Gross: A Look Back In Horror

Sheesh, the Pirates hate is spreading.

So what I've gathered from this list is RJ really doesn't like horror films much.

Didn't like the first "Final Destination". Not even the bus hit? And avoided the sequels? 3 I can give you, but FD2's kills were the tits.

"The Hills Have Eyes" was Lousy? Please note, it beat the hell out of the original.

Didn't like "Hostel"? Ok, It wasn't the least bit scary. But for the other 1/2 of horror, hot chicks mixed with torture is still damn entertaining.

Hasn't bothered to see "The Descent"? That whole DVD release apparently blew right by him?


Sorry, But I can't seem muster up much enthusiasm for this opinion on the state of horror.

On that point, he's correct, but 2006 isn't anything special. That's pretty much always been the case. It's a rare occasion that horror aficionado's and the general public agree on what makes a good horror film. Films like "Pulse" or "When a Stranger Calls" aren't targeted at us, but as excuses for 16 year old guys to snuggle up to their dates in hopes of some heavy petting 2nd base action.

As far as a box office list, PotC, "Snakes on a Plane" and "Monster House" don't belong anywhere near a horror film list. Include the lamentably dismal box office for "Slither" and the After Dark Horror fest instead.

Why are Pirates and Lady in the Water even on that list? They are not at all, nor meant to be, horror films.

I find myself agreeing with most of the points on this list, and once again reminded that I need to see Monster House.

This list kinda blows. Lazy, uninformed and rote. And he hasn't seen "The Descent"? Why is he working for the site?

Though I found it surprising that "When A Stranger Calls" actually outgrossed "Hostel". Didn't know that.

I liked it.

Finding different ways to say "it sucked" loses its appeal by the nineteenth try.

Then how come he hasn't seen so many of these? And how come he has so little to say about them? I mean no offense, because I love Creature Corner, but it doesn't seem like this guy has the love for grue that a lot of hardcore horror fans seem to possess.

I mean, check this out. vh1.com, of all people, posted an awesome, comprehensive top ten list of upcoming horror films. This is freakin' vh1, and whoever the guy was they got to write that obviously loves the genre and cares about his readers enough to avoid saying things like "My mind shut down several minutes ago." And not only that, but it's a promo piece, not an opinion piece, and he still appears to give a shit a bit more.

If you want traffic to increase, I would shy away from pieces like this that sound like they were written on a lunchbreak. I want to put my money where my mouth is, so I'm gonna submit something to you later today regarding cinematic horror in 2006/07, something that I might give a shit about.

I don't really care, Al. But I'm not going to be someone who complains about content but can't produce any, particularly because I freaking love horror movies. Expect something in your inbox later.

I wasn't trying to discount RJ's horror credentials, but that article really does read like it was written by a generic film critic with MSNBC, not a horror film reviewer. If you're going to comment on the state of horror, seeing the major releases that have some genre buzz behind them is a requirement, and proper categorization essential. The B.O. for horror in 2006 sucked, and there was some points to be made therein listing the poor showing for some good films the public avoided.

As I seem to recall RJ's tag associated with some other items on the site (am I mistaken?), I'm not siding with Fab with the "Why is he working for the site?" rhetoric. Just providing feedback on what I felt was an inferior article.

And after reading excerpts from his "Iron Man" script, we thank you.

I think the general consensus was that it wasn't that great a look. With certain movies' summations consisting solely of an "Um..." it seems like there wasn't any thought put into it at all. And really, if you're going to offer a look on a crop of films, it probably wouldn't hurt to watch them. Just a little constructive criticism. I completely disagree with anyone who thinks the Hills remake was less than fantastic, but I still like to read why people feel that way. He called it lousy - why? Just things like that. But ya know, no disrespect to anyone.

I've always appreciated the enthusiasm in your news articles and film reviews, Alex. You certainly know and love the genre, and you've consistently provided us our daily horror fix since taking the helm at CC.

But... this ... is disconcerting.

This list is an affront to the site and all it's readers. His writing is fine (what little of it there is) and yet he's so obviously devoid of any real enthusiasm for the genre that it simply makes for a very depressing read for any true horror fan.

He hasn't seen The Descent yet, and wrote a few paltry lines in reference to this. He didn't even mention Slither. Inexcusable on both counts.

POTC, Monster House, Lady In The Water, Snakes On A Plane - these non-genre films got the most attention on the list... and that's an undeniable slap in the face as far as I'm concerned.

7 out of the total 18 films listed got a whopping 2 or 3 lines as to why he either hated it, or didn't even see it. Granted, only a few films here were actually good (The Descent, and Hostel definitely qualify as good) but that's no excuse. I want to read that 1000+ word diatribe for Hostel he mentioned. Hell, at this point I think he owes us at least that much.

He said there weren't enough good horror films for the entire year to even make a top 5 list and that's why he gave us this tripe. That statement is unacceptable.

I genuinely hope RJ can redeem himself soon, because this is staring to smell a hell of a lot like a gaping head wound in the collective head of CC.

Can't we all just get along? The article was far from glowing in anything it said about the films it mentioned, but that was kind of the point. I think he was glossing over them on purpose because, in his opinion, they weren't worth his time or ours. That being said, I too was puzzled at his decisions regarding Monster House and Snakes on a Plane (I didn't see Lady in the Water; he mighta been right). The overarching theme to the article was to note which films grossed the most at the box office in 06. The reviews were kind of secondary. They definitely could've been better, seeing as he saw fit to put them i there rather than just count down the film titles. But a gaping head wound? I agree w/ Al that that's a bit extreme. I for one am generally very pleased with the content of this site overall. Don't let one (arguably) poor article spoil it for you for all time.