There’s no horror film equivalent of Shane, The Wild Bunch or The Magnificent Seven, or….. take your pick. Horror films can be fun but they simply have not inspired great filmmaking as the Western has done.
Comment by Supergenius — January 5, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Funny, I hadn’t seen a western in a while and decided to rent The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly last weekend. Good westerns are so awesome. (Even the Italian ones.) The best westerns kill the best horror films, but bad horror movies are way more entertaining than bad westerns.
The Exorcist, Silence of the Lambs, Jaws, and Rosemary’s Baby are as good, if not better, than Shane, The Wild Bunch, and The Magnificent Seven.
How many great westerns are being made right now? None. The horror genre has continued to mutate and inspire young filmakers. So many great directors have begun by making horror pictures.
The western is sadly dead in the water, and with a few exceptions we haven’t seen any decent westerns since the 60s.
“Just like a fella I knew up in El Paso… threw off all his clothes and hurled himself into a mess of cactus…. I asked him the same question… *WHY*? He said it seemed to be a good idea at the time.”
Anyway, I’d agree that good westerns aren’t being made anymore.
Horror is cheap to make today, so you see more horror. Western was fairly cheap to make back in the day, which was partly why you saw more of it.
I think that the best horror (I’m thinking Night of the Living Dead/Texas Chainsaw Massacre) is not as intellectual as the best Westerns, but it is equally, if not more, powerful for its ability to evoke powerful emotion and catharsis.
If you can combine both (something like Unforgiven (which is not horror really, but exceptionally gory) or Pale Rider?), then you’ve got a really, good movie.
“The Exorcist, Silence of the Lambs, Jaws, and Rosemary’s Baby are as good, if not better, than Shane, The Wild Bunch, and The Magnificent Seven.”
bwah haw haw haw! Brian, that’s just completely laughable. Utterly laughable. Those are passable horror films (except that Rosemary’s Baby is actually fairly terrible), but none of them are half as good as those others. There is no horror movie to compare to The Searchers. There’s no craft, either in plot, direction or cinematography, to even compare.
You’re also wrong about westerns. The past few years have shown plenty of very decent ones. Perhaps you’re forgetting Unforgiven? Even Appaloosa, or The Proposition were pretty good.
Just trying to be a troll on an obvious thread won’t make us bite!
Comment by Supergenius — January 5, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Unforgiven was pretty boring. Which is the problem most Westerns have to overcome. 3:10 to Yuma (the remake) was pretty good though.
Okay, before I get to superspaz, er supergenius, let me just say that if Jaws is not a horror film, what is it? It is a monster movie plain and simple.
People tend to look down on horror and that’s fine, that’s part of the genius of it as a genre. The disdain and the marginalization of the horror film is what allows horror filmmakers to be transgressive and experimental and push boundaries. You just don’t see that in the western.
As far as recent efforts in the western there are very few that have been excellent.
I do like Unforgiven and 3:10 to Yuma was also well done. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford had it’s moments.
But the horror movie, unlike the Western thrives in other cultures beyond America. Japanese horror and Korean horror films are excellent. Even the snooty French are making great horror films currently.
The Italians, of course, really understood the western and made it their own. Sergio Leone is a genius, but other than the spaghetti western, other countries haven’t made many great westerns, simply because the themes of the western aren’t as universal. The western is limited in that regard. Its appeal is that it is uniquely American, but that is also a weakness.
Try not to flip out every time I disagree with you. If by troll you mean someone who doesn’t agree with you and can back up their opinion, then I’m guilty as charged.
Look, Unforgiven was made sixteen years ago. I love it, but it’s not a great example of a great western made in the last few years.
It’s not laughable to suggest Silence of the Lambs is better than Magnificent Seven, it won five oscars, picture, director, actor, actress and screenplay. Magnificent Seven was a derivative Americanization of a much superior Japanese film. Wild Bunch’s reputation rests on its over the top, gory finale, which nearly calls for its reclassification a a horror film. Shane has its predictable heart-string pulling moments, but if I have to hear that blonde-haired kid shout “Shane!” one more time, I think I might gouge my eyes out.
I’ve not seen it yet but there’s a Japanese western called Sukiyaki Western Django that’s getting rave reviews. I’d also say that the western doesn’t translate as well since it covers about 20 – 30 years of the American frontier. But there are other films that seem to borrow a lot of the western mentality taken to other historical and world settings. One could argue that the Samurai films so popular in Japan were very much westerns. Yojimbo is the classic example as was The Seven Samurai. The settings for those sorts of films was the era of the masterless ronin and instability in Japan that happens to parallel the late 19th century American west. It’s not coincidence that both Yojimbo and Seven Samurai were remade as traditional westerns that are considered classics of the genre.
Likewise some of the “classic” horror films — Psycho, Jaws, Silence of the Lambs, etc. — really aren’t normal horror films but are somewhat genre transgressing. If those count as horror films that surely we ought expand the notion of the western.
Also Italian cinema in the 50′s through early 70′s was a unique situation due to the politics of Italy. I don’t think that particular kind of cinema really would work elsewhere. And even in Italy once that hey-day of theatre for entertainment (and subversion) ended so too did the creativity. Of course there was still Italian cinema. But things had changed significantly.
The violence of the Wild Bunch ending is vastly overstated. Yeah it was shocking for when it was made. But it’s pretty passe now. If that’s horror then most war movies are much more so. And if Saving Private Ryan is a horror film then the genre as a category is meaningless.
I do think that the western had two classic periods. The 40′s through early 60′s. And then the late 60′s through the early 80′s. Both eras used the genre to tell stories that were much broader and perhaps more archetypal than one expected. Given the iconicity and nostalgia of the genre it can do that in ways I think other genres have trouble with.
John Ford did a lot with the genre that I think doesn’t get appreciated. Further when we look back and the Hollywood westerns from before the 70′s and think we miss a lot if we don’t think of the culture at the time. (Much as we do if we watch say the original The Day the Earth Stood Still minus the cultural context)
One last thought. There’s no doubt there are excellent films in nearly all genres. There are some great classic horror films. (My favorites being Alien, The Shining, The Thing and The Terminator) I think though that if you were to make a list of the great westerns and great horror films the former would vastly outnumber the latter. (Despite there being over the decades many more horror films)
Change it to films that transcend the genre (i.e. are about something more fundamental) and I think westerns do much, much better. Yes there are some great horror films that do “more.” (The Shining tries although I’m not convinced it is successful in that regard) But there are a lot of westerns that do that.
I would say Americans borrowed from the Japanese more than the other way around, but I do agree that the Samauri film does have its parallels to the western and its gunslingers. Yojimbo, incidentally, has its roots in detective fiction, and is based on the Dashiell Hammet classic Red Harvest. Kurosawa was a big fan.
I’m all for expanding the definition of western genre, but there is no question in my mind that Jaws, Silence, Pyscho, are all firmly rooted in the horror genre. It is one thing to say that they push at the boundaries of other genres, but to throw them out of a discussion by saying they’re atypical examples of horror isn’t fair, or accurate.
My comment that Wild Bunch should be reclassified as horror was purely tongue in cheek.
I disagree with your very last point in that I think just as many horror films transcend their genre as do westerns. The problem is when a horror film transcends its genre, people tend to want to insist its not a horror film (this thread is an example of what I’m talking about). I don’t know why. Maybe so they don’t have to admit they like horror films, or don’t want a great film grouped in with films that star Jason, Freddy, and Chucky. Who knows?
I have a hard time seeing Silence of the Lambs as a horror film. It’s a classic detective thriller. There’s really not much horror in it. It’s horrific but it’s not like there weren’t “catch the serial killer” films before it. If it is a horror film then so too is every serial killer film out there. Admittedly many have always been on the boundary. (Including several by Hitchcock himself – such as Frenzy) To me the difference is whether the focus is on victims fleeing the killer or on the cops seeking the killer. There’s no main character in danger in Silence of the Lambs. Contrast this with say Red Dragon or even Hannibal where there are more elements of horror in the film.
As to whether Japanese (or Chinese) film borrows from American more or vice versa I’m not sure how to go about judging that. Certainly there is a lot original in those countries. But there’s a lot they borrow. For instance a lot of folks talk about John Woo but watch his classic films like The Killer. It’s aping Miami Vice to a ridiculous amount.
Yeah Kurosawa is a genius and did a lot that was original. But he borrowed heavily from many western styles as well.
By “transcend the genre” I’m more speaking to the film speaking to larger issues. As I said I think The Shining is a classic example of that (even though I think it fails on that level). Night of the Living Dead is an other example. I don’t think folks would deny those as horror films.
The detective film or action thriller is where things get more problematic. If there are no supernatural elements and you have a killer being sought by the police it’s easy to label it as horror simply because the cop genre and horror genre share a lot of elements. I don’t think that’s denying they are horror.
Of course you can have ones that are amazingly genre twisting. Think of Twin Peaks or Twin Peaks Fire Walk with Me. Horror? Certainly there are elements. Genre lines are always blurry. For instance science fiction and horror blur with each others a lot. (Is the first Terminator a horror film or not? What about the sequel? Ditto for Alien although I think fewer would be loath to call the first film a horror film.)
I struggle with Jaws as a horror film. After all, there’s some decent acting in it…
I chose westerns just because there’s usually a more plausible story to them than there is to horror films. I say this tongue-in-cheek because those folks I know who do enjoy a good horror flick generally are not drawn to them for their story-telling. Although as a kid, I thought Jason from Friday the 13th (or whatever the franchise was called) was a cool story. Freddy Krueger’s story was cool for a few films too. I haven’t seen Saw or Scream.
Appaloosa was awesome. 3:10 to Yuma (new one) I really liked. Unforgiven didn’t do it for me like the others, but I won’t classify the 2 hours watching it as a waste of time.
Westerns – if for no other reason than the amazing soundtracks. The Magnificent Seven, How The West Was Won, The Big Country, The Sons of Katie Elder, and many more have stirring scores. Shoot, I even love the theme to The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly, and Blazing Saddles.
I think that Clark’s (and Brian G’s) points go to what I was trying to say earlier. Horror is a genre that is built more on the emotions it evokes than genre distinctions (what is the Stepford Wives? Sci-Fi or Horror?). That is why Silence of the Lambs and Psycho are usually classed as horror even though they are (at least somewhat) serial killer movies. If the emotive goal of the movie is to evoke fear or dread, you’ve got yourself a horror movie.
Westerns, on the other hand, are a blank slate emotionally. They can have suspense, but are there westerns that evoke those strong emotions? Instead, the western usually takes the bleak desert southwest as a base on which they can approach any issue (usually issues of pulls between individual and societal needs). They are a more intellectual genre generally (which isn’t to say that horror can’t be intellectual, but that the intellectualism there is relatively less pronounced because you are dealing the emotions involved with creatures popping out of people’s chests).
Dismissing horror’s possibility as great art is like saying that romance novels aren’t any good (or like saying that if it is good, it ain’t a romance novel). I think Brian G’s criticism on that front is just.
Let’s be real. Silence of the Lambs is about a guy who kidnaps overweight women and puts them in a well, so he can later skin them and make his own woman suit. To catch him the hero goes into a dungeon to talk to cannibalistic madman in a straight jacket who later escapes by cutting off a guard’s face and wearing it. The plot alone, not to mention lighting, music, mood, etc. is undeniably the stuff of horror. Plus, the main character does come into direct face-to-face conflict with the killer at the climax of the picture. Calling it a classic detective story to avoid calling it a horror film is a little like calling High Noon a cop drama because it’s about a sheriff. Or calling Stagecoach a road picture because it’s about a cross country trip.
I think I know what you mean by “transcend the genre” and I still disagree. All the classic horror films and their monsters speak to something more. For example, the werewolf film is really about the dual nature of man and resisting the beast in every man. Frankenstein is about man playing God and the appropriate boundaries of science. Fifties monster movies and Godzilla are about fear of the nuclear age. The Ring is about a fear of technology, or media influence in our lives. Vampire pictures are often about desire for immortality, or fear of disease, or the seductive nature of evil. Take a movie like the original Dawn of the Dead, it appears to be about zombies surrounding a mall, but it’s really about a critique of consumer culture turning us all into mindless masses.
I’m with Brian G on this one. The western is largely a dead genre. I see people saying, “Yeah, but there are a lot of really crappy horror movies!” You know what? There were tons and tons of really crappy westerns that were made back in the day. Of course, now people think of Sergio Leone and John Ford and have mostly forgotten about all the bad b-movie westerns. Horror movies are still being made, and while most of them (just like most movies in general) aren’t that good, occasionally great horror movies are still made.
I voted for westerns, but mostly because i’m not a big fan of horror movies. But after this thread, i’m not sure what a horror movie is anymore. Maybe i’m not sure what a western is anymore either. Love Clint eastwood though. He would kick John Wayne’s but any day.
I tell you what though, if you don’t think they make good horror movies, try watching “let the right one in” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_the_Right_One_In
Dang. They will be soon making a lame american version.
There’s no doubt Greg that as a genre the western is not popular. Even though there are a lot of horror films made 98% of them suck. (For some reason beyond most genres horror films seem to make money no matter how bad they are) Perhaps because there are so few westerns made those that are made tend on average to be better.
Brian, the film is about an FBI agent trying to catch a serial killer. I’ll say it again, if that’s horror so too were all the other film adaptations of those books like Red Dragon. So too for that matter would be films like Natural Born Killers, Seven, Dressed to Kill, From Hell, Summer of Sam, or even Basic Instinct.
It’s cool, Clark. At least you’re not calling me a troll. A film that transcends its genre–any genre–is damn rare. I just feel horror and the western are about equal in that regard.
It’s not the FBI agent or the serial killers that make Silence of the Lambs a horror film, it’s the style, the level of gore, the lighting, the atmosphere–all the same things that make Alien, for example, as much a horror film as a sci-fi film. Of the films you mention I personaly think Seven, Dressed to Kill, and From Hell are all arguably horror films.
Some directors approach serial killer stories as straight-up thrillers, others take a more stylistic approach, but if you look at the seminal serial killer films, films such as Psycho and Halloween, they’re undeniably horror pictures.
Seriously, Clark. That’s like saying that because Seven and the Dan Ackroyd version of Dragnet are both about police officers investigating murders, they are both best understood as police procedurals.
Any transcendant film is dang rare. That’s the whole point.
I agree such films are rare. I just think there’s a lot more found in the western genre for whatever reason.
We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on the other points. I agree the distinction is stylistic. I just don’t think Silence, From Hell, Seven and so forth fit whereas Alien, Halloween and others do.
I do agree with Matt though. While there have been a ridiculous number of horror films, especially compared to westerns, it’s weird there have been more good westerns than horror films.
I think the divide between quality westerns and horror is interesting considering the vast advantage in quantity on the horror side.
There are probably several factors, but I think it boils down to these.
As previously noted, people seems to show up to horror films regardless of the lack in quality. They make money, period. This leads to a sort of mass production mind set. In addition, horror films are generally cheap to make – so in the off chance that one does fail? No biggie.
Westerns on the other hand struggle to get an audience these days. They cost more too. So, if someone is to put their money behind a western, they are going to be darned sure that everything is just right. Good casting, the script gets refined over and over and over.
For a western to see the light of day, people are going to have to be big believers.
Horror on the other hand has become a lazy get rich quick dream.
I’d like to give another heads up to The Proposition. Not only is it a superior western, it is one of only a few movies from the last several years to scare me good.
I also think of No Country for Old Men as a western that unsettled in a way that horror movies might aspire to. ~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — January 6, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Horror Westerns are interesting. Excluding the direct to video B movies there aren’t many. I agree No Country for Old Men has elements (although I’d not call it horror). But the villain really has elements of Halloween. Eastwood’s High Plains Drifter is an interesting one as well. To a slightly lesser extent Pale Rider follows the phenomena.
I’m not sure westerns need cost more than horror BTW. Horses aren’t hard to come by. And think of all the special effects you don’t need.
Period clothing and sets cost. Plus, you need to cast well if you want your western to be a hit. That costs money as well.
For whatever reason, people will go see a horror flick no matter who is in it.
That is a major reason we end up with Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, Val Kilmer, Christian Bale, Russell Crowe, Clint Eastwood, etc. in our westerns and normally we get folks like Rebecca Gayheart and Joshua Jackson in horror. That is a cost differential right there.
You can usually bang out a horror flick significantly quicker too, which is pretty much the ultimate driver of the cost of a film. Shooting days.
John, you picked westerns with pretty big name stars. I’d lay really good odds that payroll was the #1 expense in those. The only “low” budget one was Appaloosa. And even that, which was a personal project of Ed Harris, starred Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Renée Zellweger and Jeremy Irons.
Now maybe you have a point that now that westerns are only made if a few A-list actors are in them.
The only one on the horror front that seems comparible was Scream – but that was from 1996! But even there the “star” was from a small Fox series who wasn’t exactly big at the time. (You could argue the cameo by Drew Barrymore upped the quotient a bit but she wasn’t exactly big at the time either)
What’s probably comparable in 1996 was Lone Star which, while set in the 70′s, is basically a western. (And damn good film) While it still had a few big names (Chris Cooper, Kris Kristofferson, and Matthew McConaughey) at the time they were anything but A-listers. It’s budget was $5 million (1/3 of Scream) Admittedly it only made about 3x that. But the point is more about budget. Plus this was much more an art film than a film targeting the 15 – 30 year olds as most horror films do.
An other better comparison of the same era would be Dances with Wolves which with a budget of $19 million (and I bet much of that going to Costner) made $424 million.
Of course part of the problem in all this is just that few westerns are made and most that are made are for TV. (Here’s the list of all of the last 8 years) Most of the westerns of the past 20 years have tended to be big budget pictures. I don’t think one could argue that they have to be, just that most are aiming at that bigger budget target. The ones that tend not to be the bigger budget films tend to be targeting the more thoughtful artsy market. You don’t have them aiming at the young male action demographic, for whatever reason. Of course even with that arguably smaller market of “thoughtful films” you have them doing quite well. So the Coen’s No Country made $150 million on a budget of $25 million – still low budget by mainstream Hollywood standards. (Compare with say the Resident Evil series, the Grudge/Ring sequels etc.)
Yeah, my comparisons could have been better. I just went off the top of my head. But I think my basic point stands.
It is hard to find comparisons because horror so rarely uses a-list actors because they don’t need to.
Most modern westerns pack the cast and drive up the cost of production to entice people to buy a ticket, while horror movies starring Devon Sawa make $133 million worldwide.
I don’t even really know if we are debating anything at this point, but I think if you want to make money, you make a horror film. There is a reason Blockbuster is packed with “B” horror films that you’ve never heard of. They make money.
Again, all of this is sad, because I love my westerns too.
An other thing to keep in mind is that while there are profitable horror films and those are what get the attention for every profitable one there are several unprofitable ones. (Once again we’ll ignore the direct to video flicks that seem to line the rental locals although there are films like Day of the Dead with a budget of $18 mil and which was so bad that it was not given the expense of theatrical release)
But I agree that in general horror films have low budgets $10 – $20 million and seem guaranteed making that back. Which is why they are made. People will go to them regardless of how stupid, silly or whatever they are. They target that ideal 15 – 30 year old male demographic. The ones that don’t look like they will simply aren’t released into the theatrical distribution channel since distribution and marketing costs probably wouldn’t be recouped whereas they’ll still make money on the rental front.
The horror “bombs” are almost always larger budget films where the production company is caught between a rock and a hard place with them. Perhaps that’s why there are few higher budget horror films made unless they are sequels more guaranteed to get an audience.
Contrast this with western where after Dances with Wolves there were a string of bad flops that had kind of ridiculous budgets. This led to there being even fewer westerns made beyond the occasional big picture and then more artsy films. The fact, as you pointed out, that even the successful bigger budget films don’t make a huge profit also mitigates against making them. I’d say one problem is that we don’t see many action-westerns like there were back in the late 80′s and early 90′s. But in Hollywood it rarely pays to be innovative which is why we tend to see the same formulas repeated over and over again. (And let’s be honest – back in the heyday of westerns that was true as well)
If you look at the two genres historically, a lot of what applies to horror now applied to westerns in the 1930s through 1960s: they were cheap and easy to make, with a guaranteed audience no matter who you got to star. As the genre has died off, now westerns tend to be pet projects while horror movies still have the full range of good to awful.
I vote Westerns: The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, Shane, the Magnificent Seven are all excellent. I can’t even name one horror film that I liked, other than maybe Psycho. And of course, my favorite western of all time: Maverick with Mel Gibson. Ridiculous I know, but it’s just so funny…
My favorite movie of all time is a western: The Good The Bad and The Ugly. I can’t think of a single horror film that would make my top ten. Including Psycho.
Kwk, I consider it a western. I don’t think a film has to take place in the 1870s through 1890′s to be a western. (I think Legends of the Fall is a western too)
MCQ, I think both Alien and The Thing would be pretty high in my list of films. I’m not sure top 10, but pretty high. But outside of those and maybe The Shining I can’t think of too many really great horror movies I like. (I don’t consider Silence of the Lambs a horror movie, as I’ve mentioned)
Contrast this with the number of westerns. There’s a lot up there. (Once again not top 10 beyond The Good the Bad and the Ugly – but a lot in say my top 50) I could easily make a list of 10 westerns I love. I don’t think I could do that with horror. And with westerns I could rattle off a lot more than 10. Admittedly subjective but judging by the poll results I suspect I’m not alone.
[...] Who Should I Cheerjjohnsen: Who Should I CheerClark: Westerns or Horror Films?amri: Who Should I CheerHP: Who Should I CheerBrian V: Rapid-Fire Movie Reviewsklear: Rapid-Fire [...]
HORROR you can only get that cold dark feeling from an good horror flick, I HATE westerns, YAY cowboys, YAY indians, PLEASE, let’s rustle up some vitles while we’re at it, LAME, LAME, LAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don’t watch a lot of either genre, but I do agree that nothing is “better than” The Magnificent Seven. That’s just crazy talk.
Speaking of crazy, I believe I can end this argument with the Steve McQueen method. Steve McQueen’s western: The Magnificent Seven. Steve McQueen’s horror: The Blob. Westerns are better. QED.
Loading ...
There’s no horror film equivalent of Shane, The Wild Bunch or The Magnificent Seven, or….. take your pick. Horror films can be fun but they simply have not inspired great filmmaking as the Western has done.
Comment by Supergenius — January 5, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
I agree with Supergenius. No comparison
Comment by Dan — January 5, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Funny, I hadn’t seen a western in a while and decided to rent The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly last weekend. Good westerns are so awesome. (Even the Italian ones.) The best westerns kill the best horror films, but bad horror movies are way more entertaining than bad westerns.
Comment by kwk — January 5, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
The Exorcist, Silence of the Lambs, Jaws, and Rosemary’s Baby are as good, if not better, than Shane, The Wild Bunch, and The Magnificent Seven.
How many great westerns are being made right now? None. The horror genre has continued to mutate and inspire young filmakers. So many great directors have begun by making horror pictures.
The western is sadly dead in the water, and with a few exceptions we haven’t seen any decent westerns since the 60s.
Comment by Brian G — January 5, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
Bad westerns are boring but bad horror films are mind numbingly stupid. I can’t stand horror.
Brian, Apaloosa was a pretty good western. Last year’s 3:10 to Yuma was very good.
Westerns aren’t as common as horror but they are still being made (good and bad).
BTW – while Jaws has elements of horror I have a hard time seeing it as a horror film.
Comment by Clark — January 5, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
Nothing is “better than” the Magnificent Seven:
Anyway, I’d agree that good westerns aren’t being made anymore.
Comment by BrianJ — January 5, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
Horror all the way. Unless you count western musicals like The Harvey Girls.
Comment by Susan M — January 5, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
(“good westerns aren’t being made anymore,” meaning, not in large numbers. There are always exceptions.)
Comment by BrianJ — January 5, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Horror is cheap to make today, so you see more horror. Western was fairly cheap to make back in the day, which was partly why you saw more of it.
I think that the best horror (I’m thinking Night of the Living Dead/Texas Chainsaw Massacre) is not as intellectual as the best Westerns, but it is equally, if not more, powerful for its ability to evoke powerful emotion and catharsis.
If you can combine both (something like Unforgiven (which is not horror really, but exceptionally gory) or Pale Rider?), then you’ve got a really, good movie.
Comment by HP — January 5, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
“The Exorcist, Silence of the Lambs, Jaws, and Rosemary’s Baby are as good, if not better, than Shane, The Wild Bunch, and The Magnificent Seven.”
bwah haw haw haw! Brian, that’s just completely laughable. Utterly laughable. Those are passable horror films (except that Rosemary’s Baby is actually fairly terrible), but none of them are half as good as those others. There is no horror movie to compare to The Searchers. There’s no craft, either in plot, direction or cinematography, to even compare.
You’re also wrong about westerns. The past few years have shown plenty of very decent ones. Perhaps you’re forgetting Unforgiven? Even Appaloosa, or The Proposition were pretty good.
Just trying to be a troll on an obvious thread won’t make us bite!
Comment by Supergenius — January 5, 2009 @ 1:36 pm
Unforgiven was pretty boring. Which is the problem most Westerns have to overcome. 3:10 to Yuma (the remake) was pretty good though.
Comment by Tim J — January 5, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Okay, before I get to superspaz, er supergenius, let me just say that if Jaws is not a horror film, what is it? It is a monster movie plain and simple.
People tend to look down on horror and that’s fine, that’s part of the genius of it as a genre. The disdain and the marginalization of the horror film is what allows horror filmmakers to be transgressive and experimental and push boundaries. You just don’t see that in the western.
Comment by Brian G — January 5, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
Psycho?
Comment by Tim J — January 5, 2009 @ 2:22 pm
As far as recent efforts in the western there are very few that have been excellent.
I do like Unforgiven and 3:10 to Yuma was also well done. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford had it’s moments.
But the horror movie, unlike the Western thrives in other cultures beyond America. Japanese horror and Korean horror films are excellent. Even the snooty French are making great horror films currently.
The Italians, of course, really understood the western and made it their own. Sergio Leone is a genius, but other than the spaghetti western, other countries haven’t made many great westerns, simply because the themes of the western aren’t as universal. The western is limited in that regard. Its appeal is that it is uniquely American, but that is also a weakness.
Comment by Brian G — January 5, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Supergenius,
Try not to flip out every time I disagree with you. If by troll you mean someone who doesn’t agree with you and can back up their opinion, then I’m guilty as charged.
Look, Unforgiven was made sixteen years ago. I love it, but it’s not a great example of a great western made in the last few years.
It’s not laughable to suggest Silence of the Lambs is better than Magnificent Seven, it won five oscars, picture, director, actor, actress and screenplay. Magnificent Seven was a derivative Americanization of a much superior Japanese film. Wild Bunch’s reputation rests on its over the top, gory finale, which nearly calls for its reclassification a a horror film. Shane has its predictable heart-string pulling moments, but if I have to hear that blonde-haired kid shout “Shane!” one more time, I think I might gouge my eyes out.
I stand by my opinion.
Comment by Brian G — January 5, 2009 @ 2:56 pm
I’ve not seen it yet but there’s a Japanese western called Sukiyaki Western Django that’s getting rave reviews. I’d also say that the western doesn’t translate as well since it covers about 20 – 30 years of the American frontier. But there are other films that seem to borrow a lot of the western mentality taken to other historical and world settings. One could argue that the Samurai films so popular in Japan were very much westerns. Yojimbo is the classic example as was The Seven Samurai. The settings for those sorts of films was the era of the masterless ronin and instability in Japan that happens to parallel the late 19th century American west. It’s not coincidence that both Yojimbo and Seven Samurai were remade as traditional westerns that are considered classics of the genre.
Likewise some of the “classic” horror films — Psycho, Jaws, Silence of the Lambs, etc. — really aren’t normal horror films but are somewhat genre transgressing. If those count as horror films that surely we ought expand the notion of the western.
Also Italian cinema in the 50′s through early 70′s was a unique situation due to the politics of Italy. I don’t think that particular kind of cinema really would work elsewhere. And even in Italy once that hey-day of theatre for entertainment (and subversion) ended so too did the creativity. Of course there was still Italian cinema. But things had changed significantly.
Comment by Clark — January 5, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
The violence of the Wild Bunch ending is vastly overstated. Yeah it was shocking for when it was made. But it’s pretty passe now. If that’s horror then most war movies are much more so. And if Saving Private Ryan is a horror film then the genre as a category is meaningless.
I do think that the western had two classic periods. The 40′s through early 60′s. And then the late 60′s through the early 80′s. Both eras used the genre to tell stories that were much broader and perhaps more archetypal than one expected. Given the iconicity and nostalgia of the genre it can do that in ways I think other genres have trouble with.
John Ford did a lot with the genre that I think doesn’t get appreciated. Further when we look back and the Hollywood westerns from before the 70′s and think we miss a lot if we don’t think of the culture at the time. (Much as we do if we watch say the original The Day the Earth Stood Still minus the cultural context)
Comment by Clark — January 5, 2009 @ 3:00 pm
One last thought. There’s no doubt there are excellent films in nearly all genres. There are some great classic horror films. (My favorites being Alien, The Shining, The Thing and The Terminator) I think though that if you were to make a list of the great westerns and great horror films the former would vastly outnumber the latter. (Despite there being over the decades many more horror films)
Change it to films that transcend the genre (i.e. are about something more fundamental) and I think westerns do much, much better. Yes there are some great horror films that do “more.” (The Shining tries although I’m not convinced it is successful in that regard) But there are a lot of westerns that do that.
Comment by Clark — January 5, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
“There is no horror movie to compare to The Searchers.”
This is a subjective statement.
Comment by American Yak — January 5, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
Excellent points, Clark.
I would say Americans borrowed from the Japanese more than the other way around, but I do agree that the Samauri film does have its parallels to the western and its gunslingers. Yojimbo, incidentally, has its roots in detective fiction, and is based on the Dashiell Hammet classic Red Harvest. Kurosawa was a big fan.
I’m all for expanding the definition of western genre, but there is no question in my mind that Jaws, Silence, Pyscho, are all firmly rooted in the horror genre. It is one thing to say that they push at the boundaries of other genres, but to throw them out of a discussion by saying they’re atypical examples of horror isn’t fair, or accurate.
My comment that Wild Bunch should be reclassified as horror was purely tongue in cheek.
I disagree with your very last point in that I think just as many horror films transcend their genre as do westerns. The problem is when a horror film transcends its genre, people tend to want to insist its not a horror film (this thread is an example of what I’m talking about). I don’t know why. Maybe so they don’t have to admit they like horror films, or don’t want a great film grouped in with films that star Jason, Freddy, and Chucky. Who knows?
Comment by Brian G — January 5, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
I have a hard time seeing Silence of the Lambs as a horror film. It’s a classic detective thriller. There’s really not much horror in it. It’s horrific but it’s not like there weren’t “catch the serial killer” films before it. If it is a horror film then so too is every serial killer film out there. Admittedly many have always been on the boundary. (Including several by Hitchcock himself – such as Frenzy) To me the difference is whether the focus is on victims fleeing the killer or on the cops seeking the killer. There’s no main character in danger in Silence of the Lambs. Contrast this with say Red Dragon or even Hannibal where there are more elements of horror in the film.
As to whether Japanese (or Chinese) film borrows from American more or vice versa I’m not sure how to go about judging that. Certainly there is a lot original in those countries. But there’s a lot they borrow. For instance a lot of folks talk about John Woo but watch his classic films like The Killer. It’s aping Miami Vice to a ridiculous amount.
Yeah Kurosawa is a genius and did a lot that was original. But he borrowed heavily from many western styles as well.
By “transcend the genre” I’m more speaking to the film speaking to larger issues. As I said I think The Shining is a classic example of that (even though I think it fails on that level). Night of the Living Dead is an other example. I don’t think folks would deny those as horror films.
The detective film or action thriller is where things get more problematic. If there are no supernatural elements and you have a killer being sought by the police it’s easy to label it as horror simply because the cop genre and horror genre share a lot of elements. I don’t think that’s denying they are horror.
Of course you can have ones that are amazingly genre twisting. Think of Twin Peaks or Twin Peaks Fire Walk with Me. Horror? Certainly there are elements. Genre lines are always blurry. For instance science fiction and horror blur with each others a lot. (Is the first Terminator a horror film or not? What about the sequel? Ditto for Alien although I think fewer would be loath to call the first film a horror film.)
Comment by Clark — January 5, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
Bravo, Clark.
I struggle with Jaws as a horror film. After all, there’s some decent acting in it…
I chose westerns just because there’s usually a more plausible story to them than there is to horror films. I say this tongue-in-cheek because those folks I know who do enjoy a good horror flick generally are not drawn to them for their story-telling. Although as a kid, I thought Jason from Friday the 13th (or whatever the franchise was called) was a cool story. Freddy Krueger’s story was cool for a few films too. I haven’t seen Saw or Scream.
Appaloosa was awesome. 3:10 to Yuma (new one) I really liked. Unforgiven didn’t do it for me like the others, but I won’t classify the 2 hours watching it as a waste of time.
Comment by David J — January 5, 2009 @ 4:43 pm
Westerns – if for no other reason than the amazing soundtracks. The Magnificent Seven, How The West Was Won, The Big Country, The Sons of Katie Elder, and many more have stirring scores. Shoot, I even love the theme to The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly, and Blazing Saddles.
Comment by larryco_ — January 5, 2009 @ 5:21 pm
I think that Clark’s (and Brian G’s) points go to what I was trying to say earlier. Horror is a genre that is built more on the emotions it evokes than genre distinctions (what is the Stepford Wives? Sci-Fi or Horror?). That is why Silence of the Lambs and Psycho are usually classed as horror even though they are (at least somewhat) serial killer movies. If the emotive goal of the movie is to evoke fear or dread, you’ve got yourself a horror movie.
Westerns, on the other hand, are a blank slate emotionally. They can have suspense, but are there westerns that evoke those strong emotions? Instead, the western usually takes the bleak desert southwest as a base on which they can approach any issue (usually issues of pulls between individual and societal needs). They are a more intellectual genre generally (which isn’t to say that horror can’t be intellectual, but that the intellectualism there is relatively less pronounced because you are dealing the emotions involved with creatures popping out of people’s chests).
Dismissing horror’s possibility as great art is like saying that romance novels aren’t any good (or like saying that if it is good, it ain’t a romance novel). I think Brian G’s criticism on that front is just.
Comment by HP — January 5, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
It may be impossible for me to vote in this one. These are by far my two favorite genres.
I’m surprised at the love for Appaloosa here. I was very disappointed with that one. Zellweger’s face alone ruined the film.
Comment by John K. — January 5, 2009 @ 7:02 pm
Let’s be real. Silence of the Lambs is about a guy who kidnaps overweight women and puts them in a well, so he can later skin them and make his own woman suit. To catch him the hero goes into a dungeon to talk to cannibalistic madman in a straight jacket who later escapes by cutting off a guard’s face and wearing it. The plot alone, not to mention lighting, music, mood, etc. is undeniably the stuff of horror. Plus, the main character does come into direct face-to-face conflict with the killer at the climax of the picture. Calling it a classic detective story to avoid calling it a horror film is a little like calling High Noon a cop drama because it’s about a sheriff. Or calling Stagecoach a road picture because it’s about a cross country trip.
I think I know what you mean by “transcend the genre” and I still disagree. All the classic horror films and their monsters speak to something more. For example, the werewolf film is really about the dual nature of man and resisting the beast in every man. Frankenstein is about man playing God and the appropriate boundaries of science. Fifties monster movies and Godzilla are about fear of the nuclear age. The Ring is about a fear of technology, or media influence in our lives. Vampire pictures are often about desire for immortality, or fear of disease, or the seductive nature of evil. Take a movie like the original Dawn of the Dead, it appears to be about zombies surrounding a mall, but it’s really about a critique of consumer culture turning us all into mindless masses.
Comment by Brian G — January 5, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
(”good westerns aren’t being made anymore,” meaning, not in large numbers. There are always exceptions.)
And good horror films are being made in large numbers now?
Comment by kwk — January 5, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
I’m with Brian G on this one. The western is largely a dead genre. I see people saying, “Yeah, but there are a lot of really crappy horror movies!” You know what? There were tons and tons of really crappy westerns that were made back in the day. Of course, now people think of Sergio Leone and John Ford and have mostly forgotten about all the bad b-movie westerns. Horror movies are still being made, and while most of them (just like most movies in general) aren’t that good, occasionally great horror movies are still made.
Comment by BTD Greg — January 6, 2009 @ 8:31 am
I voted for westerns, but mostly because i’m not a big fan of horror movies. But after this thread, i’m not sure what a horror movie is anymore. Maybe i’m not sure what a western is anymore either. Love Clint eastwood though. He would kick John Wayne’s but any day.
I tell you what though, if you don’t think they make good horror movies, try watching “let the right one in” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_the_Right_One_In
Dang. They will be soon making a lame american version.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — January 6, 2009 @ 10:24 am
There’s no doubt Greg that as a genre the western is not popular. Even though there are a lot of horror films made 98% of them suck. (For some reason beyond most genres horror films seem to make money no matter how bad they are) Perhaps because there are so few westerns made those that are made tend on average to be better.
Brian, the film is about an FBI agent trying to catch a serial killer. I’ll say it again, if that’s horror so too were all the other film adaptations of those books like Red Dragon. So too for that matter would be films like Natural Born Killers, Seven, Dressed to Kill, From Hell, Summer of Sam, or even Basic Instinct.
Comment by Clark — January 6, 2009 @ 11:13 am
Brian, regarding the trascending films, I don’t deny there are films that manage to do this in the horror genre. But they are dang rare.
Comment by Clark — January 6, 2009 @ 11:20 am
It’s cool, Clark. At least you’re not calling me a troll. A film that transcends its genre–any genre–is damn rare. I just feel horror and the western are about equal in that regard.
It’s not the FBI agent or the serial killers that make Silence of the Lambs a horror film, it’s the style, the level of gore, the lighting, the atmosphere–all the same things that make Alien, for example, as much a horror film as a sci-fi film. Of the films you mention I personaly think Seven, Dressed to Kill, and From Hell are all arguably horror films.
Some directors approach serial killer stories as straight-up thrillers, others take a more stylistic approach, but if you look at the seminal serial killer films, films such as Psycho and Halloween, they’re undeniably horror pictures.
Comment by Brian G — January 6, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
Seriously, Clark. That’s like saying that because Seven and the Dan Ackroyd version of Dragnet are both about police officers investigating murders, they are both best understood as police procedurals.
Any transcendant film is dang rare. That’s the whole point.
Comment by HP — January 6, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
This just depends on whether “Army of Darkness” is considered a horror film, rather than “Pure Awesomeness”.
In total though, there have been more westerns in the last ten years worth watching than horror films.
Comment by Matt W. — January 6, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
I agree such films are rare. I just think there’s a lot more found in the western genre for whatever reason.
We’ll probably just have to agree to disagree on the other points. I agree the distinction is stylistic. I just don’t think Silence, From Hell, Seven and so forth fit whereas Alien, Halloween and others do.
I do agree with Matt though. While there have been a ridiculous number of horror films, especially compared to westerns, it’s weird there have been more good westerns than horror films.
Comment by Clark — January 6, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
I think the divide between quality westerns and horror is interesting considering the vast advantage in quantity on the horror side.
There are probably several factors, but I think it boils down to these.
As previously noted, people seems to show up to horror films regardless of the lack in quality. They make money, period. This leads to a sort of mass production mind set. In addition, horror films are generally cheap to make – so in the off chance that one does fail? No biggie.
Westerns on the other hand struggle to get an audience these days. They cost more too. So, if someone is to put their money behind a western, they are going to be darned sure that everything is just right. Good casting, the script gets refined over and over and over.
For a western to see the light of day, people are going to have to be big believers.
Horror on the other hand has become a lazy get rich quick dream.
Comment by John K. — January 6, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
I’d like to give another heads up to The Proposition. Not only is it a superior western, it is one of only a few movies from the last several years to scare me good.
I also think of No Country for Old Men as a western that unsettled in a way that horror movies might aspire to. ~
Comment by Thomas Parkin — January 6, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Horror Westerns are interesting. Excluding the direct to video B movies there aren’t many. I agree No Country for Old Men has elements (although I’d not call it horror). But the villain really has elements of Halloween. Eastwood’s High Plains Drifter is an interesting one as well. To a slightly lesser extent Pale Rider follows the phenomena.
I’m not sure westerns need cost more than horror BTW. Horses aren’t hard to come by. And think of all the special effects you don’t need.
Comment by clark — January 7, 2009 @ 12:03 am
Period clothing and sets cost. Plus, you need to cast well if you want your western to be a hit. That costs money as well.
For whatever reason, people will go see a horror flick no matter who is in it.
That is a major reason we end up with Robert Duvall, Kevin Costner, Val Kilmer, Christian Bale, Russell Crowe, Clint Eastwood, etc. in our westerns and normally we get folks like Rebecca Gayheart and Joshua Jackson in horror. That is a cost differential right there.
You can usually bang out a horror flick significantly quicker too, which is pretty much the ultimate driver of the cost of a film. Shooting days.
Comment by John K. — January 7, 2009 @ 2:35 am
Just some quick examples:
3:10 to Yuma – $55m
Open Range – $22m
Appaloosa – $20m
The Assassination of Jesse James – $30m
Saw – $1.2m
The Grudge – $10m
Hostel – $4.8m
Scream – $14m
These are movies that I selected at random. I tried a couple others, but I can’t dig up the numbers on every movie I’d like to.
Interesting is what these films made as well:
3:10 to Yuma
Domestic: $53,606,916
Foreign: $16,409,304
———————————————-
= Worldwide: $70,016,220
minus the $55m budget
* $15m *
Open Range
Domestic: $58,331,254
Foreign: $9,965,039
———————————————-
= Worldwide: $68,296,293
minus the $22m budget
* $46m *
Appaloosa
Domestic: $20,081,527
Foreign: $5,929,039
——————————————–
= Worldwide: $26,010,566
minus the $20m budget
* $6m *
The Assassination of Jesse James
Domestic: $3,909,149
Foreign: $11,092,627
———————————————-
= Worldwide: $15,001,776
minus the $30m budget
* -15m *
Saw
Domestic: $55,185,045
Foreign: $47,911,300
———————————————-
= Worldwide: $103,096,345
minus $1.2m budget
* $101.5m *
The Grudge
Domestic: $110,359,362
Foreign: $76,921,753
———————————————-
= Worldwide: $187,281,115
minus the $10m budget
* $177m *
Hostel
Domestic: $47,326,473
Foreign: $33,252,461
———————————————-
= Worldwide: $80,578,934
minus the $4.8m budget
* $75.5m *
Scream
Domestic: $103,046,663
+ Foreign: $70,000,000
———————————————
= Worldwide: $173,046,663
minus the $14m budget
* $159m *
Now the sad thing about all this. The westerns are probably better 3/4 of the time. But to make them is just not good business.
Comment by John K. — January 7, 2009 @ 3:16 am
Those numbers are interesting. I’d rather watch any of those horror films than any of those westerns. (The Grudge is pretty funny)
Comment by Susan M — January 7, 2009 @ 10:50 am
John, you picked westerns with pretty big name stars. I’d lay really good odds that payroll was the #1 expense in those. The only “low” budget one was Appaloosa. And even that, which was a personal project of Ed Harris, starred Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Renée Zellweger and Jeremy Irons.
Now maybe you have a point that now that westerns are only made if a few A-list actors are in them.
The only one on the horror front that seems comparible was Scream – but that was from 1996! But even there the “star” was from a small Fox series who wasn’t exactly big at the time. (You could argue the cameo by Drew Barrymore upped the quotient a bit but she wasn’t exactly big at the time either)
What’s probably comparable in 1996 was Lone Star which, while set in the 70′s, is basically a western. (And damn good film) While it still had a few big names (Chris Cooper, Kris Kristofferson, and Matthew McConaughey) at the time they were anything but A-listers. It’s budget was $5 million (1/3 of Scream) Admittedly it only made about 3x that. But the point is more about budget. Plus this was much more an art film than a film targeting the 15 – 30 year olds as most horror films do.
An other better comparison of the same era would be Dances with Wolves which with a budget of $19 million (and I bet much of that going to Costner) made $424 million.
Of course part of the problem in all this is just that few westerns are made and most that are made are for TV. (Here’s the list of all of the last 8 years) Most of the westerns of the past 20 years have tended to be big budget pictures. I don’t think one could argue that they have to be, just that most are aiming at that bigger budget target. The ones that tend not to be the bigger budget films tend to be targeting the more thoughtful artsy market. You don’t have them aiming at the young male action demographic, for whatever reason. Of course even with that arguably smaller market of “thoughtful films” you have them doing quite well. So the Coen’s No Country made $150 million on a budget of $25 million – still low budget by mainstream Hollywood standards. (Compare with say the Resident Evil series, the Grudge/Ring sequels etc.)
Comment by Clark — January 7, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Yeah, my comparisons could have been better. I just went off the top of my head. But I think my basic point stands.
It is hard to find comparisons because horror so rarely uses a-list actors because they don’t need to.
Most modern westerns pack the cast and drive up the cost of production to entice people to buy a ticket, while horror movies starring Devon Sawa make $133 million worldwide.
I don’t even really know if we are debating anything at this point, but I think if you want to make money, you make a horror film. There is a reason Blockbuster is packed with “B” horror films that you’ve never heard of. They make money.
Again, all of this is sad, because I love my westerns too.
Comment by John K. — January 7, 2009 @ 12:05 pm
An other thing to keep in mind is that while there are profitable horror films and those are what get the attention for every profitable one there are several unprofitable ones. (Once again we’ll ignore the direct to video flicks that seem to line the rental locals although there are films like Day of the Dead with a budget of $18 mil and which was so bad that it was not given the expense of theatrical release)
But I agree that in general horror films have low budgets $10 – $20 million and seem guaranteed making that back. Which is why they are made. People will go to them regardless of how stupid, silly or whatever they are. They target that ideal 15 – 30 year old male demographic. The ones that don’t look like they will simply aren’t released into the theatrical distribution channel since distribution and marketing costs probably wouldn’t be recouped whereas they’ll still make money on the rental front.
The horror “bombs” are almost always larger budget films where the production company is caught between a rock and a hard place with them. Perhaps that’s why there are few higher budget horror films made unless they are sequels more guaranteed to get an audience.
Contrast this with western where after Dances with Wolves there were a string of bad flops that had kind of ridiculous budgets. This led to there being even fewer westerns made beyond the occasional big picture and then more artsy films. The fact, as you pointed out, that even the successful bigger budget films don’t make a huge profit also mitigates against making them. I’d say one problem is that we don’t see many action-westerns like there were back in the late 80′s and early 90′s. But in Hollywood it rarely pays to be innovative which is why we tend to see the same formulas repeated over and over again. (And let’s be honest – back in the heyday of westerns that was true as well)
Comment by Clark — January 7, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
If you look at the two genres historically, a lot of what applies to horror now applied to westerns in the 1930s through 1960s: they were cheap and easy to make, with a guaranteed audience no matter who you got to star. As the genre has died off, now westerns tend to be pet projects while horror movies still have the full range of good to awful.
Comment by BTD Greg — January 7, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
What BTD Greg said.
Comment by HP — January 7, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Has anyone ever seen any of the silent westerns made in the 1910s? I want to check those out. William S. Hart specifically.
Comment by Susan M — January 7, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
You don’t see a lot of cop films anymore either beyond the attempts at art. Contrast this to the 70′s through early 90′s. Genres come and go.
Comment by Clark — January 7, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
I vote Westerns: The Searchers, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, Shane, the Magnificent Seven are all excellent. I can’t even name one horror film that I liked, other than maybe Psycho. And of course, my favorite western of all time: Maverick with Mel Gibson. Ridiculous I know, but it’s just so funny…
Comment by LT — January 7, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
My favorite movie of all time is a western: The Good The Bad and The Ugly. I can’t think of a single horror film that would make my top ten. Including Psycho.
Comment by MCQ — January 7, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
I sat through For A Few Dollars More over the holidays. It was worth it.
I also saw The Grudge a few weeks ago. Not so worth it.
Comment by Geoff J — January 7, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
So, to recap: Horror wins?
Comment by Susan M — January 7, 2009 @ 10:31 pm
The Grudge was awful.
Comment by John K. — January 7, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
Can the westerners claim No Country For Old Men?
Comment by kwk — January 8, 2009 @ 12:01 am
Kwk, I consider it a western. I don’t think a film has to take place in the 1870s through 1890′s to be a western. (I think Legends of the Fall is a western too)
MCQ, I think both Alien and The Thing would be pretty high in my list of films. I’m not sure top 10, but pretty high. But outside of those and maybe The Shining I can’t think of too many really great horror movies I like. (I don’t consider Silence of the Lambs a horror movie, as I’ve mentioned)
Contrast this with the number of westerns. There’s a lot up there. (Once again not top 10 beyond The Good the Bad and the Ugly – but a lot in say my top 50) I could easily make a list of 10 westerns I love. I don’t think I could do that with horror. And with westerns I could rattle off a lot more than 10. Admittedly subjective but judging by the poll results I suspect I’m not alone.
Comment by Clark — January 8, 2009 @ 11:32 am
[...] Who Should I Cheerjjohnsen: Who Should I CheerClark: Westerns or Horror Films?amri: Who Should I CheerHP: Who Should I CheerBrian V: Rapid-Fire Movie Reviewsklear: Rapid-Fire [...]
Pingback by Kulturblog » 5 Greatest Westerns — January 8, 2009 @ 11:59 am
HORROR you can only get that cold dark feeling from an good horror flick, I HATE westerns, YAY cowboys, YAY indians, PLEASE, let’s rustle up some vitles while we’re at it, LAME, LAME, LAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by gail — February 17, 2009 @ 11:01 am
by the way… ummm… any one know when the fatal frame movie is com’in out? I love the video game
Comment by gail — February 17, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
I don’t watch a lot of either genre, but I do agree that nothing is “better than” The Magnificent Seven. That’s just crazy talk.
Speaking of crazy, I believe I can end this argument with the Steve McQueen method. Steve McQueen’s western: The Magnificent Seven. Steve McQueen’s horror: The Blob. Westerns are better. QED.
Comment by madhousewife — February 17, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
NO WAYYYYYYY HORROR is beter gail is right
Comment by CRAZY-bout-horror — February 18, 2009 @ 6:45 am