> I've never understood the appeal of slasher movies. A writer spends time to creating a group of characters, likable or not, and then finds a way to kill them off. It just doesn't seem worth the effort.

There's my objections to the genre, too, and why I stayed away from it for so long. It is revolting to me that some people *do* derive pleasure from slasher flicks for this reason. Or worse yet, for the gore factor, which is a morally corrupted desire if I ever heard one. The "good" slasher flicks are the ones that attempt to be more. To scare the audience, for instance, as was the case with the nearly gore-less "Halloween." To present horror through a creative idea, for instance, as was the case with "A Nightmare On Elm Street." I liked "Scream" not only because it was suspenseful, but because it was smart -- I loved the characters having knowledge of slasher movie formulas, and using them to foil the killer.

I like scary movies, I like creative ideas, and I like sharp wits. Although it seems paradoxical that the slasher genre could offer any of these, there are a small few. And I like humorously bad movies, too. :-)

But the worst slasher flicks -- and there are a ton I'm purposefully avoiding, from "Dr. Giggles" to "The Slumber Party Massacre" -- are just there to show people dying, often in twisted, gory ways. It's sickening to browse the poorly-spelled, near-illiterate user comments for these movies on the IMDb, which praise these movies for their liberal bloodletting.