There’s all of what the other posters said, but also I think it’s important to remember that horror movies are a safe bet for most production companies. Most mainstream horror releases are profitable and rarely needed the endorsement of critics to be popular. If something sticks with audiences, why not branch into a franchise (business-wise)? It’s free money for the studios.
Does horror popular with the critics do well? The slow build horror with little pay off gets great reviews but does it do well with the general audience?
I'm really starting to hate all these artsy fartsy slow build up and no pay off bullshit. It's the media equivalent to edging, after watching them I'm mad I wasted my time.
Critical acclaim does not hurt certainly. Look at the Reddit slop that is Hereditary and Midsommar. Hereditary made nearly $90 million off a $10 million budget, Midsommar nearly $50 million off a $9 million budget. Then, look at Ari Aster’s next movie, Beau is Afraid, which is not horror and received critical acclaim, but only made around $12 million from a $35 million budget. I think there’s power in convincing your audience that their favorite lowbrow genre needs “elevated.”
A Dark Song is the only slow burn I’ve really enjoyed over the years. The tight duet, the eerie cinematography, the music, and the deepening of the ritual it depicts make it absolutely riveting.
Who is paying to be bored for an hour and then "White people are bad"? Midsommar was terrible and the ending was laugh out loud funny. Ugly women naked women screaming isn't scary. It's a liberal woman meme.
“Boring boyfriend bad, let’s light him on fire!” That was such a tedious load of crap. Pure style over substance.
Honestly the only slow burn movies I've enjoyed have been older ones, really anything before movies started the loud sting jump scare trend. You need that pay off though, without it why even bother. That's the reason I hated the Birdbox. Hell, I can't think of a single Netfilx movie that didn't have a crap ending. Birdbox was so fucking stupid, I wish people died while doing that stupid challenge that started trending after the movie came out.
I just want to see people die in cool ways and practical effects creatures. It doesn't need to be elevated until it's boring and you have to turn the volume down.
Give A Dark Song a shot. I found the payoff to be quite satisfying. Let’s just say that they probably spent the lion’s share of the budget on SFX at the end. The conclusion of the narrative might not suit everyone’s taste, but it is visually unforgettable.
I think the best, the truly elevated horror, is when characters are forced to navigate harrowing circumstances, often of supernatural origin, and come out wondering if survival was worth it. Even though it was critically panned, the 2014 vampire movie From the Dark exemplifies that horrific struggle. Two people vs a vampire, simple as.
A24's dramas are generally very well received by critics and audiences (ex. The Whale, Everything Everywhere All At Once, Lady Bird, Moonlight, Eighth Grade) and typically are profitable. The problem is that in recent years, A24 has become "typecast" as the horror company in the minds of normies, and no one knew wtf Beau was about from the trailers. It also, reportedly, sucks, and is three hours long, which contributed to poor word of mouth I would imagine.
The notion of literary horror is fine. Frankenstein, Dracula, The Exorcist, The Picture of Dorian Grey, The Shining, The Haunting of Hill House, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I Am Legend, We Have Always Lived in the Castle, Let the Right One In, Carmilla. The problem is that utter garbage horror movies or books get a pass nowadays because it's artsy fartsy.
Just ask anyone who says they're a fan of "elevated" horror to articulate what that means. They flounder because they can't admit they just like snobby horror, or they like feeling like something needs to be artistic or deep to scare them. Follow that up with, "Oh, you just like horror with good acting," and watch them seethe.
I call it CW horror, pretty faces and "serious" topics, but it's all show and fluff.
I don't think any of the elevated horror I've seen has good acting. It's easy to stand around and do nothing.
The performances in The Witch, The Lighthouse, Hereditary, The Babadook, and Nosferatu range from good to outstanding and several of the actors in these films have received awards for their performances in those films. I didn't like any of those movies besides The Witch, and I actually did find them boring, but not because the actors were "standing around doing nothing." It was actually the opposite: too many scenes that were solely character, people going through various agonies of the spirit because their kid died in a car accident or their son is autistic and impossible to deal with, and not enough witches coming out of the woods to kill people or a storm blowing the lighthouse over. A drama with a handful of mildly spooky scenes isn't a horror movie.
I would say the twists work but don't satisfy anyone except fart-huffers. A character drama that becomes a demon possession movie in the final 20 minutes isn't a horror movie, but it isn't a drama either. Who is it for? People wanting a horror movie are bored through most of it and people who want a drama are repulsed in the final act. This shit is astroturfed and people who want to feel like cinephiles eat it up.
I am becoming a semantic turd here (too much time spent in the Rekieta thread) but that’s just horror literature. It is horror writing that has enough stylistic and/or cultural merit to be distinguished as having literary value. Mary Shelley, Stoker, Stevenson, Wilde, and le Fanu all align with the wider movements of British and Irish literature during their times. Richard Matheson, Shirley Jackson, Peter Blatty, and Stephen King all popularized horror for American audiences in particular. It is all horror that can be esteemed as literature by these merits.
Don't forget how they now always have to do a textwall disavowal of lovecraft saying how bad and mean he was compared to new thing beforehand!
) and it does seem to ignore the events of 28 Weeks later, with no mentioning of the virus spreading beyond the UK. Its funny I mention this because they have been asked if 28 weeks is still canon given how borderline inconsequential its events are to 28 years later (outside of maybe the virus evolving but it almost seems to be unrelated to the one we saw in Weeks), their answer was a handwave saying "Paris got probably nuked or something" which is the cordial way of saying "Weeks is still canon officially but we legit dont give a shit for it" which sucks because despite being flawed, many did soften up to Weeks over the years (tho how much of it is thanks to the opening scene alone or the rest of the movie depends on the individual).