Our special feature examining the past, present and future of the horror genre concludes this week by focusing on the best in recent horror films, and what they’re doing right.

[This month, we bring you a special four-part series examining the past, present and future of the horror genre, with a new article to be posted each week. Part 1 asked the question, “What Ever Happened To Rosemary’s Baby?” We decided there are two aspects to the decline of modern horror: the absence of great directorial talent (which we covered in Part 2) and the preponderance of terrible, terrible horror movies (like The Strangers, which we covered in Part 3). Part IV: The Shining focuses on the best recent horror films, analyzes what they’re doing right, and hopefully will lend some recognition to new underappreciated horror classics.]

After all this crotchety bitching about the new breed of horror movies, you might be under the impression that I’ve hated everything I’ve seen over the last five years.  Actually, even though Saw and The Strangers and a million other lousy horror movies have reduced the quality of horror collectively, some of the best movies within the genre have also come out.  So, I’m going to discuss what I feel are the six best horror movies that have been released since Saw, in order to show that even during the worst of times, great things can happen: mainly by ignoring cheap prevailing trends and sticking to creatively  modifying but also respecting the established framework.

Analysis will be somewhat limited, as a lot of these films might have gone under the radar, and I don’t want to ruin plot points for readers (especially for movies like these, which tend to be genuinely creative in that department).  I hope to get across my enthusiasm for the quality of these and prompt you to see the ones you haven’t, relying on descriptions of what makes them good as opposed to what specifically happens.

#6. Masters of Horror: Dreams In The Witch House (Dir. By Stuart Gordon - 2005)

Showtime’s Masters of Horror anthology series was a knockout idea, even if the actual films didn’t always deliver the way fans expected them to.  The concept of taking established horror vets like Tobe Hooper, Takashi Miike, and John Carpenter and giving them the opportunity to make uncensored hour-length featurettes would lead you to think that every episode would be amazing.  However, when they were actually released, fans found that they were more likely to see a brilliant episode bookended by two mediocre ones.

That said, when the series has been good, it’s been excellent.  John Carpenter’s first submission, Cigarette Burns, about a film with the ability to cause homicidal insanity, was a great one and narrowly avoided missing this list.  But the one that I keep coming back to, and decided on, is Stuart Gordon’s first-season episode, an adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft’s Dreams In The Witch House.

No discussion of horror of any kind would be complete without Lovecraft, to date the preeminent author within the field.  Incredibly prolific, his body of work can be compared to the Masters of Horror series in the sense that there are so many terrible or nonsensical stories enclosing works of pure brilliance.  Many of Lovecraft’s stories have inspired films or been adapted for film; the problem is that, due to the scale and how imaginative Lovecraft’s tales of psychic and cosmic horror are in the original text, they are frequently impossible to represent on film.

Gordon has been adapting Lovecraft stories into films over the past twenty years, and Dreams was his fifth time doing so.  While his other attempts ranged from failures (From Beyond) to okay for the fan, but not for anyone else (Dagon), he kept pushing on.  I think it’s fair to say that, not just for Gordon, but for all directors, no adaptation to date has come close to matching the quality of Lovecraft’s better works until Stuart Gordon’s Dreams In The Witch House.

Dreams In The Witch House’s plot basically follows its title: a graduate student working on his thesis moves into a room in a supposedly haunted house, and begins experiencing nightmares of a witch and her familiar that start affecting his waking life.  Lovecraft’s original story is one of the lesser well-received of his later works, with many criticizing the plot and arguing that it’s a mess of successful images that aren’t tied together via plot (coincidentally, the most critically lauded Italian horror films would probably fit that same description).  I’ve never agreed with those critical reads on it, and I think it’s an excellent haunted house story with a particularly effective denouement.

Watching Dreams, it’s easy to pinpoint what makes the adaptation succeed so well.  For the fan of the original text or Lovecraft in general, there’s the barrage of references Gordon incorporated, from the “weird geometry” of the story’s room to the main character’s Miskatonic University t-shirt.  Although the original takes place when it was written in 1932, Gordon brought it into the modern age perfectly, updating it in ways that make it more disturbing for modern audiences, while successfully avoiding sacrificing any of the atmosphere or mood that come naturally with the (somewhat faux-) antiquated prose of the original.  That claustrophobic mood that’s central to the story is executed perfectly, and Ezra Godden’s increasingly disconnected and unraveling performance carries the movie to the aforementioned conclusion.

For me, this episode made the list for several reasons.  First, it is the first faithful Lovecraft film adaptation, which for me prompts the question: what other of his works can be successfully adapted, bringing the ideas of this true master of horror to a new generation of fans?  And will catching even this episode prompt people to pick up his story collections?  Secondly, it is personally exciting to see Gordon succeed at a “noble feat” (for the Lovecraft fan) he’s been attempting for over twenty years, and not feeling the same sense of being let-down those past attempts inspired.  And third, the promotion of Lovecraft aside, it’s just a great featurette that I think worked well within the anthology framework of the series.  If you’ve never seen or are just starting the Masters of Horror series, do yourself a favor and skip the first episode and go straight to this one.

#5.  Behind The Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (Dir. By Scott Glosserman - 2006)

Let’s just preface this by saying: I know.  This is the one that’s going to draw heat.  If any picks on this list are disputed at a volume above normal disagreement, Behind The Mask will be the one that provokes that.  Its critical reputation is dubious: in fact, the year it came out, I’m pretty confident I saw it on as many Worst Top 10 lists as I did Best Top 10 lists.  But, in the end, it’s my list.  If it’s any consolation, I had this spot down for either Behind The Mask or 2008’s Baghead, and ended up going with the one with more violence (not strictly because of that, though).

Behind The Mask takes place in a world where the slasher killers (Freddy, Jason, etc.) of cinema are real, and a documentary is being made about Leslie Vernon, a young acolyte hoping to join their ranks.  He takes the film crew through his preparations, meetings with his mentors, stalking, etc.  As the film crew finally gains their moral grounding and realizes the consequences of the killing spree Leslie is planning, the documentary switches to a traditional slasher film, and they become the prey.

In a way, Behind The Mask is less like a slasher film, and more akin to a comedy like Hot Fuzz, in which the first hour is spent poking at the genre and enumerating its tired cliches, while the second half completely embraces them, for the comedic enjoyment of the audience.  And that’s probably what people hate about it.  Because Behind The Mask’s skewering, whether it’s “Survivor Girls” or “Ahabs” or Leslie’s relentless plotting atoning for his lack of supernatural powers, is right on point with a lot of movies that we love.

I’m guessing the other thing that drives people who I would think would like the movie (but don’t) nuts is Leslie himself.  Portrayed by Nathan Baesel, he’s basically a hyperactive “Jim Carrey” type who is into torture and serial murder as opposed to pet detectives, hobbies, lying, or whatever stupid fucking thing Jim Carrey is making movies about these days.  But to me, that disconnect between Leslie’s personality and his idolization of slashers and sense of place within the pantheon is one of the funniest parts of the film.  This affable goofball, strolling around with a camera crew talking about his preparations at the house where the final murders will take place, and winning the crew over, really is some excellent black comedy.

So, moving past what people might not like, let’s summarize why this movie deserves to be here.  First, the film is expertly constructed.  The documentary and comedy of the first half is totally subverted by the “real film” second half, which also ironically utilizes the elements from the first half to create a tonal dichotomy between slasher film and comedy in a way that I found particularly new and inventive.  Secondly, it wears its heart on its sleeve.  From the horror aficionado’s star-studded cast (Kane Hodder, Robert Englund, etc.) to the barrage of slasher references, it’s clear the film was written and directed by people who love and GET the genre.

So Behind The Mask takes the “postmodern take on horror” spot on this list for me.  Just like Scream before it, it’s a meta-horror movie that mines the genre to criticize what is stale in it, and despite Scream’s success, still manages to find ample new material to criticize.  I found it clever, entertaining, and violent, and if that doesn’t constitute good horror, I don’t know what does.

#4.  Wolf Creek (Dir. by Greg McLean - 2005)

Ever since the release of Saw, popular movies within a new variation on the horror genre have been released in a style frequently referred to as “torture porn”.  If its clear predecessor was the slashers, torture porn is less about the slashing, and more about the preceding two hours of pulling someone’s teeth out.  I typically tend not to enjoy the films that fall in the genre; for me, the slasher genre tends to be so formulaic, that I prefer its films to be gory escapist fun as opposed to causing torturous uncomfortability.

Wolf Creek is not an easy film to watch.  It’s not a popcorn horror flick or a postmodern genre-bend or a hilarious gore-out.  It’s a movie that details the kidnapping, torture, chasing, and murders of three tourists sightseeing at Wolfe Creek in the Australian outback.  Although it is based on the well-documented murders of Australia’s most notorious serial killer, “The Backpack Murderer” Ivan Milat, compared to the documentaries I have seen on the same subject, the movie is much more adept at exploring his evil — by creating empathetic characters we truly don’t want to see harmed, in a much better approximation of how we feel in reality, as opposed to the standard “Kill ‘Em All” mentality and characterization we apply towards most victims in most horror movies.

Despite being well made, Wolf Creek is not for everybody, either.  Greg McLean followed Wolf Creek with Rogue, an Aussie independent monster flick about a giant crocodile.  My girlfriend, who is usually not a fan of the horror genre, found herself engrossed by the tension and cinematography, and said that she enjoyed Rogue far more than she expected to.   Wolf Creek, despite equivalent if not superior tension and cinematography, would not receive the same reaction from her.

While I remain convinced it’s the best movie Roger Ebert’s ever given zero stars to, I can understand why people don’t like it.  It is excruciatingly violent, relentlessly intense, and, as mentioned before, the victims are genuinely likeable.  In short, as opposed to a breakout hit that rallies critics who typically despise horror, Wolf Creek was largely panned by mainstream critics, but enthusiastically celebrated by the horror press.  A mainstream review is more likely to deride the film’s plot, while a horror review will celebrate its pacing and cinematography.  That’s because the content is so extreme and brutal that you either can or can’t get past it.

Provocative, well made, and highly divisive, Wolf Creek is one of two films on this list that I wouldn’t recommend universally, but am going to have to modify by adding “not for the squeamish”.  The imagery will stick with you, whether it’s the torture of a crucifixion, or the magnitude of space above the Wolfe Creek crater.  For me, the question of whether the movie has value isn’t about whether or not it depicts something brutal and ugly (it does), but whether skill went into its creation, and if its capable of affecting the audience.  Based on the divisive mixture of laudatory reviews and critics who left the theater, the second question is answered; the first one is for you to decide.

#3.  Slither (Dir. by James Gunn - 2006)

For how good it is, for how well-received it was by both mainstream critics and the horror elite, for how much of a comeback the horror genre has made, and for how many dollars far inferior horror movies grossed, Slither should have been a massive hit.  Instead, the film grossed under 8 million dollars in the U.S. and Canada during its theatrical run, and a total worldwide gross under 13 million dollars.  Forget the somewhat substantial marketing budget: that didn’t even cover production.  A lot of times, a well-made but missed hit can find a cult audience on DVD (i.e. Office Space), but that was not to be the case for Slither either.  That’s unfortunate, because people are missing out.

Slither is a gross-out horror comedy in the vein of Dead Alive.  Writer/director James Gunn, a Troma vet who prior to this was probably best known for writing the Dawn of the Dead remake, and for writing and co-directing Tromeo and Juliet (yes, I’m going to pretend that he didn’t write those shitty Scooby Doo live action movies.  Although, for the amount of money I’m assuming they paid him, I’d definitely have written them myself), took advantage of the expanded studio budget to make a comedy about an alien life form that takes over a town, infecting the citizens and making them alien zombies.  While that’s a pretty familiar plot at this point, what makes Slither a cut above is the humor, the gory special effects, and the talented cast.  It’s the sort of movie you start watching with low expectations, and anyone who happens to walk by is going to get sucked in and marvel with you.

So, a B-horror homage that successfully blended horror with comedy but didn’t manage to succeed at the box office has become a recently cited example of why horror comedy doesn’t “work”.  But that’s the mistake: the movie proves that it does work, maybe just not as an investment.  That said, I think Mr. Gunn got a raw deal and really deserves a lot more credit for making this than he’s received.  Since apparently my dad and I were the only two people in America who saw this, do James Gunn and yourself a favor and buy or rent it to watch on Halloween this year.

#2. The Descent (Dir. by Neil Marshall - 2005)

Selecting whether The Descent would be number one or two was the hardest choice on this entire list.  It’s much better known than my top pick, it’s more critically regarded, it’s more fun, and frankly, I have already watched The Descent more than once: number one might not be able to claim that last part.  In the end, I had to rank The Descent at number two, but keep in mind that this was no blowout victory.

The Descent follows a group of women who go on a spelunking trip to try to strengthen their bond with a member whose husband and daughter died in an accident the year before.  As the once-friends interact with each other, themes of secrets and betrayal gradually emerge; as the tension increases, the members of the group begin to realize that they’re lost and will have to rely on each other, while at the same time keeping their guard up.  And then, as if our heroes aren’t already fucked, a bunch of cave monsters come out of nowhere and start trying to kill and eat them.

The Descent is a horror movie that’s so well-made, with such a strong premise and interconnection between the characters, that when the mutants appear about an hour into it, they almost seem superfluous.  In fact, it’s difficult to say whether the cave monsters, which in any other horror movie would probably be the sole drawing point, add to or detract from the film as a whole.  However, despite all these good ideas, the movie doesn’t feel crammed together; it’s well-written and directed and a blast to watch.

A box office hit, I’m guessing most people into horror over the last few years have already seen this one.  But even if you’re not (although, I don’t know why the hell you’d get this far into an article about horror movies if you weren’t, but let’s pretend) The Descent is the sort of movie that’s so genuinely good, even people who normally don’t like the genre will probably enjoy it.  Although Neil Marshall’s follow-up, Doomsday, didn’t work, and I’m guessing the currently-in-production sequel to The Descent will probably suck, the movie is a great example of the potential of horror cinema, and how just because a movie is a horror movie, it doesn’t necessarily have to be riddled with a lot of the cheesiness and shortcomings that we typically associate with the genre.

#1.  The Girl Next Door (Dir. by Gregory M. Wilson - 2007)

An interesting debate that you see played out again and again through time is, “How extreme can something be and still be legitimate art?”  The Girl Next Door, despite being the best horror movie of the new era, is not for everybody.  It is a sucker punch to the gut, and if you haven’t already seen it, the first forty minutes you watch of it, you’ll be lulled in and think I’m crazy for putting it on this list.  The next forty minutes are about as stomach-turningly intense as in any film I’ve ever seen.

Based on the novel by Jack Ketchum, The Girl Next Door addresses several great philosophical questions, the main one being, what do we do when we know that authority figures are wrong?  The Girl Next Door’s central horror archetype is the disturbed adult.  But that’s supplemented with other real-life terrors.  What are my actions when not just authority, but everyone around me is wrong?  Am I brave enough to do what is right, and at what cost?  These are easy questions on paper, but in real life, things become more complicated.  Take a look at groundbreaking psychological studies, like the Asch Conformity Experiments or Stanley Milgram’s electrocution test, and you’ll quickly see that, independent thinkers that we all consider ourselves to be, our actions are not always certain when they’re put to the test.

Stephen King called The Girl Next Door the first genuinely shocking American horror film he’d seen in twenty years, and the dark side of Stand By Me.  Cocky as that little plug at the end might be, I think he hit it on the head.  Part of what makes this movie so effective is how it’s set up.  The first half portrays the nostalgic vision of the 1950’s that we’ve all become accustomed to seeing on film.  Unlike a lot of movies, it doesn’t just suddenly kick on full-blast and keep you cringing the whole time.  What we notice is little elements that just aren’t right.  Initially, the main character David’s neighbors seem like decent people, and the mother of the family, Ruth, seems like a cool parent.  But then we see that the children, some under 10, are drinking beer and Ruth doesn’t care.  Whatever, we write it off; until we see Ruth give too harsh a punishment to her niece and new ward, Meg.  And so, similar to David, we know that things are out of order, but nothing by itself nor the cumulative events are enough to fully set off all our warning bells until it’s too late.

The writing, direction, and cast are uniformly strong.  Interestingly, and similar to The Descent, this probably could have been a good movie without the main element of horror that is eventually revealed.  But it is a horror movie, and I do need to give kudos to Blanche Baker (Ruth) for her terrifying performance.  She is a landmark case of the unstable but superficially good person that I described in Part 3, and exactly how you want to play that for maximum terror.

But Ruth’s evil extends past sheer physical torture: it is the evil of an authority figure encouraging subordinates, and saying and doing whatever it takes to see her will done.  Some of the scariest aspects of her personality are the extortion, blackmail, and encouragement towards evil that she performs, and how Baker conveys Ruth’s talent to manipulate even good people into doing bad is pitch-perfect.  And creating a horror movie that’s also a morality play, that doesn’t resort to tired bullshit like “abstinence-only or you’ll get stabbed from underneath the bed”, or “fess up when you run a guy over on Prom Night”, is probably the best violation of cliché that I’ve seen in the genre in years.

So, I don’t want to spoil too much more about the actual content, because I know this movie is probably the least-seen one on this list, but allow me to repeat my initial review from Netflix: “The most fucked up movie ever made.  Game over.”  The Girl Next Door tops my list of best horror since Saw was released for answering the question, “How disturbing can art be?”  It shows that horror doesn’t need to be fueled by giant sharks, burned-up child murderers, or Leprechauns In Space, although all of those things are certainly awesome.  Horror only needs its viewers to be willing to consider what might be wrong about the world we live in, about humanity, or about society.  As the film shows, they might be wrong, and we might need to speak up.

Read other articles in this series:
Part I: Whatever Happened to Rosemary’s Baby?
Part II: The Lost Boys
Part III: Darkness Falls
Part IV: The Shining