Slasher films are one of the most profitable sub-genres of all horror films, but critics tend to criticize them a lot. On a certain level I get it. By the early 90s, the market was so saturated with slasher films that it became difficult to tell each film apart. It was clear that filmmakers and studios were becoming lazy, trying to churn out as many films as possible for maximum profit (since horror films are usually less expensive to make). Lately (and by lately I mean in the past 10 years), there have been many great horror films that have been criticized of “devolving into a slasher” in their final acts. I don’t fully understand why that is a bad thing. Spoilers for a few of the films I mention below will be discussed. You’ve been warned.
The film that immediately springs to mind when I read this phrase is Danny Boyle’s 2007 sci-fi/horror film Sunshine. I love that movie but many of the negative reviews for it all agreed on one thing: the film loses it’s way around the 2/3 mark when it resorts to standard slasher tropes. In case you haven’t seen it, Sunshine is about the crew of “Icarus II,” who are heading to the dying sun in an attempt to reignite it with a nuclear bomb. Along the way, they discover the “Icarus I,” which was lost seven years prior. The first two acts of the film are beautiful and thought provoking, but once the crew finds the “Icarus I,” a killer boards their ship and starts to kill them off one by one.
Now I can understand why some would see this as a bad thing. Sunshine starts out as an original science-fiction film with a focus on character development, but once they find the “Icarus I” all hell breaks loose and the film literally turns into a horror movie. Being a horror fan, I don’t necessarily think that this is a bad thing. Yes, Sunshine takes a rather unexpected turn, but it doesn’t hamper the enjoyment of the film. I’m sure that people who went in expecting a strictly science-fiction film were taken aback, but does it mean that a movie automatically takes a turn for the worse when it starts killing off its characters in rapid succession in the final reel?
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is another film that I feel is unjustly criticized for turning into another slasher film in its final act. I’m sure many of you have seen this but just in case: Behind the Mask follows a news crew making a documentary about rising slasher Leslie Vernon as he explains how to become the perfect serial killer. The entire film is a love letter to slasher films like Halloween and Friday the 13th, but it was criticized for the moment when the documentary cameras turn off and the documentary becomes an actual movie (it makes more sense if you see it). Leslie goes on his killing spree, and the film becomes and actual slasher movie.
Why is this a bad thing? It seemed fairly obvious that that would be the direction the film would go for it’s climax (actually, I may have just answered my own question). Regardless, I disagree with the consensus that the last act doesn’t live up to all that preceded it. The first two acts are stronger, but just because the ending of the film is a bit more predictable doesn’t make it bad. In fact, I believe that was the whole point of the ending: to show that a classic slasher formula is what people want to see.
A few other films spring to mind when discussing this topic: The Lazarus Effect, The Purge, Donkey Punch, Severance, and Grace, among others, but Sunshine and Behind the Mask are the two big ones for me, if only because they are both great films that are not made worse by third act bloodbaths. There is probably a lot I haven’t said here that could be covered ad nauseum in a research paper, but the purpose of this post was to start a discussion. Do you agree with critics that films like these need to stick with what they are already doing so well and not resort to standard slasher tropes? Or do you, like me, think there is nothing wrong with it? Sound off below!