image

Pine Box Opine

My musings on horror movies, styles, meanings , and other facet of horror that I wish to share.  As the title of ths page implies, these are my opinions and my thoughts. You may not agree, but I hope they give you something to think about.

Is Kaiju Horror?

Posted 5/5/26

Is Kaiju horror?

To most cinephiles and horror fans the answer is an easy yes.  Yet I would disagree.  Wait!  Don’t turn off your computer or phone in disgust and call me an idiot just yet.  Hear me out first.  Then turn off your computer or phone in disgust and call me an idiot.

What makes me have the tenacity (or stupidity) to argue with the experts? What about the terror of Godzilla?   First of all, I never said that no kaiju movies fall under the horror banner, just that Kaiju as an overall sub-genre shouldn’t be considered horror.  At least not any more than any movie featuring a vampire should be considered horror.  I doubt any of you would consider Hotel Transylvania a horror movie. 

I guess at this point I should let people who aren’t familiar with the term “kaiju” know what it is.  According to Chat GPT it is “a Japanese film genre featuring giant, city-destroying monsters (kaiju) that battle the military or other creatures.”  It also says the word kaiju originates from the Japanese word for “strange monster.”   I guess that is as good an explanation as we need here, except to add that the genre has been expanded by many to include any movie featuring these giant creatures, regardless of the country of origin.  You can even include Del Toro’s Pacific Rim or Cloverfield if you like. 

Below are the two main reasons I don’t consider Kaiju to be a blanket horror sub-genre.

  1. It really all goes back to one of the first articles I wrote for issue one of my newsletters and the introduction on my website. In the Pine Box Opine I pondered the question of what defines a horror movie.  In it I said, “For me I try to look at the intent of the director.  Was his approach to scare you?”  Stepping back to look at Kaiju I would argue that this is most often NOT the case.  There are certainly exceptions.  The granddaddy of all Kaiju films, Gojira/Godzilla was meant to scare and terrify.  Cloverfield as well. Probably even Gorgo.  But many of them had other intentions, to thrill and excite, maybe to even make you cheer; but not to scare you.
  2. Which brings me to my second point. Many Kaiju are meant to be exciting and fun, not scary.  Many are in fact, geared to children.  They are essentially Superhero movies.  A “villain” shows up and destroys something, threatens someone, looks for revenge, etc.  In comes Godzilla, Gamera, or whomever and saves mankind.  Some may say that the destruction to the city by both monsters makes the movies fall into the horror category.  I would argue that unless the movie focuses on the death of the inhabitants or the fear of those at street level, it means little.  I am not referring to a quick flash of people running in fear of seeing a person stepped on.  I am referring to actual scenes intended to make you feel what the citizens feel or see how it affects them.  In the Korean movie The Host, or in Godzilla minus One, we follow the people affected by the rampage, thus we tread into horror territory.  Otherwise, the city’s destruction or loss of life is no different than that of a comic book or superhero movie.  Millions died in Avengers End Game I can’t count the times that large sections of New York city were destroyed as the Fantastic Four or Avengers fought their most recent foe, yet none of those are considered horror; nor should they be. 

So, to conclude, I would like to sum up my argument in this way.  Kaiju can be a genre designed to be a horror movie much like The Burrowers, The Wind, Curse of the Undead or The Beast of Hollow Mountain are Westerns designed to be horror; yet we should no more consider Kaiju a sub-genre of horror than we would westerns.

Okay know you can call me an idiot.

Horror as a morality lesson

Posted 2/28/2026

Horror is probably the most maligned genre by both the average movie goer and the critics alike.  It is painted as shallow and mindless. But even worse it is often considered immoral and even depraved, painting a picture that only immoral and depraved people would watch.  And to be fair there are some horror movies out there that probably are a bit depraved and at the very least amoral.  But for every Blood Sucking Freaks (1976) there is a Sinners (2025).  For every Blood Feast (1963) there is The Exorcist (1973). 

It bothers me that I can’t wear some of my horror tee shirts in public without getting looks of disapproval.  I may be able to get away with my Sean of the Dead or my Creature from the Black Lagoon shirt, but not my Tombs of the Blind Dead, Suspiria, or Zombie shirts.   Why should I be judged by the horror movies on my shirt.  Why doesn’t someone who wears a football jersey or even another movie like The Fast and the Furious shirt get judged on their hobbies and taste is movies?  Neither of those promote peace and understanding among mankind but yet they don’t entice judgements of morality on their wearers.

The truth is, as I said earlier, to most people, liking horror movies equals having an immoral and sick mind.  But I personally believe the opposite is true. 

In fact, there are far more horror movies that have a sense of morality and a moralistic message than most comedies, romances, action films, or even dramas.  From the sinister twists of justice in movies like Tales from the Crypt (1972) to the warnings against greed that peppers many films such as The Devil’s Backbone (2001), horror movies have a lot to say.  And despite what most critics think, the message is usually one worth hearing.  From the “addiction is bad and harms those you love” of Talk to Me (2022), to the “Mankind on its current path will destroy itself” of The Day the Earth Stood still (1951), there is much to learn from horror.

Even if there isn’t an obvious message, it still usually gives us something to think about.  Rarely is it just a mindless exercise in slaughter and gore.  Although those movies do exist, I would argue they are in the minority.  Nearly always there is at least a clear “there is evil in the world, and it is bad,” message.  Horror by its very nature has to have a monster, a dark force, or an evil person.  It must also have forces to stop the rampant evil, so therefore, it must display a good (or at least neutral) vs. evil aspect for it to be horror.  With a clear delineation between the two.  Thus, its mandated “evil is bad” message.  Sometimes we learn that who we think is a “monster” because he’s an outsider is not truly the evil one, but that only adds to the morality play displayed.  Don’t judge good and evil by looks.  Other times we learn we must treat our loved ones the best we can every day because we don’t know when we will no longer have them.  Or we might learn that dealing with our grief is healthy, but only if done in the proper ways. As basic as they are, even slasher movies have a lesson to impart.  In its clumsy way it tries to teach us that the good virginal girl gets to be rewarded with safety while the bad kids suffer. i.e. there is punishment for the wicked so stay on the straight and narrow.  And at its heart even the most depraved satanic cult thriller tells us that Satan/evil is a trickster, working against our best interest, no matter what he offers.  See, not particularly deep, but a solid moral message that could (and should) be taught in church.  The list goes on.  Even If evil wins over the good in the end, the message of morality remains. 

Which is more than I can say for most other genres which depict much more moral ambiguities than horror tends to.  Cheating on your spouse, lying to those around you, disrespect for your fellow man, cheating to prosper; all are often respected parts of drama, comedy, etc.  Have you ever watched an episode of Empire or Yellowstone?  Or looked at any Judd Apatow or Seth McFarland comedy.  I’m not knocking them, just saying the messages they treat us to are no better than what people blame horror for.  Yet if I wore a shirt with one of those shows emblazoned on them no one would blink an eye at me.  

I’m not trying to say that horror movies should be shown in Sunday School (although some could be).   But I do think most horror movies need to be taken less at face value based on gore or dark themes and instead should have the deeper message examined before we jump to judging them.  Or judging their fans.  Judging someone who dresses different or likes different shows than you as evil, immoral, or deranged before looking closer at who they really are is wrong.  But if they watched horror movies, they would have probably learned that.

The Trouble with Sequels...

Posted 1/10/2026

There is a line from Hurricane Party, the James McMurtry song that goes, “And I don’t won’t another drink, I only want that last one again.”  This is the perfect encapsulation of the problem with sequels.  As fans, we are looking for the same feeling we got watching the original, but that is an impossible feat.  Once we’ve seen it, we can’t ever see even the original again through those virgin eyes.  That originality is gone.  For a sequel to bring back that exact same feeling is nearly impossible but it’s why we go see it. 

For studios, nothing is better than making a sequel.  The audience is already built in, assuring them of dollars from those who loved the original.  For true horror fans though, sequels present a problem.  Is it worth going to?  They want to see more of the original film they loved and hope for the best.  But inside they know that more often than not, the sequel is a major disappointment.  We can’t have that same drink again

There are essentially only 3 ways a sequel can be done. 

  1. Give the fans more of the same. Basically, you take the first script, make a few tweaks and make the same movie all over again. This is probably the most common type of sequel and usually the most boring.  Some fans love it but for me it’s more of the same.  There’s really not much difference between Friday the 13th 2 & 3 is there?  Most of the Final destinations are just retreads of the original concept.  And it goes on.  Usually though, the film makers miss what made the first movie so good in the first place.  Jaws 2 is very similar to Jaw but without the charm of the first.  Plus, as stated, despite how similar it is, you can’t see the concept again through the same virgin eyes.
  2. Expand on the mythos of the first film. The overall plot could be similar or not, but the writer tries to explain all the things left unanswered from the first film or build on what was already given. The problem here is twofold.  First there is the issue of writing yourself into a corner.  Many times, a sequel is just one in a line of sequels.  By explaining too much you leave the writer for the sequel having to backtrack or change the explanations (or flat out ignore them altogether) to make his version of the mythos.  Think of all the times that Freddie Kreuger was destroyed by “the only means possible” only to come back and be destroyed by something else.  Or the complicated backstories presented by the Halloween Franchise.  Eventually things get so cluttered up there needs to be an entire reboot.  The second problem here is that by explaining the unanswered questions you take away the mystery that made the first film so good.  What made Michael Meyers so scary in the first place was that no one knew much about him or why he was so obsessed with killing. He was frightening because he seemed to choose his victims by chance.  Someone noticed him.  They were the next victim.  In the second movie they made him Laurie’s brother taking away that fear that he might be just around the corner and you might be his next victim.  In later movies they made him an agent of a dark cult, not only cluttering up the mythos but taking away any mystery that was left.  As has been said many times, it’s not what you see that’s scary…it’s what you don’t see.  The same is true about what you don’t know.
  3. Take just a small fragment from the first story and run with it.  This type basically continues the original story from either the point we left it or several years later. It may revisit ideas or repeat concepts in spots, but it does not repeat the same story.  This is easiest when the focus of the new film is a hero or a concept and not the monster.  A nightmare on Elm Street 2 tried using the monster but the first movie limited what could be done with the sequel since it had to contain a dream monster who has specific limitations on how he can affect his victim.  But a movie that focuses on a hero can bring him into a new adventure.  A sequel that is based on a concept can be taken in a new direction or the writer can just be creative and go with a whole new idea.   Aliens is a great example in that it follows Ripley and the concept of the Xenomorphs.  It uses as its plot a second encounter with the Xenomorphs but not the same one.  It is an entirely new style of film with which continues logically from the first.     That being said, a specific monster can be taken in new directions. How much of Bride of Frankenstein is a copy of Frankenstein?  Not much.  That sequel furthers the story.  The same can be said of the Hammer Frankenstein series.  Through 7 movies the doctor continues his ways but the monsters, results, and even experiments differ enough to make the stories distinct from each other.    These types of sequels can add to the mythology but it’s not the entire point of the movie, we learn more about the world through the new adventure, not the other way around.  Most importantly, they don’t attempt to explain everything away from the first movie. This third type of sequel is the riskiest tactic for a sequel to take.  When it hits it’s spectacular.  When it fails fans can be very disgruntled and angry. 

All 3 styles of sequels can succeed and be good quality movies.  However, to me, sequels fail more than they succeed which is why I would rather sit down and watch an original movie than a sequel of something.  Even if I loved the first movie.  And with the stack of original movies I have on my list, getting to a sequel is not a common occurrence for me. 

Examples of some sequel and what type they are (IMO):

More of the same:

  1. Gremilns 2
  2. Jaws 2
  3. Final Destination 2
  4. Friday the 13th 3-D
  5. Demons 2
  6. Return of the Fly

Expand

  1. The Endless
  2. Hell raiser 2: Hellbound
  3. Inferno

New Direction

  1. The Exorcitst 2
  2. Doctor Sleep
  3. The Devil’s Rejects
  4. Army of Darkness
  5. Curse of the Cat People
  6. Curse of the Fly

Posted 12/25/25

Have you ever been told “Just roll with it?”

Sometimes when watching movies that’s good advice.  Especially horror movies.  Still, there is a point when we just can’t buy what we’re seeing any longer and the movie can no longer draw you in.

Of course, nearly all horror movies expect yout “just roll with it,” to some degree.  If you can’t roll with the idea of a man that turns into a wolf or a killer (or hero) that can get shot then be running around 5 minutes later, you’re probably not going to be watching many horror movies.  Or any other movie genres for that matter.

So movies expect us to suspend our disbelief to some degree, but our minds can only accept so much.

The nature of the movie can affect the amount we can accept.  If we are watching a movie about a vampire, we know we are in a fantasy world so we can accept far more fantasy than in a movie like psycho, which seems to take place in a real world.  In the vampire movie, we might accept someone being pushed off a high cliff and surviving the fall without a scratch.  In a reality based psycho-like movie we wouldn’t.  The movie has laid down how far we can go.  Still, even in the vampire movie, if our hero were to be pushed off that same cliff and start flying for no particular reason, we may be out.  We can only roll with it so far.

The science presented to us in the film can also affect whether we can suspend our disbelief.  Can we buy in or will we shake our heads, laugh and turn it off.  This is particularly an issue when watching movies from the 40s, 50s and early 60s.  During that period movies had left the gothic trappings behind and much of the horror was science based.  From nuclear science to biology to space exploration horror movies dabbled in it.  But so much was still unknown that many films had to guess or make assumptions to fill in the gaps.  Other times what we believed has changed.  Regardless of the reason, many movies from this time require us to just not think about it too much.  Let’s look at the Amazing Colossal Man for example.  While of course we have to except the fact a radiation blast can cause a man to grow into a giant.  That comes with the horror territory.  But there is a point where I just have to shake my head and laugh.  That point is when the head scientist tells us that the heart is just a single cell.  That’s too much for me to swallow.  Growing men, fine.  But a single celled- organ?  I’m done rolling with it.   The same issues hold true of computer science and psychology. 

Even newer movies can’t escape from poor science, technology or psychology.  And while less movies today suffer from stretching our suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point, it does still occur.  I loved Heretic, but the idea of a man being able to build a giant maze underneath his house is a bit far-fetched.  Not to mention the leaps in logic the heroine makes to figure things out are beyond Sherlock Holmes levels of deduction.

So next time you sit to watch a horror movie, be ready to roll with it.  Just don’t be surprised if you’re asked to roll off a cliff.

Werewolves as Metaphors

Posted 11/01/25

I talk a lot in reviews and elsewhere about horror movies as allegories and the meanings hidden within them.  Does that mean I think all horror movies have to have a deeper meaning to be good?

Absolutely not.  Sometimes a good movie is just a good movie.

Still, horror, along with sci-fi, are the perfect genres to hide a message in as they are fantasy.  So, shaping your story around a metaphor doesn’t have to destroy believability in reality because the world that a fantasy takes pace in doesn’t need to reflect our world’s reality.  It can take place in whatever type of world it needs to be to tell the story.  Ghosts can haunt houses and people can turn into wolves.

The werewolf as a metaphor has a flexibility incomparable to most other common film monsters.  Most of them can have a metaphor assigned to them; vampirism is usually sex or addiction for example.  But, the werewolf and other lycanthropes can be used to represent more ideas than nearly any other monster.  The werewolf is a human that is changed by an outside force into something he can’t control.  This means we can relate to his human side easily.  But most of us have things we can’t control about ourselves on some level; anger or jealousy for example.  This allows us to relate to his bestial side as well.  So the metaphor can be used for either side of the monster…or both.  Also, unlike many monsters which, are the living dead in some capacity; the werewolf is a living creature whether wolf, hybrid, or man.  Therefore, we can see ourselves in it easier.  It can be hurt, has emotions and must meet its survival needs.  All of this means that werewolves can be a great way for a director to help us relate to the story/allegory he wants to tell.  Some werewolf metaphors pertain to the negative sides of human nature but just as many represent things that aren’t bad; they merely separate us from others or change us to something new.   Werewolves and other lycanthropes in film have been used as everything from a reflection of alcoholism/drug abuse, sexual drive, puberty, the division between father and son, homosexuality, gaining or regaining dominance in a situation, class division/slavery, the stages of romance and a plethora of others. 

If the movie doesn’t focus on the cursed human behind the werewolf, it probably focuses on the targets of his hunt; the prey.  In these cases, we follow those who are trying to survive an encounter with the monster.  These stories can usually be seen as a parable of nature striking back at man or the randomness of disaster in human life.    

Of course, sometimes we can read more into a story and create an allegory where none was meant to exist, but if so that doesn’t mean that the metaphor doesn’t exist…it was just unintentional.  Which is a sign of well-developed art in any form from music to painting.  It allows us to see what we want.

So to return to my original question.  Does a horror movie need a metaphor to be good?  Or does the lycanthrope have to be a stand in for something to make the movie worthwhile?  While, I like a hidden message or story in my movies it isn’t necessary to make the movie enjoyable.  Nor is a movie “good” just because it has one present.  Some with strong metaphors aren’t even interesting to me. And there are several movies out there that likely have metaphors and allegories that I’m just too dumb to catch.   Above all else, hidden message or not; the movie has to be enjoyable.  That is the only rule as to whether it is good.

Some Examples of Lycanthropes as Metaphors:

Alcoholism: Blackout

Drug Addiction:  Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed

Sexual maturity/Puberty: Cursed; Ginger Snaps

Division between father and son: The Wolfman, The Wolfman

Homosexuality: My Animal

Masculinity/dominance: Alpha Wolf, Wolf

Class division/slavery: The Underwold Series

Stages of romance: An American Werewolf in London

What makes a Horror Movie?

Posted 9/30/25

What makes a movie a horror movie?  Ask ten people and you will get 10 answers.  Does it have to be scary?  Does it have to contain a monster? Or blood? Or death?  Do thrillers count?  Do comedies?

It’s a controversial question but our need to pigeonhole and classify demands that we answer the question.  Yet we all answer it differently.  For me I try to look at the intent of the director.  Was his approach to scare you?  For example, I could tell you I saw an owl when I was out walking last night.  That’s not very scary nor is it meant to be.  But if I describe the darkness and shadows I had to walk through, and how my skin crawled as I heard the unearthly noises that seemed to call out from the trees around me you may start to feel a bit of fear creeping in.  Add that to a sudden feeling of something swooping over me in the darkness causing a small draft of wind to strike me as a creature alighted on the tree right next to me that may even turn into terror.  Same story but its how its told that determines wether it is horror or not.  That is how I see horror movies.

But clearly that doesn’t work for everyone.  The movie Bone Tomahawk to me is horrifying, but I don’t really consider it a horror as there doesn’t fell like there is an attempt made to build up fear in the audience.  There is certainly brutality and a deadly threat, but no sense of terror for the viewers…only the characters.  But most people do consider it horror so clearly I’m in the minority.  The Godfather is full of death and violence but most people wouldn’t consider it horror.  So where is the line?  And what about horror comedies?

But even if you agree with my definition of horror, there are still gray areas.  If the director attempts to scare you but misses the mark by a great distance, does it still count? (To me it does!)  But whether that was a director’s goal, whether through violence, discomfort, mood, lighting or any other method or trope is open to individual interpretation.  Do we really know his intent?

With that in mind I will try to look at horror in the broadest of terms but don’t’ be surprised if at some point I leave out a movie that you consider horror and mention ones you don’t.  Horror is subjective and can spark a lot of debate.  But to me that’s a good thing!

Horror of the Times

Posted Oct. 11th 2025

It has been said that horror movies are a strong reflection of the time they are made.  I fully agree.  If you want to get a grasp on an era; its fashions, its views and attitudes on social topics, and especially its fears; just pop in a horror movie of that time and watch carefully. 

In fact, the more you watch the more you can see shifts in perspectives and attitudes in society.  For example, if you watch the Quatermass Xperiment (1955) and then watch Night of the Living Dead (1968) you will quickly notice a drastic change in our trust of authority figures.  In the first movie, the scientist bucks the system to prove his theory on space travel and ends up bringing back a dangerous alien.  Through it all, he is clearly painted as the hero and it is he who saves the world.  Clearly, we had a trust in science and government figures not just in the script, but in what the viewing public would accept at that time.  They clearly sided with this reckless scientist because he was a govmt. authority figure; so, he was passed off as a hero.  Just years later, this figure would be painted as the villain, or at least as clueless; as in the aforementioned NOTLD. Apparently, we no longer had a trust in our leaders and authority figures.  Likely this view changed with help from the Watergate scandal. 

Watch old movies from the 30s and 40s and women are treated as fainting, useless, and in need of the men around them to save them.  They were only present to scream and provide a damsel in distress.  Even worse, watch closer and you see they are subordinates to the men, doing what they are told without question and serving them food, coffee, or whatever they need so they can get to work on a solution.  What a different view and presentation of the final girls of the 80s; and even more so, the heroines in today’s horror movies.  You’ll rarely see the fainting women of the 40s in today’s horror films.  They occasionally occur but it is rare. (That’s what makes the original Nosferatu so interesting.  It is the female who sacrifices herself to save the city. 

Perhaps the most important thing you can learn from movies about the times they were made is what we obsessed over, and what we were afraid of.  Not literally of course.  The slew of giant bugs movies in the 50s didn’t mean we were afraid of giant bugs.  It is a reflection of our fear of the effects of the bomb drop on Hiroshima and where a world of atomic energy would lead us.  In the 80’s there was an uptick in movies about or taking place in an apocalyptic world.  Movies like Miracle Mile (88), The Dead Zone (83), Day of the Dead (85), Threads (84), and even Night of the Comet (84) all reflect a fear that was prevalent during the Reagan administration; the fear of nuclear war.  Some more directly than others, but all address an apocalyptic end. 

The people making the movies didn’t always share our fears or anxieties but they were happy to exploit them.  In addition, there may have been a large quantity addressing a major, common fear but there were also some that exploited other fears of the periods.  For instance, while the 70s was the decade of “Satanic Panic” reflected heavily in horror, there were movies looking at fear of women’s lib (The Stepford Wives 1975), and birth control (It’s Alve 1974) in the same decade.

All movies of course, reflect the times they were made, but horror movies do so as collective.  Watch one and you can get a snapshot of the time.  Watch several and you can feel what the period was like.  Watch a lot and you can actually see the shifts in our collective thinking and the movement forward (and sometimes back) in our society over history.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.