Saw (James Wan, 2004) grossed over $100 million at the box office, though it cost just slightly over $1 million to make. As of this writing in October 2021, on Rotten Tomatoes it has an 84% favorable rating from audiences, but only 51% Tomatometer rating from critics (decidedly not fresh).
Desson Thomson of The Washington Post wrote of Saw: “The Internet film geeks are salivating over this one. But humans who live above ground, including horror fans, will find themselves only fitfully entertained and more consistently appalled.” Judging from the box-office receipts, Thomson might be surprised to find how many people live underground.
But this is a familiar refrain when mainstream film critics review genre films, particularly those movies that lean fully into the expectations of their genre. Slasher films, superhero films, romantic comedies — unless they “subvert” their genre or “elevate” it, the vast majority of film critics seem uninterested.
And yet, genres like horror cultivate exceedingly loyal fan bases, people eager to snatch up direct-to-video releases, who spend the whole month of October watching a different horror film every night, who will binge-watch a whole franchise in a few weeks or days, who attend conventions and cosplay as their favorite characters.
So what’s going on here? Where’s the disconnect between fans who celebrate these movies and the Tomatometer ratings of a bunch of critics who just don’t get why anyone would watch them?
I would argue the biggest difference lies in expectations of what makes a good movie. When a horror fan evaluates a film, they utilize different heuristics than a mainstream critic who is only minimally familiar with the genre. Nowhere is this more obvious than when we compare how mainstream critics and horror critics define “originality.”
When Saw was released, many people noticed its similarities to movies like Se7en (David Fincher, 1995) and Cube (Vincenzo Natali, 1997). Critics in both mainstream and niche horror publications remarked on this, but framed the similarities very differently. Where Entertainment Weekly referred to Saw as a “messy” knockoff, Bloody-Disgusting.com wrote, “Everyone draws inspiration from somewhere, but a true ‘artist’ follows one just rule, ‘art is either plagiarism or revolution’ and in this case we have revolution.”
Mainstream critics will often pan genre films as formulaic, disparaging any film they deem too derivative. But genre fans look for creativity within a familiar framework, appreciating something that is both recognizably satisfying and surprising at the same time. With slashers, for example, we expect a body count, a certain level of gore, and look for call-backs to classic franchises, but we also (somewhat ironically) expect a twist. We want surprises in the plot that, like with the mystery genre, we try to anticipate but love when we can’t. We also want to be titillated. As film scholar Linda Williams identified 30 years ago, plenty of audiences enjoy films that prompt bodily responses: a thrilling scare, a good cry, and sexual arousal.
Horror plots, though following tropes, are often quite creative. Filmmakers work hard to craft narrative turns that will cause audiences to squeal in delight, and even some of the schlockiest films construct elaborate and inventive death sequences. Such creativity is wholly and completely intrinsic to the genre, but is overlooked or minimized by critics.
Sometimes we need to take a step back and remember that there is no objective criteria for what makes a movie “good.” Things like acting style and story structure vary across time periods, cultural contexts, and genre. Given that, what responsibility does a film critic have to meet a genre on its own terms?
The IU Cinema will screen a classic of international horror, Battle Royale — Extended Cut, on October 31 at 1 pm as part of the Staff Selects series.
Laura Ivins loves stop motion, home movies, imperfect films, nature hikes, and Stephen Crane’s poetry. She has a PhD from Indiana University and an MFA from Boston University. In addition to watching and writing about movies, sometimes she also makes them.