Back when I made SLIME CITY, I was a ravenous comic book fan. Everyone on set passed around comics during what I consider the real Golden Age of that medium: THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, ELEKTRA: ASSASSIN; WATCHMEN; CEREBUS and Miller's DAREDEVIL all circulated among the slime cast and crew. I remember having a conversation with Robert Sabin regarding books that had changed creative hands. I felt that if a top writer or artist left a title, and that title's quality decreased, it was important to stop buying it to send a message to the powers that be; Robert felt that when you signed on to a book, you needed to support it through the inevitable creative dips. I've always felt this way; there's so much material for fans of comics, movies, music, games and TV, and most of us have limited entertainment budgets. I'm just as adverse to supporting creations that simply don't appeal to me. I know there are plenty of horror fans who try to see and read everything the genre has to offer, and my hat is off to you - you're far more dedicated (or cash liquid) than I am. I've never considered myself an elitist, and frown upon others who look down their noses at aspects of the horror field, but to each his own, right? Here then is a simple list of horror confessions:

I have never seen a SAW film, or a HOSTEL film. I did see some of CABIN FEVER on TV, and thought it was terrible. Friends tell me I "need" to see the first SAW, just like writer friends tell me I "need" to attend NECON (a horror writers conference that everyone who attends loves). I figure, if I'm walking, breathing, and digesting my food, these are not things I need at all. I have no objection to the films above, and find the label "torture porn" unduly derogatory. I just don't find torture for the sake of torture entertaining. When I offer this opinion to horror websites during the course of interviews, the hosts often try to summarize my take by saying I dislike modern horror. This is only partially correct; there are plenty of original, scary movies being made; they just tend to be indie flicks with little distribution or promotion, or foreign films. The U.S. horror film is in a sorry state.
I would rather watch any film of any genre from the 1970s, crisply presented on DVD, than 90% of the contemporary American horror films released today. Make that 95%.

I have never been a John Carpenter fan. THE THING is a masterpiece, but other than Jamie Lee Curtis in HALLOWEEN, and Karen Allen in STARMAN (a ripoff of Gene Roddenberry's THE QUESTOR TAPES TV pilot), I have never cared about a single character in a Carpenter film. THE FOG was a mess. ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK was a ripoff of Roger Zelazny's novel DAMNATION ALLEY. THEY LIVE was cool in a comic booky way. MEMOIRS OF AN INVISIBLE MAN? Pass. GHOSTS OF MARS? Disaster. Carpenter, when he feels like working, seems content to waste his talents on fun trash films like VAMPIRES. So be it. I saw him give a Q & A at GHOSTS OF MARS screening, and it was clear that he didn't want to be there, that he did the film for the money, and that he had no regard for story. He's back behind the camera right now, and I really hope he feels a little more passion for what he's doing.

On the other hand, I've always loved David Cronenberg, which is funny, because except for Jeff Goldbloom in THE FLY and Christopher Walken in THE DEAD ZONE, I've never cared about his characters, either. But Cronenberg is a real artist, not just a skilled craftsman like Carpenter, and he has more on his mind than he or we can possibly catalogue. RABID, THEY CAME FROM WITHIN, THE BROOD and SCANNERS represent a creative streak that Carpenter never had. I feel the comparison is valid since both men came of age and filmmaking prowess at the same time, though Carpenter is clearly the product of American cinema, with a keen knowledge of film history, while Cronenberg is more of an academic. VIDEODROME is Cronenberg's masterpiece, as difficult and unsentimental a film as I can imagine. Cronenberg's career matured while Carpenter's withered, as he made THE FLY, DEAD RINGERS, M. BUTTERFLY and CRASH. I was rather surprised to learn that he intends to remake THE FLY.

George Romero has made three genuine classics: NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, DAWN OF THE DEAD and MARTIN. He's also made two very good movies: the underrated MONKEYSHINES and DAY OF THE DEAD. And he's made a lot of shit: his half of TWO EVIL EYES; BRUISER; LAND OF THE DEAD; and DIARY OF THE DEAD. These last titles bring me back to my original theme: when LAND OF THE DEAD came out, it was considered heresy to speak ill of it. A noted horror author proclaimed on Shocklines, "So WHAT? It's a fucking George Romero zombie movie!" Uh, that's exactly my point: it DOES matter if a movie sucks. It took Romero years to get that film off the ground, and many of us supported him spiritually. Too bad that when he actually made his movie it was with such an uninspired, stupid and completely unfrightening screenplay. I love the man, no other filmmaker has inspired me more, but a shit sandwich is still a shit sandwich and no one gets a pass because of who they are. But Romero's legacy will always be intact, no matter how many bad movies he makes. Other than James Whale and Alfred Hitchcock, what genre filmmaker has provided us with more thrills and thoughts?

In LAND OF THE DEAD, Dennis Hopper says (while picking his nose - how's that for "social commentary"?), "Zombies. I hate zombies." I know the feeling. Horror authors and filmmakers alike are running poor George's take on the shambling (now running) undead into the ground. Here's a thought: why don't these people create their OWN frigging monsters? But I have a confession to make: I just read Joe McKinney's novel DEAD CITY, which is due for a re-release, and loved it. and I have a second zombie related confession: my novel next year, DESPERATE SOULS: THE JAKE HELMAN FILES, includes zombies in the mix of voodoo forces Jake Helman combats; they are a take on the classic voodoo zombie, though, not an "homage" to Romero's flesh eaters.

If I'm sick of zombies, I've grown to positively hate vampires. Until the last few decades, vampires were scary monsters, not weepy, introspective, emasculated figures. In Stoker's novel, Dracula was a foul creature, more of a rapist than a seducer. Who the hell started this trend of turning vampires into goth wimps? I think it started with Barnabas Collins on DARK SHADOWS. He started out scary, but when Dan Curtis decided to keep him around because he infused the show's ratings with much needed new blood, they softened him and eventually made him the hero. Anne Rice deserves some blame, too; INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE is an amazing novel, but simpering Louis was the real beginning of the downward spiral. Confession: I loved INTERVIEW, but loathed THE VAMPIRE LESTAT and found QUEEN OF THE DAMNED such a pathetic mess that I never read another book in the series. Louis, of course, led to more wimpy vampires, especially on TV: ANGEL, FOREVER KNIGHT and MOONLIGHT. And now we have the wussie vampires of TWILIGHT, THE VAMPIRE DIARIES, and more wagon jumpers than I count. The last good American vampire flick was NEAR DARK, though I give 30 DAYS OF NIGHT props for trying to make the creatures of the night scary again. Confession: I once made a low budget vampire movie called UNDYING LOVE, which deliberately eschewed all vampire conventions. I could never write a vampire novel I refuse to contribute to that glut - but lately I've been thinking of writing a new vampire screenplay, something that would give the finger to all of this romanticized pap and make these monsters scary again. It's a daunting task, and so much has been done to these poor creatures - think of the Fremen in Frank Herbert's DUNE MESSIAH - that I'm not sure I'm up to the job.

I like giant monster movies.

I hate mummies; they were never scary.

I'm actually looking forward to the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET remake.

Here's a confession that always earns me criticism: I think Halloween is for kids. I think it's just swell that adults like to dress up and have silly fun and act like kids, and I guess it's cool that "we" have one day of the year - really a month - where horror is not treated like a ghetto genre, but I love horror year around, which is why I still subscribe to FANGORIA and RUE MORGUE. For me, Halloween has become the time of the year when cable stations show the worst HALLOWEEN sequels around the clock, and a great number of people use October 31st as one more excuse to get drunk and behave like fools. When I expressed this thought in my blog last year, a friend responded, "Do you ever have FUN?" Sure I do - I have fun watching my three-year-old daughter enjoy Halloween. Trick or Treat!

What are your horror confessions?