Subtextual Criticism Challenge: Intro

I love subtextual film criticism, especially when it's fun, when a guy knows how to write in a readable, charming way. What I love the most about it is that it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with what the writer or the actor or the filmmakers intended. It just has to work. And if you can make your case with as few exceptions as possible, then that's great.
- Quentin Tarantino, on subtextual (i.e. ideological) criticism.

At this point, I'd only been writing reviews of films I like. This is very safe territory for me. I thought it was time I beforced to review films I don't like. So I asked some friends to suggest any film they might want me to review--no matter how awful or vapid--and I would try to find something positive to say about it by providing a different type of subtextual analysis for each film.

These were the rules I stipulated.

1. Film must be over an hour in length.
2. Film must be made between 1950 and 1998 (inclusive).
3. Film must be horror.
4. Film must be readily available, by netflix or, ahem, torrent.
5. Film must be available with English audio or subs.
6. Suggest only one or two films per person.

From Monday to Friday on week in December, 2008, I wrote an analysis per day after viewing and taking notes on each of the films I was suggested.

Monday: Monster a Go-Go
Tuesday: The Beast of Yucca Flats
Wednesday: Dr. Giggles
Thursday: Manos: The Hands of Fate
Friday: Troll 2

You can read my conclusion on the long week of analyzing these subtle masterpieces, as well, in the epilogue.