The zombie movies, like many films that utilized gore and so-called splatter effects, operated in a realm of fantasy: No matter what, you could rest assured that you probably had a better chance of an asteroid crashing through your ceiling than being eaten by reanimated ghouls. Even the movies that began the tide of blood, starting with Hammer efforts like 1958's "Horror of Dracula" and followed in the 1960s by Herschell Gordon Lewis' over-the-top "Blood Feast" and several others, retained almost a comic-book level of make-believe. Same with Romero's groundbreaking "Night of the Living Dead." Despite the political subtext that many critics have since read into it, the film remains pretty much an extended "Tales from the Crypt" scenario, albeit a savagely chilling and graphic one. When the horror turned more realistic and the monsters more recognizably human, in movies like the original "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974) and the almost unwatchable "Last House on the Left" (1972), that's when things got noticeably darker.

The original "Chainsaw," however, shows very little gore aside from one quick shot of a blade shredding flesh; much of the splatter is suggested, making it even more effective. And even in these low-budget efforts, you come to care about the characters and do not want to see them subjected to the terrible fates that await them. John Freitas, who teaches a class on horror cinema at New York City's New School and has co-scripted a new remake of Brian De Palma's "Sisters," says the gritty, horrifying films of the 1970s still bear marked differences to today's output. "While these films were certainly violent and at times quite graphic they never lingered over their violence in order to initiate and involve their audience," he explains. "These films didn't film torture as an amusement park ride. Most of the new films shoot torture in a very visually exciting way, helping the audience 'get off' on the pain."

Is death on life support?

Gore and violence have always been parts of horror, and fans relish the red stuff almost as a badge of honor, rightly setting "our" movies apart from most bland Hollywood entertainment. But lately, with the surprise success of "Saw" and its ilk, the movies have become about the pain and torture and skimped on not just character and story, but also the almost cosmic fear of the unknown that makes for truly classic horror. "Character and genuine, spine-gripping chills are being substituted for warm, wet viscera splashing against the wall," says Ryan Rotten, managing editor of the horror Web site ShockTilYouDrop.com. "There's a definite distinction between being 'grossed out' and being terrified and I think many filmmakers have lost sight of that." Rotten cites last year's "The Descent" as one of the recent few that has struck the right balance.

With the box office and critical failure of many recent horror releases -- including "Hostel: Part II," which basically tanked -- there's a sense that the genre could be slipping back into its grave for a while. But don't throw dirt on it yet: "1408," based on a King short story and supported by positive reviews, made more than $20 million in its opening weekend, the best debut ever for a film based on one of the author's works. The movie was genuinely eerie, took time to develop its adult lead character (portrayed by John Cusack), and downplayed gore and vicious violence in favor of psychological and supernatural chills. Plus it was rated PG-13. In other words, it contradicted everything currently associated with the "torture porn" subgenre while still delivering a scary horror tale that people clearly wanted to see.

Could this mean the end of what Roth terms "R-rated horror," as he warned on his MySpace page following the cold reception to the second "Hostel"? That's doubtful too. First, horror doesn't have to be rated R to be terrifying -- see 1962's "The Innocents" or even 1999's "The Sixth Sense" for proof of that. But if a director makes a good movie about characters we're interested in, uses violence and gore in a way that serves the story, and it happens to be rated R, there's a good chance the audience will still show up. Perhaps Roth should stop pointing fingers (he also blamed piracy for the poor showing of "Hostel: Part II") and concentrate on making a film that relies on more than a chain saw slicing off half a woman's face.

Next: More Torture Porn | Back