Truthfully, I have no taste.
I eavesdrop conspicuously on every ANDY meeting, sitting not-so-silently from my desk, trying to acquire some artistic and cultural knowledge by osmosis.
But so far, it has not been successful.
At the end of the day, I still like bad horror films.
Sure, well-produced, intelligent thrillers are great, don’t get me wrong: I love a good scary movie.
But I adore a bad one. The predictable plots, the clichéd camera trickery, and the truly atrocious acting. For years now, I have been on the hunt for the kitschiest horror film the internet can bring me, and my search has not been in vain. Here, for you, is a list of the best worst scary movies my mind has not repressed over time, scored arbitrarily because I can’t decide what I love most:
(For those of you that genuinely want to be scared, I recommend The Strangers or El Orfanato (The Orphanage), to be watched alone in an empty, darkened house with a cranky heating system.)
The Stepfather (2009) – 12% on Rotten Tomatoes – I’ve-watched-it-four-times
In a misguided attempt for originality, the movie begins by divulging the identity of the killer to the audience. The storyline is, as a result, fantastically predictable and the murders themselves, while varied, are uninventive.
When a Stranger Calls (2006) – 9% on Rotten Tomatoes – 4 out of 10 stairs
Do not run up the stairs. That is never a good idea. The killer can, and will, grab your ankles. Come on.
It (1990) –64% on Rotten Tomatoes – 1 out of 2 parts
One among many Stephen King novels brought to the screen, this was initially released as a mini-series, but I watched It as a two-sided DVD. The scariest part of the movie is an unfortunately memorable make-out scene.
Red Riding Hood (2011) – 11% on Rotten Tomatoes – 3 quarters of a waxing moon
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke, the director of Twilight. That is all.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) – 15% on Rotten Tomatoes - 5 out of 5 rake-fingers
This remake earned an impressive 80 per cent lower than the original. I can’t decide whether this is because the acting is so bad or because – no. Never mind. I can decide. It’s the acting.
Jennifer’s Body (2009) – 43% on Rotten Tomatoes – 4 out of 5 points of the pentagram
This movie went out to be a film pandering to teenagers, and hit all the marks: a soundtrack of all pop-music, unimaginative humour and moderate necking. Not to mention the plot, which focused on the demonic possession of Megan Fox. Also her cleavage.
Prom Night (2008) – 8% on Rotten Tomatoes – 3 out of 4 wrist corsages
Yet another remake. But this time, not even the original was good. The characters are even less dimensional than actual prom-goers.
The Roommate (2011) – 4% on Rotten Tomatoes – 3 out of 5 stars
Rotten Tomatoes says “The Roommate isn’t even bad enough to be good,” but I wholeheartedly disagree. It is plenty bad enough. Only slightly less scary than an actual dorm experience, but at least it doesn’t last eight months.
Sleepaway Camp (1983) – 70% on Rotten Tomatoes – 6 sleeps out of 10
I don’t want to spoil anything, but this movie may or may not have the weirdest twist ending I have ever seen. To this day, I do not know whether this movie is a good horror movie, or a bad horror movie, based solely on this ending. I am so conflicted.
Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2009) – 20% on Rotten Tomatoes – 1 bird .gif out of 2
That’s right. Two bird .gifs. That is 100% of the movie’s special effects. I guess it makes sense though when you consider they apparently only had enough budget for one camera. And a tripod on rent.
Hannibal (2001) – 39% on Rotten Tomatoes – 4 out of 5 fava beans
A sequel to one of my all-time favourites – Silence of the Lambs – this movie does it no justice. There is a scene with someone eating their own brain though, so that’s fun.
Paranormal Activity (2007) – 80% on Rotten Tomatoes – 7 ghosts out of who knows how many
A bit of a controversial choice on a bad movies list, I know, but bear with me. The documentary style drags the movie to a crawl and the plot is non-existent. The only thing about this movie that scares me is that enough people felt it warranted three sequels.
Children of the Corn (2009) – no score on Rotten Tomatoes – 8 out of 10 kernels
A made-for-TV remake of a movie based on a Stephen King book: going in we know this is going to be good (and by good I of course mean awful). Though both fundamentalists and children are things that scare me, this movie did not. The creators inexplicably added a juvenile sex scene though, which was very unsettling.
By Edward Lovo
I’ve always found comfort in a good book and am a frequent visitor to Chapters, Coles and Indigo. And, now that I’ve started university, I also frequent Titles (god how I love Titles.) I find myself scanning the spines of these shining, unread books and allow myself to be momentarily lost in the story.
I don’t have enough money to buy them - that money was spent on textbooks that our professors assured us would be put to good use yet have never seen the light of day. But now I’ve noticed that my visits are just as frequent. That eagerness to escape into a story is slowly depleting and is now replaced with longing. Longing for a book that’s different.
It’s no secret that romance is a big thing in literature these days. You can argue all you want on how the big stuff are paranormal, supernatural or dystopian literature. But take a good look at what you’re reading: The Mortal Instruments, The Hunger Games, Divergent. Each of these books focus on a lovesick couple (that usually grows into a love triangle) that are more concerned with loving one another than saving the world from imminent doom (or zombies).
Current authors seem to have forgotten that the days of Jane Austen are over and that in this day and age, marriage or being in a relationship does not equal having a perfect life. A story cannot be simply dystopian, supernatural or science fiction, it must have a romance to be considered good literature. But why? Are we so behind the times that we assume every person has to get married or be in a relationship in order to have meaning in life?
I used to indulge in the paranormal romance myself and enjoyed it. But after reading romance after romance after romance I couldn’t help but see how all these young unpopular women (books now-a-days usually center on a female protagonist) suddenly became someone when they are in a relationship.
It disgusts me that the message of having a true meaningful life must come through marriage or at least being romantically involved with someone, otherwise your life is dull and meaningless.
Don’t get me wrong, I support marriage and would like to get married one day, but I don’t want the idea shoved down my throat every time I open a book. I’m only eighteen. And I can’t help but think of people who are perfectly happy being single. How can they relate to these books?
We have come very far in literature these days. Progressive literature is published and read by many worldwide.
One hundred years ago this type of literature would be burned and the author probably jailed. It’s now time for authors to focus a little less on romance and a little more on adventure.
