Let’s face it: horror movies these days are bad. Not just bad aesthetically, or in terms of production value (although those are both accurate), but bad in terms of taste.

In preparation for Halloween my friend and I have been increasing our horror-movie vocabulary by ticking off a list of classic, cult, and modern horror films available to us through Netflix’s “Instant Watch.”  We watch at least two films per night during the week, and in doing so have gotten pretty familiar with the horror movie formula.

No one goes into a horror movie expecting anything but pure entertainment (if you consider gore and the paranormal entertaining). But there’s just one problem: horror movies these days just aren’t scary. In fact, for lack of a better nickel word, they’re just dumb.

Let’s take “Paranormal Activity” as an example. For a movie shot bootleg-style with one handheld camera, it’s surprising it received universal acclaim. To make the movie bearable, my friend and I had to skip to all the night scenes in the film, primarily because the acting was horrendous (I won’t judge too hard, I know the movie is low-budget), but also because that story’s been done before.

And I’ll be frank, part of my appeal for horror films stems from bad acting. You don’t get too attached to the characters, and in some sadistic, passive way, that makes it OK when they get sucked into their bed sheets by Freddy Kruger. Part of what makes bad acting appealing, however, is that the movie also doesn’t take itself too seriously, which is why I think “Paranormal Activity” failed.

For instance, one of my all-time favorite horror trilogies is the “Evil Dead” series. A story of man vs. paranormal with the assistance of a “boomstick” and amputated chainsaw, the movie pokes fun at low-budget horror films, but in doing so, becomes the epitome of what low-budget horror is all about. The bad acting, mixed with low-quality special effects, is enjoyable because you go in expecting it to be poor quality.

Although the bar was equally set fairly low for “Paranormal Activity,” I expected to be somewhat scared from the rave reviews I was reading and hearing from friends. Nevertheless I was disappointed when the scariest blip in the movie was a pair of footsteps heard on stairs (making it hard not to imagine some extra paid to perform that measly task, ruining the suspense).

Probably one of the scariest series out now is “Saw.” Scary only because it’s horrifying to think that at least seven films have been made from the franchise’s surprising box office success. Horror moviegoers are more interested in seeing films with explicit gore and violence, things that should subsidiary for the genre, unless involving zombie warfare.

Take “The Shining” for example, a movie that justly creates a suspenseful, spine-tingling atmosphere without the use of nonsense violence and gore (not counting the flood of blood through the elevator). Even a movie like “Poltergeist” supports this. If you want to use excessive violence, it’s going to be in bad taste unless dealing with the supernatural.

Or is it? Looking at statistics of how well “Saw” and the “Jackass” franchises do, it’s somewhat disappointing that millions of Americans will pay to see the gory misfortune of others (“somewhat” because I can enjoy a good Knoxville gag every now and then).

With Halloween approaching, why aren’t more ghoul-based films being advertised instead of films that really have nothing to do with the genre?

I’m calling all the “Saw” and “Paranormal Activity” fans out. I want more zombie and monster films. Boycott “Saw 3D” so Hollywood knows what Halloween is really about.

To contact The Ionian’s Joseph Bland, e-mail him at [email protected].