The serial killer genre is a monster movie without the supernatural. It’s a close cousin, to be sure, but the difference is that reason and procedure invariably catch the monster. In that sense, it’s a bit like the science fiction/monster films of the 1950s in which the monster always has a fatal weakness. The first horror films in which the monsters win came during the Vietnam era: The Omen, and Rosemary’s Baby. Excessive violence is repulsive, to be sure, but the horror genre, with its implication of an absent God, is especially pernicious.
The problem is, he admits to commenters eventually that he hasn’t actually watched a horror movie all the way through for years.
The reasons why would have been a more honest essay — although probably not as philosophically and stylistically satisfying to write or read.
Did the world really need another “I’m a conservative who finds pop culture so disgusting I don’t consume it, but that doesn’t stop me from writing about my disgust with my quill pen” essay?
Another article about “9/11 movies” tries something different, and doesn’t quite succeed either, although I agree with the writer about the inclusion of Donny Darko and Memento.
The nitpicking commenters there lack imagination: I’ve said before that my favorite “9/11 movie” is The Thing From Another World, which predates the actual event by decades.
I bought United 93 but never removed the plastic. The original Thing is my United 93 and that’s probably just as well for my (cough) mental health.
PS: someone at NewsReal had an interesting comment on The Brood, which I’d filed away as another “killer kidz” flick of the 70s/80s, but one with Cronenberg’s distinctive stamp: he was going through an ugly custody battle at the time, and still in his Polanskian “apartment buildings are sinister” phase.
However, the commenter, while acknowledging that, also calls it a satire of 70s self-help craze as well, so I might have to give it another spin.