Why Don’t Movie Critics Like Horror Films?

Every so often a horror film comes along that even the staunchest critics of the genre cannot ignore. On those rare occasions, like what happened with “The Sixth Sense,” which was nominated for six Academy Awards including Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actress, Supporting Actor Original Screenplay and Editing in 1999, a horror film was unexpectedly treated just like every other film that was released that year.

This is far from the norm. Typically, horror films are viewed by critics in the same manner that many people watch them in theaters – through closed eyes. However, it’s not out of a sense of fear that critics don’t seem willing to take horror films seriously. It is prejudice, plain and simple, that holds horror movies up to an unfair higher standard than critics do for films of other genres.
When a comedy makes critics laugh, it is typically praised. When a drama packs an emotional punch, the critics can’t wait to declare it as an Oscar frontrunner. However, when a horror film accomplishes everything it sets out to do, most critics are loathe to give it any credit. They’ll find excuse after excuse to give themselves a reason not to recommend the film.
Typical “code words” for “I don’t like horror films” from critics run the gamut include:
• Bashing a horror film for being “too bloody, violent or gory”. Vincent Canby did just that in his New York Times review of 1973′s “The Exorcist” calling the film “a new low for grotesque special effects.” However, if the same amount of gore was present in a war movie, it would most likely be hailed as “gritty realism.” Funny how Canby gave positive reviews to Apocalypse Now, Platoon and Full Metal Jacket.
• Deciding that the depiction of violence in these films is equivalent to the filmmaker’s endorsement of said activities. For example, in his panning of “Silence of the Lambs,” Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago Reader said the movie “plays on the desire to see victims, preferably women, get torn to pieces.” He further implies that only sick individuals would delight in seeing such events unfold, totally missing the point that these actions are performed by “the bad guy” in the film.
• Complaining about the “low-budget look” of the film. When “The Blair Witch Project” came on the scene in 1999, much of its success was related to what the audience didn’t see. It was the off-screen screams and the naturally occurring patterns in nature that allowed for the viewer to scare themselves with their own imagination. That kind of skill in horror films, where darkness is typically key to setting the proper mood, is usually panned by critics as a flaw.
• Decrying the lack of “character depth” of a horror movie’s characters. This is true of many films, not just those of the horror genre. Put a bunch of one-note stereotypes into a situation where they are suddenly being chased by an axe-wielding maniac and there’s every reason to be critical of the screenwriter’s talents. But how is that any different than the poorly-fleshed out characters in a romantic-drama like “The Vow”? Just because a character like Jamie Lee Curtis‘ Laurie in “Halloween” is under constant menace and terror, it doesn’t mean the performance lacks depth.
• “It’s so unrealistic.” More than any other negative criticism of the horror genre, this is the one that
makes the least amount of sense. And yet, when it comes time for critics to put pen to paper, when all else fails, they pull out the “lack of realism card” to justify a negative horror review. In films where ghosts and demons torment the living, somehow the critic seems to feel “that isn’t how the character would react” and docks the film several ratings points as a result. How could you possibly know that’s not how they’d react to that situation? Just because a zombie apocalypse couldn’t actually happen, that doesn’t mean “28 Days Later” can’t possibly be a good film.
• The lack of stars automatically lowers expectations. Many horror films feature unknown actors without long track records of success. As a result, even a solid starring performance is often overlooked by critics. For example, Doug Bradley never got his due for the amazing portrayal of Pinhead in the “Hellraiser” series of films. Yet, cast a respected actress like Helena Bonham Carter in a lackluster remake of “Frankenstein” and her performance “rises above the material.” Once a critic goes in with the expectation that a horror film is going to disappoint and the actors will not impress, then that’s often the review the movie ends up getting, regardless of its quality.
Let’s face it. Horror films are easier to make than sweeping epics. But just because they can be made on the cheap and as such, the ratio of quality horror films to schlock might be lower for the genre than it is in others, that doesn’t mean that horror films can’t be just as worthy an enterprise as any other quality film.
Critics should be able to go into these films with an open mind, but most of them simply will not. As such, it’s always going to be an uphill climb for any horror movie to be taken seriously by the industry at large.