2001: A Review Odyssey
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2001 3:50 pm
Forgive the gag in the header--this is the only time in history that I'll ever use it, after all...
The horror movie year of 2001 was FINALLY better than the deadly 2000--mainly due to a late rally, as it sure didn't get off to all that great a start. Dedicated application of deceptively simple concepts turned out to be the best theme out there...
Here's the year as I called it--opinions strictly my own, sometimes controversial, always open to debate--but I think you'll find me consistent. I've included all the horror titles I saw on the big screen, but this year I threw in a couple of video titles simply because I knew for a fact that they HAD played theatrically (if out of my reach).
Out of contention because I got NO chance to see them: SESSION 9, THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE, DONNIE DARKO and probably some more...
THE BEST
While I still regret the severely compromised ending that essentially shattered the effect of Thomas Harris's story, HANNIBAL was by and large a beautiful adaptation--and who could deny the climactic dinner table scene its place of honor?
GINGER SNAPS once again proved that you CAN make an excellent horror film with teenage characters and/or a high-school setting. Not a spoof at all--this unconventional werewolf story really knew what was going on in the minds (and bodies) of its young female protagonists. And yet it worked as a HORROR FILM--it didn't use "horror" as a superficial disguise for a "women's issues" weepie.
FROM HELL was impeccably cast and put together, if not flawless. True, it didn't say anything about Jack the Ripper that I hadn't heard before, but what an evocative rendition of the legend, nonetheless. Right up there with HANNIBAL as a "handsome" production.
SERIES 7: THE CONTENDERS is one you need to go out and rent right now if you haven't already. Perhaps I'm pushing the definition of "horror," but this "ultimate reality show" showed up at just the right time and with just the right attitude. Best punchline ending of the year, as well...
JURASSIC PARK III was initially marked "so SUE me" in my header, and I repeat the sentiment. It's a monster movie, pure and simple, and it provided some great dino action that didn't simply rehash what had gone on before. The "birdcage" sequence in itself was worth the price of admission--and the price of the DVD, for that matter. Plot? Yeah, there was one of those--and you got Sam Neill and William H. Macy, too. Good, unassuming fun.
THE OTHERS didn't blow me away with any "surprise" ending, but worked quite well with quiet intensity and genuine shocks--as well as child actors who succeeded in being sympathetic--but not at all cloying. Nicole Kidman deserves every good thing said about her this year--unlike some OTHER actresses I could name...
This year I'm handing the trophy to John Dahl's JOY RIDE just for being true to itself as an unpretentious, straightforward shocker based on a premise that could never lose its appeal--the misdirected message, the "harmless" prank. Thoroughly well-acted, cast and directed, with more than its share of "jump out of your seat" moments. Forget profundity--this one delivers just what you want it to, and there's no greater compliment to be made.
THE MIDDLE GROUND
THIR13EN GHOSTS didn't live up to the HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL remake, thanks to its vapor-thin writing and the annoying presence of Matthew Lillard as a character that belonged in a different film (namely HOUSE!). But the set design, makeup effects and rapid-fire ghost mayhem kept things enjoyable while it lasted--I still think it delivers what William Castle would have wanted it to.
BONES took a while to decide what it wanted to be--it's an awfully strange combination when you start with 70's style black-cast action films and end with a double-whammy Argento/Fulci tribute. It takes a while, but this one grows on you.
As for JEEPERS CREEPERS, if you want to talk about the director, tell it to Roman Polanski. I don't want him for a babysitter, I just want to deal with the MOVIE. And no amount of dialogue in which the characters admit that they're being stupid changes the fact that they're being stupid and that there should have been a better way to get the story going. That said, this still had some of the best individual SCENES of the horror year--such as the attack on the police car and the "scarecrow" scene with Eileen Brennan... among others. I'm not sorry I saw it.
If THE FORSAKEN hadn't been such a combo clone of NEAR DARK and Carpenter's VAMPIRES, it would have been in the "best" list thanks to the non-stop action, gore and nudity (the kind just about everyone's afraid to use today). Good, stylish, stuff--but far, far, too indebted to its inspirations.
Speaking of which, exactly how much credit does Cameron Crowe truly deserve for remaking OPEN YOUR EYES as VANILLA SKY? This isn't a bad movie by any means, but it's only a step or two above what Gus Van Sant did with PSYCHO in concept and execution.
Give me the unrated version of SLEEPLESS some time and I'll get back to you, please? What I got on tape was an exercise in frustration--an Argento film desperately trying to be an Argento film but running into giant scissors throughout.
And MEGIDDO? Come on out--it's okay. I promise not to clobber you. You see--I know that you really wanted to be a horror film, no matter what your fundamentalist makers intended you to be. You wanted to be right there with the OMEN films, right? Hey--it's NOT your fault what you are--and the best way to hurt your creators is to wear the "horror" badge on your sleeve proudly. You are one wacky movie, MEGIDDO. Thanks for trying.
Before we get to the bad stuff, let's acknowledge the world of fantasy--the stuff that can't quite be called "horror." Fantasy tended to take the year over by storm, as it turned out. From the gentle Stephen King adaptation HEARTS IN ATLANTIS, to the first-rate family film SPY KIDS to the Jeunet-directed romantic fantasy AMELIE, my genre leanings drew me to some fine stuff that I otherwise might have missed altogether. PLANET OF THE APES, for all its hollow core, was a fantastic looking film with a truly possessed performance by Tim Roth, David Lynch did it again and perhaps better than ever with MULHOLLAND DR., Spielberg's A.I. could have been a contender but for those disastrous final twenty minutes, and who can forget those two epics that lived up to every bit of their hype: HARRY POTTER and LORD OF THE RINGS?
Okay, knives are sharpened...
THE BAD
You know I loved the 1999 version of THE MUMMY, no matter what anybody else thought. But THE MUMMY RETURNS was a sequel that truly was what everybody accused the first one of being. Nothing but rehash with different camera angles--and Brendan Fraser's every other line confirms that we're watching a sequel, a sequel, a sequel. At least JP3 did something different with its prehistoric beasts...
It upset me to no end that I liked GHOSTS OF MARS as little as I did--of all the films I wanted to be good, you know? Horrendous dialogue, a wasted Pam Grier, confused script, a lack of resolve concerning just what the menace could and could not do, and uninspired acting (except from Natasha Henstridge) hit me like bludgeons from every angle throughout the entire running time.
SCARY MOVIE almost took the crown for 2000 by being better than most of the actual horror films out there--but with the entire SCREAM trilogy and its ilk used up in the original, there was precious little for SCARY MOVIE 2 to do except lie there and die. One of the sloppiest rush-jobs I've ever seen.
Speaking of sloppy, naming SOUL SURVIVORS the worst of the year would be too easy--almost like kicking a puppy. This project was doomed from the start, and no amount of fiddling could ever have helped it. But it's NOT the be-all and end-all of lousy teen horror...
...that honor would have to go to VALENTINE. Why must I constantly blast Jamie Blanks? He's a filmmaker with a lot of talent and he certainly seems to know and love his horror films--but why won't he do anything but stale teenkill crap? The fact that this is technically better than utter nonsense like SOUL SURVIVORS only makes it more painful to sit through--right up to the ending which sacrifices its last shred of coherency just to pay misdirected "tribute" to one of my favorites--ALONE IN THE DARK. VALENTINE physically HURT.
All right--here comes 2002, starting with BLADE 2 and hopefully a big handful of stuff they're still dangling out of my reach from this year.
Your thoughts, ladies and gentlemen?
------------------
"Nya-nya, nya-nya, nyahh-nyahh... I made you eat your parents!!!" --Cartman
[This message has been edited by Remo D (edited 12-31-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Remo D (edited 12-31-2001).]
The horror movie year of 2001 was FINALLY better than the deadly 2000--mainly due to a late rally, as it sure didn't get off to all that great a start. Dedicated application of deceptively simple concepts turned out to be the best theme out there...
Here's the year as I called it--opinions strictly my own, sometimes controversial, always open to debate--but I think you'll find me consistent. I've included all the horror titles I saw on the big screen, but this year I threw in a couple of video titles simply because I knew for a fact that they HAD played theatrically (if out of my reach).
Out of contention because I got NO chance to see them: SESSION 9, THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE, DONNIE DARKO and probably some more...
THE BEST
While I still regret the severely compromised ending that essentially shattered the effect of Thomas Harris's story, HANNIBAL was by and large a beautiful adaptation--and who could deny the climactic dinner table scene its place of honor?
GINGER SNAPS once again proved that you CAN make an excellent horror film with teenage characters and/or a high-school setting. Not a spoof at all--this unconventional werewolf story really knew what was going on in the minds (and bodies) of its young female protagonists. And yet it worked as a HORROR FILM--it didn't use "horror" as a superficial disguise for a "women's issues" weepie.
FROM HELL was impeccably cast and put together, if not flawless. True, it didn't say anything about Jack the Ripper that I hadn't heard before, but what an evocative rendition of the legend, nonetheless. Right up there with HANNIBAL as a "handsome" production.
SERIES 7: THE CONTENDERS is one you need to go out and rent right now if you haven't already. Perhaps I'm pushing the definition of "horror," but this "ultimate reality show" showed up at just the right time and with just the right attitude. Best punchline ending of the year, as well...
JURASSIC PARK III was initially marked "so SUE me" in my header, and I repeat the sentiment. It's a monster movie, pure and simple, and it provided some great dino action that didn't simply rehash what had gone on before. The "birdcage" sequence in itself was worth the price of admission--and the price of the DVD, for that matter. Plot? Yeah, there was one of those--and you got Sam Neill and William H. Macy, too. Good, unassuming fun.
THE OTHERS didn't blow me away with any "surprise" ending, but worked quite well with quiet intensity and genuine shocks--as well as child actors who succeeded in being sympathetic--but not at all cloying. Nicole Kidman deserves every good thing said about her this year--unlike some OTHER actresses I could name...
This year I'm handing the trophy to John Dahl's JOY RIDE just for being true to itself as an unpretentious, straightforward shocker based on a premise that could never lose its appeal--the misdirected message, the "harmless" prank. Thoroughly well-acted, cast and directed, with more than its share of "jump out of your seat" moments. Forget profundity--this one delivers just what you want it to, and there's no greater compliment to be made.
THE MIDDLE GROUND
THIR13EN GHOSTS didn't live up to the HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL remake, thanks to its vapor-thin writing and the annoying presence of Matthew Lillard as a character that belonged in a different film (namely HOUSE!). But the set design, makeup effects and rapid-fire ghost mayhem kept things enjoyable while it lasted--I still think it delivers what William Castle would have wanted it to.
BONES took a while to decide what it wanted to be--it's an awfully strange combination when you start with 70's style black-cast action films and end with a double-whammy Argento/Fulci tribute. It takes a while, but this one grows on you.
As for JEEPERS CREEPERS, if you want to talk about the director, tell it to Roman Polanski. I don't want him for a babysitter, I just want to deal with the MOVIE. And no amount of dialogue in which the characters admit that they're being stupid changes the fact that they're being stupid and that there should have been a better way to get the story going. That said, this still had some of the best individual SCENES of the horror year--such as the attack on the police car and the "scarecrow" scene with Eileen Brennan... among others. I'm not sorry I saw it.
If THE FORSAKEN hadn't been such a combo clone of NEAR DARK and Carpenter's VAMPIRES, it would have been in the "best" list thanks to the non-stop action, gore and nudity (the kind just about everyone's afraid to use today). Good, stylish, stuff--but far, far, too indebted to its inspirations.
Speaking of which, exactly how much credit does Cameron Crowe truly deserve for remaking OPEN YOUR EYES as VANILLA SKY? This isn't a bad movie by any means, but it's only a step or two above what Gus Van Sant did with PSYCHO in concept and execution.
Give me the unrated version of SLEEPLESS some time and I'll get back to you, please? What I got on tape was an exercise in frustration--an Argento film desperately trying to be an Argento film but running into giant scissors throughout.
And MEGIDDO? Come on out--it's okay. I promise not to clobber you. You see--I know that you really wanted to be a horror film, no matter what your fundamentalist makers intended you to be. You wanted to be right there with the OMEN films, right? Hey--it's NOT your fault what you are--and the best way to hurt your creators is to wear the "horror" badge on your sleeve proudly. You are one wacky movie, MEGIDDO. Thanks for trying.
Before we get to the bad stuff, let's acknowledge the world of fantasy--the stuff that can't quite be called "horror." Fantasy tended to take the year over by storm, as it turned out. From the gentle Stephen King adaptation HEARTS IN ATLANTIS, to the first-rate family film SPY KIDS to the Jeunet-directed romantic fantasy AMELIE, my genre leanings drew me to some fine stuff that I otherwise might have missed altogether. PLANET OF THE APES, for all its hollow core, was a fantastic looking film with a truly possessed performance by Tim Roth, David Lynch did it again and perhaps better than ever with MULHOLLAND DR., Spielberg's A.I. could have been a contender but for those disastrous final twenty minutes, and who can forget those two epics that lived up to every bit of their hype: HARRY POTTER and LORD OF THE RINGS?
Okay, knives are sharpened...
THE BAD
You know I loved the 1999 version of THE MUMMY, no matter what anybody else thought. But THE MUMMY RETURNS was a sequel that truly was what everybody accused the first one of being. Nothing but rehash with different camera angles--and Brendan Fraser's every other line confirms that we're watching a sequel, a sequel, a sequel. At least JP3 did something different with its prehistoric beasts...
It upset me to no end that I liked GHOSTS OF MARS as little as I did--of all the films I wanted to be good, you know? Horrendous dialogue, a wasted Pam Grier, confused script, a lack of resolve concerning just what the menace could and could not do, and uninspired acting (except from Natasha Henstridge) hit me like bludgeons from every angle throughout the entire running time.
SCARY MOVIE almost took the crown for 2000 by being better than most of the actual horror films out there--but with the entire SCREAM trilogy and its ilk used up in the original, there was precious little for SCARY MOVIE 2 to do except lie there and die. One of the sloppiest rush-jobs I've ever seen.
Speaking of sloppy, naming SOUL SURVIVORS the worst of the year would be too easy--almost like kicking a puppy. This project was doomed from the start, and no amount of fiddling could ever have helped it. But it's NOT the be-all and end-all of lousy teen horror...
...that honor would have to go to VALENTINE. Why must I constantly blast Jamie Blanks? He's a filmmaker with a lot of talent and he certainly seems to know and love his horror films--but why won't he do anything but stale teenkill crap? The fact that this is technically better than utter nonsense like SOUL SURVIVORS only makes it more painful to sit through--right up to the ending which sacrifices its last shred of coherency just to pay misdirected "tribute" to one of my favorites--ALONE IN THE DARK. VALENTINE physically HURT.
All right--here comes 2002, starting with BLADE 2 and hopefully a big handful of stuff they're still dangling out of my reach from this year.
Your thoughts, ladies and gentlemen?
------------------
"Nya-nya, nya-nya, nyahh-nyahh... I made you eat your parents!!!" --Cartman
[This message has been edited by Remo D (edited 12-31-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Remo D (edited 12-31-2001).]