Thurgood Marshall graduation 2012
Badin vs. Versailles
Law Enforcement Memorial Day
Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2006 > October > 16 > Entry
The horror (movie). The horror (movie).
So “The Grudge 2” was the number one movie at the box office this weekend, but I’m not sure it’s much of a victory. It opened with $22 million, quite a comedown from the $39 million of the original. And with a Yahoo movies users grade of only C+, I think we can forget about a “Grudge 3.”
Or can we?
No matter how many cheap (in every sense of the word) horror movies come out, their core audience never seems deterred by all these lame (or at least lame-looking) flicks.
Consider some of this year’s offerings:
“Bloodrayne.” “When a Stranger Calls.” “Final Destination 3.” “The Hills Have Eyes.” “Stay Alive.” “Silent Hill.” “See No Evil.” “The Omen.” “The Covenant.” “Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning.”
As best I can tell, none of these movies have a particularly good reputation. Yet most of them opened at or near the top of the box office. Why?
As you can probably tell, I’m not much of a fan of the genre. I like scary movies, but only if they’re well made and if they’re actually, you know - scary. Variations on decapitations, dismemberments and disembowlings don’t get the job done for me.
Now, I know why the studios keep cranking them out: the budgets are so low that even a middling grosser can turn a profit.
My question is, if you’re a horror fan, why do you keep going back to these movies even when they’re not good? And if you’re not a horror fan, what’s your best guess?
I’d really like to know before we get a “Grudge 3” starring Tara Reid.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Categories: Ask the Audience
Comments
By SRCputt
October 25, 2006 4:21 PM | Link to this
No defenders of this crap? OK, I’ll hazard a guess at an explanation: Really stupid teenagers.