-jeebies.

Your use of the word “deliberately” does him zero favors, as it implies a haphazard attempt at injecting a controversial choice for the sake of being controversial. Beyond this, you also imply that visceral horror is the only way to frighten someone. Your understanding of fear is misguided. In horror movies, “axe murderers” and the like are exaggerated in terms of their actions and appearance, and as such dispel the notion that they can be frightening when on the big screen. If you wanted to make an “axe murderer” comparison, you should have gone with Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

Or take From Hell, the Hughes brothers’ splendid dark-side-of-the-soul mystery-thriller, with its flash-cut evocations of society’s first slasher, Jack the Ripper. (Yes, I know: You think that the Alan Moore graphic novel was better, more densely dazzling.) By what standard do one-dimensional bogeymen like Jason or Michael Myers, wielding their knives with videogame precision for the 10th or 20th time in a rigged contest of kill-the-next-idiot-who-gets-in-the-way-of-my weapon, somehow count as real live “horror movie” monsters, while the fascinatingly sick, Jekyll-and-Hyde human demon of From Hell doesn’t? Does the idea that the latter film actually has a good story somehow mean that it lacks the black-as-night resonance of a horror film? I tried to assemble this list so that horror meant more than mere sensation — so that it also meant things that could give your heart and your brain the shivers.

I’m one of the few who actually enjoyed From Hell, but your constant comparisons of standard slasher icons to genuine instigators of fear is getting tiresome and lowers your credibility. From Hell, while possessing an engaging story and some truly grisly scenes, was filmed in such a way that any ounce of tension or terror that might be gleaned from the film was lost.

Okay, but now we get to the good stuff — the movies you thought should have been on there. In almost every case, my honest response comes down to one word: Really? Let’s look at a few of those proposed alternate choices:

Wolf Creek
It’s cleverly staged, with a villain who’s like “Crocodile” Dundee with a loose screw. But really, it’s nothing more than another textbook Chainsaw ripoff.

I have no comments here, as I feel its exclusion was a good choice.

The films of Rob Zombie
No doubt about it, he’s a very bad boy, who revels in the shock theatrics of killers he treats like rock stars. But House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects are derivative, hit-or-miss in-your-face bloodbaths. I like their squeamish freak-out atmosphere. But Top 20? That’s too much love for a still-promising headbanger-turned-goremeister.

House of 1000 Corpses was nothing more than a “test the waters” film. An obvious homage to classic horror films, it was fucking practice. The Devil’s Rejects, however, was anything BUT derivative. Not top twenty material, but to laugh in the face of its intent and, dare I say, absolutely brilliant blending of 70’s bravado and visceral horror is a sin I cannot let slide.

High Tension
Illogical twists, and much brutal mayhem — but it’s French, so this tale of two young women stuck in a country house with a big, fat, grunting brute who’s got a thing for decapitation looks fancier than it is.

I’m sorry, I can’t hear you up there on your jingoistic pedestal. Some of the best horror films of the past decade have been French, and your exclusion of anything from that region makes me wonder just how many horror movies you actually watch.

The Hills Have Eyes
The 2006 version? Are you friggin’ kidding me? It’s a lavishly photographed gross-out message movie with very little of the skeezy, innovative rawness that gave the original its bad vibes.

14. Hostel 2. Credibility – gone.

Session 9
Brad Anderson’s mental-asylum thriller begins well, and it’s visually startling, but the story melts into half-hearted ghostly vagueness.

Despite my opinion that it’s one of the scariest, most effective horror films of the past decade, it’s too unknown, too critically derided to earn a spot on this list.

Finally, we come to the choice I made that seems to have irked the most people. To quote a message-board poster named Chris: “Anyone who says 28 Weeks Later is better than 28 Days Later should not be allowed to judge horror movies.”

Wow, Chris, that is harsh. You seem to speak for many, though, so let me just say that I dug 28 Days Later — I really did. Yet part of what accounts for its reputation, I think, was the sheer novelty of Danny Boyle reviving the zombie genre and adapting it to the immediacy of the digital-video age. (Okay, I know: they’re not “technically” zombies. But since they’re rabid and reptile-brained, and stalk around like the living dead, I’m going to call them zombies anyway.)

Again, you’re certainly not doing yourself any favors. Aside from completely misinterpreting the point of the infected in the films, you’re making terrible assumptions as to why a film is popular. Danny Boyle didn’t “revive” anything, and your gross disregard of the intent of the film shows just exactly how much you know not just about the film itself, but about horror in general.

And I really did think that the sequel went further into apocalyptic blood-orgy craziness. Feel free to disagree, of course. But for the debate about the relative quality of these two movies to have inspired this much hate…well, sorry, folks, but that’s a little scary.

One simply has to look at your comment about the relative success of 28 Days Later to prove how wrong you are. If you take into account the many factors that should go into making a list such as this then you clearly see why Days deserves a spot over Weeks. But, as you have proven throughout your inane ramblings and weak defense of your horrible decisions, objectivity – or common sense – isn’t your strong point.

In the end it all comes down to subjectivity, but to completely ignore intent and impact is to ignore what makes some horror movies so God damned special. As such, your list wasn’t as bad as it could have been, but the defense of your choices destroyed any credibility some of the more controversial choices might have had.