2005 in review
Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2006 7:16 pm
Well, 2005 was a pretty damn packed year. Oh, yes, in the theatrical horror department, too.
I don't know--this review round-up may end up startling and/or disappointing some of you. Maybe I had such a twisted personal year that complaints against feature films hardly seemed worth pursuing--or maybe I'm getting mellow in my "old age," but I surprised myself with what I let slide if the movie offered something--anything--sincere to please me. My "worst" section is quite shallow this year, and the "good" is overflowing.
Plenty of consternation was expressed over the PG-13 plethora this year. Personally, it didn't bother me--I love 'extreme' as much as I ever did, but plenty of my lifetime favorites wouldn't threaten an 'R' today, after all. Besides, unless I'm very much mistaken, every PG-13 release was ultimately offered up in an 'unrated' (read 'R') DVD shortly afterwards.
So here's the year as I saw it--and if my choices seem shocking at any point, feel free to call me crazy, jaded or old. Just don't expect me to change my viewpoint--I might be insane... but I don't say what I don't mean!
THE GOOD:
Having no experience whatsoever with the HELLBLAZER comics, I was out of the loop when it came to the bitter complaints about the way CONSTANTINE re-invented the source material. What I got was an entertaining, well-cast exercise in demon mythology that never flagged in the pacing and always had absorbing eye candy decorating the proceedings. I just wish Peter Stormare had been given a bit more to do. As for Keanu Reeves? I'll take this over a MATRIX sequel any day.
THE JACKET was especially frightening in the opening moments, when I thought I was going to have to sit through this entire time travel ordeal only to be given the OWL CREEK BRIDGE/JACOB'S LADDER ending (which I'm truly sick as hell of). But this underrated effort never took the easy way out and left the willing viewer plenty to ponder over. Excellent work from Adrien Brody, Kiera Knightley, Kris Kristofferson and Jennifer Jason Leigh, too. It would make an excellent double-bill with THE MACHINIST from 2004.
SIN CITY couldn't simply be called a "horror" movie, but try to tell me that the Elijah Wood segments didn't qualify! This was innovative, slam-bang entertainment from beginning to end--an experiment that could have been disastrous... but triumphed.
And despite the title, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (remake, of course) wasn't a horror film, either--at least, not as I saw it. Had it been intended as a legitimate shocker, it would have been an utter crock. But I am convinced that it was a deliberate send-up of the whole phenomena (notice how it couldn't care less about the details of the allegedly true story)--and as such, it was better than SCARY MOVIE 2 and 3 combined.
Speaking of remakes, HOUSE OF WAX simply wasn't one, even if it did have a character named "Vincent." But your typical cannon-fodder characters and their frequently idiotic behavior simply allowed easy access to an affectionately surreal trip through all your favorite wax museum/tourist trap movies--with typically excellent Dark Castle art design (the finale deserved to be seen on the big screen) and full-strength horror and gore to boot.
No, there will be no recapturing of the independent, unrated NIGHT/DAWN/DAY Romero effect, but he's still the zombie master, and LAND OF THE DEAD was truly worth the twenty-year wait. And if you're paying studio prices, why not take advantage of Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo? Good stuff.
HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES was apparently Rob Zombie's cliche-riddled practice run for the movie he REALLY wanted to make. THE DEVIL'S REJECTS was another item that split fans right down the middle--I was legitimately impressed: not simply by the level to which the on-screen violence and mayhem was pushed, but by an unusually thoughtful script and the efforts of an excellent cast. I enjoyed the first one, but I figured that we'd seen it all at that point. I was wrong.
Local color and well-researched details lent authenticity to the voodoo melodrama THE SKELETON KEY--I expected something quick and disposable, but the filmmakers were serious about telling this story when it would have been stupendously easy to let it slide into camp.
Likewise, the remake of DARK WATER (never did see the original), while never truly frightening, maintained my interest throughout as it told a sad ghost story with plenty of visual atmosphere, effective sound design and strong performances (including, thankfully, a child performer that didn't grate at the nerves).
CRY WOLF defied the odds. Nobody wanted to see it (and I'm guessing it was because the ads made it look like yet another SCREAM knockoff--and a PG-13 one at that), but there's nothing inherently wrong about the urban legend/cyber-hoax/backfire concept, and this one actually maintained its pace and truly kept you guessing. It didn't need to take time out to quote the rules of a hundred previous films, either!
I had mixed feelings regarding the potential of a sequel to my favorite horror film of 2004. But SAW II managed to thrive: both the excruciating shock devices and the mind-screw elements came through at full-strength. I was tempted to give it top honors, but it IS a sequel that follows a freshly-set pattern, after all.
So what does that leave me with? I should mention that DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST never played theatrically in my neighborhood, but I caught up with it on DVD. As one of the only people in the world to have anything nice to say about the Renny Harlin rendition, I must freely confess that I would have thought much less of it had I seen DOMINION first. I still consider the story to be worth telling, but Schrader's "unreleasable" film was much more effectively cerebral than Harlin's Hollywood compromise (especially when it came to the climactic exorcism itself). But in my book, the most intelligent treatment of possession and exorcism since the original EXORCIST came in the unlikely form of a largely-unheralded (and PG-13!!!) item that popped up out of nowhere and caused a box-office sensation all its own. Giving equal weight to the religious and the scientific--without insulting either--and without ever allowing its grip on the viewer to flag, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE pulled off what no other EXORCIST sequel or clone ever managed to do. There's an unrated DVD out there now, but the theatrical cut was enough to get the job done, and I unashamedly award it my top honor for 2005.
THE MIDDLE GROUND
BOOGEYMAN had nothing to do with Ulli Lommel, and it tried too hard to jangle the viewer with the old "nuclear explosion/fingernails on a blackboard" sonic shriek every few minutes to keep people interested in its "childhood nightmare" scenario. That said, the last half hour actually pulled off an impressively disorienting surprise, and the climax had plenty of energy (though the alternate ending on the DVD was the one they should have used in the first place). As such, I couldn't completely consign it to the scrap heap.
What did anyone honestly expect from THE RING TWO? I'm always going to remember this one for the hysterical CGI deer with the would-be-ominous facial expressions. Oh, and for the huge holes left in the ending ("Uh, ma'am? You're STILL under arrest for murder, you know..."). But there were some decently creepy scenes despite all that, and the bit with the hypodermic needle was quite daring for a scene involving a child. It's not a great sequel (and my daughter, who is RING fan numero uno, HATED it), but it didn't thwart my anticipations, either.
The long-delayed MINDHUNTERS suffered from the "don't know when to quit" syndrome (see CRY WOLF for an example of how to do it right), but Renny Harlin gave the needed energy to the string of (often surprising) gimmick murders, staged a fairly original climax, and kept the formula film watchable throughout.
HIGH TENSION lived up to its title. And then it shot itself in the ass. I need hardly explain.
I'm always going to have a soft spot for plain old, good old monster movies, but THE CAVE was nothing to get excited about. Some good visuals and one very good action/horror sequence may help some overcome the choppy, confusing editing, sketchy plot and groaner finale.
And WOLF CREEK gave us intensity, realistic acting and you-are-there authenticity in the outback, but no imaginative enhancements or distractions from a bare-bones torture/murder scenario. A 'true story' told in a very familiar and ultimately numbing hope/despair/hope/despair pattern.
THE WORST
The year got off to a very bad start with three consecutive losers (though at least one of them was a hit). WHITE NOISE wanted to play with the topic of EVP, but it couldn't make up its mind whether evil ghosts or evil people were at the heart of the mystery behind the death of Michael Keaton's wife. False flashbacks and a resolution that tries to please everybody sink this one hopelessly. And besides, Kevin Costner already did this story better (without all the post-POLTERGEIST electronic foofaraw) in DRAGONFLY.
HIDE AND SEEK gave us Robert De Niro... then again, so did GODSEND. The director of SWIMFAN was obviously trying for the latest "shock ending to end all shock endings" and so went to ridiculous lengths to cast suspicion everywhere it obviously didn't belong. "Charlie did it! Charlie did it! Charlie! Charlie! Charlie!" And even THEN the ending tried to have it both ways. Okay, so I know. But do I CARE?
One of the most amusing things I witnessed this year was the way the critics ganged up on Uwe Boll's ALONE IN THE DARK. It seemed everyone was racing to be the first to the post to proclaim Boll the new Ed Wood--or to write the most imaginatively excoriating review of this alleged video game adaptation. Okay, there's nothing about it that makes it anything resembling a "good movie," but where were all these Boll-bashers hiding when I was ripping HOUSE OF THE DEAD a new one a couple of years ago? Oh, and then Boll tries to blame the film's shortcomings exclusively on Tara Reid??? Nice try--YOU were the one who cast her as a scientist! What about the senseless story and the monster apocalypse that never happened? I'm wasting my breath--he's moved on to Ben Kingsley and will probably end up winning an Oscar someday, given his luck.
Yeah--we really, really needed a remake of THE FOG. Carpenter's original was obviously suffering from a lack of up-to-date CGI effects and demises, "hip" characters and a rockin' soundtrack. Was he out of his mind when he tried to make an old-fashioned, literally atmospheric GHOST story? Who the hell needs THAT?
But absolutely nothing could top CURSED as the film that seriously made me consider giving up being a horror fan. Thankfully, it showed up early enough in the year to give my feelings a chance to mellow. I could go on about the wisdom behind forcing a Kevin Williamson script (that obviously didn't WANT to be made anymore) through the pipe (like a brick of hard cheese through the wrong end of a colostomy bag) even to the point of practically making the damn thing TWICE. I could go on about the up-to-date Scott Baio cameo, the "coming out" subplot and the weary in-jokes, but the whole thing can be summed up with the werewolf who gives the finger (to the audience, as far as I'm concerned). Right back atcha, Kev. Please go away and don't ever, EVER come back. As for Wes Craven? NOBODY could have saved this one, and I'm glad he followed-up with RED EYE (not horror, but a very enjoyable suspense ride--and another favorite of my daughter, thanks to Cillian Murphy's villainous turn). Which reminds me...
Plenty of peripherals to note briefly. As noted, Craven gave us RED EYE. David Cronenberg gave us one of his best ever in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (again, not "horror," but something no horror fan should pass up). THE FOG was actually one of two John Carpenter remakes this year--ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 sacrificed everything that managed to land the original in the horror reference books, but I thought it was an enjoyable siege thriller, regardless. And Jeff Burr's STRAIGHT INTO DARKNESS deserves theatrical distribution NOW.
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE really ought to go on the "horror" scorecard, considering what it builds up to--it's another excellent entry in the series, and one of the best condensations of a huge book I've ever encountered. As for STAR WARS EPISODE III? Not perfect, but still one of the better entries in the saga--if only its quality could have been reached for EPISODE I, eh?
BATMAN BEGINS marked a great comeback for that film franchise, even if it did rewrite the filmic history yet again. Christian Bale was excellent as the young Bruce Wayne, Liam Neeson was a fine, complex villain--and the revelation of the Scarecrow was one hell of a terrific movie moment. Beats the hell out of the comparatively superficial FANTASTIC FOUR. Oh, and speaking of Katie Holmes? Tom Cruise, whatever else he may be, is still capable of being a fine actor, and I had no problem with him in Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS--which hit many an intense note (of human on human conflict, never mind the aliens!) and made good use of the H.G. Wells story. Yes, Dakota Fanning was annoying as hell, and yes, some holes were never filled satisfactorily, but give the devil his due--there's still a compelling space invasion to be had here. If you don't believe me, watch the C. Thomas Howell video version and count your blessings!
I never did see VENOM, CHAOS, STAY, THREE... EXTREMES or the original PULSE, as they never played for me. I did see OLDBOY, of course. Not horror, but sledgehammer impact nonetheless!
And to wrap up the year, there were two very different monster epics. Peter Jackson's KING KONG was everything I thought it would be--visually splendid, emotionally powerful and imaginative as regards the relationship between Kong and his lady love, imaginatively and effectively cast (especially Jack Black as Carl Denham)--and massively overindulgent at three hours for a story that has been proven to take less than two to tell just as spectacularly. For the record, I very much DO recommend the film on the big screen. As for GODZILLA: FINAL WARS? I never got to see it on the big screen, but the American DVD is finally a reality. It's also the longest of ITS respective series. And to me, it was a fantasmagoria of absolutely everything that the Godzilla series has been over the past fifty years... from the deadly serious war/horror allegory, to the superheroics, to the goofball comedy, to the human action that mirrors the flavor of the day (MATRIX, what hast thou wrought), to the American revisioning (resolved with what is hands-down the BEST English subtitle of the year), and everything in between. It's exciting, it's funny, it's ridiculous, it's imaginative--no matter what sort of G-fan you are, it's got something just for you.
On to 2006. Looks like we're kicking off with Eli Roth's HOSTEL, an UNDERWORLD sequel, another Uwe Boll movie, and three consecutive remakes.
If I don't make it through the year, I hope you'll forgive me. But I'll try.
Remo D.
I don't know--this review round-up may end up startling and/or disappointing some of you. Maybe I had such a twisted personal year that complaints against feature films hardly seemed worth pursuing--or maybe I'm getting mellow in my "old age," but I surprised myself with what I let slide if the movie offered something--anything--sincere to please me. My "worst" section is quite shallow this year, and the "good" is overflowing.
Plenty of consternation was expressed over the PG-13 plethora this year. Personally, it didn't bother me--I love 'extreme' as much as I ever did, but plenty of my lifetime favorites wouldn't threaten an 'R' today, after all. Besides, unless I'm very much mistaken, every PG-13 release was ultimately offered up in an 'unrated' (read 'R') DVD shortly afterwards.
So here's the year as I saw it--and if my choices seem shocking at any point, feel free to call me crazy, jaded or old. Just don't expect me to change my viewpoint--I might be insane... but I don't say what I don't mean!
THE GOOD:
Having no experience whatsoever with the HELLBLAZER comics, I was out of the loop when it came to the bitter complaints about the way CONSTANTINE re-invented the source material. What I got was an entertaining, well-cast exercise in demon mythology that never flagged in the pacing and always had absorbing eye candy decorating the proceedings. I just wish Peter Stormare had been given a bit more to do. As for Keanu Reeves? I'll take this over a MATRIX sequel any day.
THE JACKET was especially frightening in the opening moments, when I thought I was going to have to sit through this entire time travel ordeal only to be given the OWL CREEK BRIDGE/JACOB'S LADDER ending (which I'm truly sick as hell of). But this underrated effort never took the easy way out and left the willing viewer plenty to ponder over. Excellent work from Adrien Brody, Kiera Knightley, Kris Kristofferson and Jennifer Jason Leigh, too. It would make an excellent double-bill with THE MACHINIST from 2004.
SIN CITY couldn't simply be called a "horror" movie, but try to tell me that the Elijah Wood segments didn't qualify! This was innovative, slam-bang entertainment from beginning to end--an experiment that could have been disastrous... but triumphed.
And despite the title, THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (remake, of course) wasn't a horror film, either--at least, not as I saw it. Had it been intended as a legitimate shocker, it would have been an utter crock. But I am convinced that it was a deliberate send-up of the whole phenomena (notice how it couldn't care less about the details of the allegedly true story)--and as such, it was better than SCARY MOVIE 2 and 3 combined.
Speaking of remakes, HOUSE OF WAX simply wasn't one, even if it did have a character named "Vincent." But your typical cannon-fodder characters and their frequently idiotic behavior simply allowed easy access to an affectionately surreal trip through all your favorite wax museum/tourist trap movies--with typically excellent Dark Castle art design (the finale deserved to be seen on the big screen) and full-strength horror and gore to boot.
No, there will be no recapturing of the independent, unrated NIGHT/DAWN/DAY Romero effect, but he's still the zombie master, and LAND OF THE DEAD was truly worth the twenty-year wait. And if you're paying studio prices, why not take advantage of Dennis Hopper and John Leguizamo? Good stuff.
HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES was apparently Rob Zombie's cliche-riddled practice run for the movie he REALLY wanted to make. THE DEVIL'S REJECTS was another item that split fans right down the middle--I was legitimately impressed: not simply by the level to which the on-screen violence and mayhem was pushed, but by an unusually thoughtful script and the efforts of an excellent cast. I enjoyed the first one, but I figured that we'd seen it all at that point. I was wrong.
Local color and well-researched details lent authenticity to the voodoo melodrama THE SKELETON KEY--I expected something quick and disposable, but the filmmakers were serious about telling this story when it would have been stupendously easy to let it slide into camp.
Likewise, the remake of DARK WATER (never did see the original), while never truly frightening, maintained my interest throughout as it told a sad ghost story with plenty of visual atmosphere, effective sound design and strong performances (including, thankfully, a child performer that didn't grate at the nerves).
CRY WOLF defied the odds. Nobody wanted to see it (and I'm guessing it was because the ads made it look like yet another SCREAM knockoff--and a PG-13 one at that), but there's nothing inherently wrong about the urban legend/cyber-hoax/backfire concept, and this one actually maintained its pace and truly kept you guessing. It didn't need to take time out to quote the rules of a hundred previous films, either!
I had mixed feelings regarding the potential of a sequel to my favorite horror film of 2004. But SAW II managed to thrive: both the excruciating shock devices and the mind-screw elements came through at full-strength. I was tempted to give it top honors, but it IS a sequel that follows a freshly-set pattern, after all.
So what does that leave me with? I should mention that DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST never played theatrically in my neighborhood, but I caught up with it on DVD. As one of the only people in the world to have anything nice to say about the Renny Harlin rendition, I must freely confess that I would have thought much less of it had I seen DOMINION first. I still consider the story to be worth telling, but Schrader's "unreleasable" film was much more effectively cerebral than Harlin's Hollywood compromise (especially when it came to the climactic exorcism itself). But in my book, the most intelligent treatment of possession and exorcism since the original EXORCIST came in the unlikely form of a largely-unheralded (and PG-13!!!) item that popped up out of nowhere and caused a box-office sensation all its own. Giving equal weight to the religious and the scientific--without insulting either--and without ever allowing its grip on the viewer to flag, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE pulled off what no other EXORCIST sequel or clone ever managed to do. There's an unrated DVD out there now, but the theatrical cut was enough to get the job done, and I unashamedly award it my top honor for 2005.
THE MIDDLE GROUND
BOOGEYMAN had nothing to do with Ulli Lommel, and it tried too hard to jangle the viewer with the old "nuclear explosion/fingernails on a blackboard" sonic shriek every few minutes to keep people interested in its "childhood nightmare" scenario. That said, the last half hour actually pulled off an impressively disorienting surprise, and the climax had plenty of energy (though the alternate ending on the DVD was the one they should have used in the first place). As such, I couldn't completely consign it to the scrap heap.
What did anyone honestly expect from THE RING TWO? I'm always going to remember this one for the hysterical CGI deer with the would-be-ominous facial expressions. Oh, and for the huge holes left in the ending ("Uh, ma'am? You're STILL under arrest for murder, you know..."). But there were some decently creepy scenes despite all that, and the bit with the hypodermic needle was quite daring for a scene involving a child. It's not a great sequel (and my daughter, who is RING fan numero uno, HATED it), but it didn't thwart my anticipations, either.
The long-delayed MINDHUNTERS suffered from the "don't know when to quit" syndrome (see CRY WOLF for an example of how to do it right), but Renny Harlin gave the needed energy to the string of (often surprising) gimmick murders, staged a fairly original climax, and kept the formula film watchable throughout.
HIGH TENSION lived up to its title. And then it shot itself in the ass. I need hardly explain.
I'm always going to have a soft spot for plain old, good old monster movies, but THE CAVE was nothing to get excited about. Some good visuals and one very good action/horror sequence may help some overcome the choppy, confusing editing, sketchy plot and groaner finale.
And WOLF CREEK gave us intensity, realistic acting and you-are-there authenticity in the outback, but no imaginative enhancements or distractions from a bare-bones torture/murder scenario. A 'true story' told in a very familiar and ultimately numbing hope/despair/hope/despair pattern.
THE WORST
The year got off to a very bad start with three consecutive losers (though at least one of them was a hit). WHITE NOISE wanted to play with the topic of EVP, but it couldn't make up its mind whether evil ghosts or evil people were at the heart of the mystery behind the death of Michael Keaton's wife. False flashbacks and a resolution that tries to please everybody sink this one hopelessly. And besides, Kevin Costner already did this story better (without all the post-POLTERGEIST electronic foofaraw) in DRAGONFLY.
HIDE AND SEEK gave us Robert De Niro... then again, so did GODSEND. The director of SWIMFAN was obviously trying for the latest "shock ending to end all shock endings" and so went to ridiculous lengths to cast suspicion everywhere it obviously didn't belong. "Charlie did it! Charlie did it! Charlie! Charlie! Charlie!" And even THEN the ending tried to have it both ways. Okay, so I know. But do I CARE?
One of the most amusing things I witnessed this year was the way the critics ganged up on Uwe Boll's ALONE IN THE DARK. It seemed everyone was racing to be the first to the post to proclaim Boll the new Ed Wood--or to write the most imaginatively excoriating review of this alleged video game adaptation. Okay, there's nothing about it that makes it anything resembling a "good movie," but where were all these Boll-bashers hiding when I was ripping HOUSE OF THE DEAD a new one a couple of years ago? Oh, and then Boll tries to blame the film's shortcomings exclusively on Tara Reid??? Nice try--YOU were the one who cast her as a scientist! What about the senseless story and the monster apocalypse that never happened? I'm wasting my breath--he's moved on to Ben Kingsley and will probably end up winning an Oscar someday, given his luck.
Yeah--we really, really needed a remake of THE FOG. Carpenter's original was obviously suffering from a lack of up-to-date CGI effects and demises, "hip" characters and a rockin' soundtrack. Was he out of his mind when he tried to make an old-fashioned, literally atmospheric GHOST story? Who the hell needs THAT?
But absolutely nothing could top CURSED as the film that seriously made me consider giving up being a horror fan. Thankfully, it showed up early enough in the year to give my feelings a chance to mellow. I could go on about the wisdom behind forcing a Kevin Williamson script (that obviously didn't WANT to be made anymore) through the pipe (like a brick of hard cheese through the wrong end of a colostomy bag) even to the point of practically making the damn thing TWICE. I could go on about the up-to-date Scott Baio cameo, the "coming out" subplot and the weary in-jokes, but the whole thing can be summed up with the werewolf who gives the finger (to the audience, as far as I'm concerned). Right back atcha, Kev. Please go away and don't ever, EVER come back. As for Wes Craven? NOBODY could have saved this one, and I'm glad he followed-up with RED EYE (not horror, but a very enjoyable suspense ride--and another favorite of my daughter, thanks to Cillian Murphy's villainous turn). Which reminds me...
Plenty of peripherals to note briefly. As noted, Craven gave us RED EYE. David Cronenberg gave us one of his best ever in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (again, not "horror," but something no horror fan should pass up). THE FOG was actually one of two John Carpenter remakes this year--ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 sacrificed everything that managed to land the original in the horror reference books, but I thought it was an enjoyable siege thriller, regardless. And Jeff Burr's STRAIGHT INTO DARKNESS deserves theatrical distribution NOW.
HARRY POTTER AND THE GOBLET OF FIRE really ought to go on the "horror" scorecard, considering what it builds up to--it's another excellent entry in the series, and one of the best condensations of a huge book I've ever encountered. As for STAR WARS EPISODE III? Not perfect, but still one of the better entries in the saga--if only its quality could have been reached for EPISODE I, eh?
BATMAN BEGINS marked a great comeback for that film franchise, even if it did rewrite the filmic history yet again. Christian Bale was excellent as the young Bruce Wayne, Liam Neeson was a fine, complex villain--and the revelation of the Scarecrow was one hell of a terrific movie moment. Beats the hell out of the comparatively superficial FANTASTIC FOUR. Oh, and speaking of Katie Holmes? Tom Cruise, whatever else he may be, is still capable of being a fine actor, and I had no problem with him in Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS--which hit many an intense note (of human on human conflict, never mind the aliens!) and made good use of the H.G. Wells story. Yes, Dakota Fanning was annoying as hell, and yes, some holes were never filled satisfactorily, but give the devil his due--there's still a compelling space invasion to be had here. If you don't believe me, watch the C. Thomas Howell video version and count your blessings!
I never did see VENOM, CHAOS, STAY, THREE... EXTREMES or the original PULSE, as they never played for me. I did see OLDBOY, of course. Not horror, but sledgehammer impact nonetheless!
And to wrap up the year, there were two very different monster epics. Peter Jackson's KING KONG was everything I thought it would be--visually splendid, emotionally powerful and imaginative as regards the relationship between Kong and his lady love, imaginatively and effectively cast (especially Jack Black as Carl Denham)--and massively overindulgent at three hours for a story that has been proven to take less than two to tell just as spectacularly. For the record, I very much DO recommend the film on the big screen. As for GODZILLA: FINAL WARS? I never got to see it on the big screen, but the American DVD is finally a reality. It's also the longest of ITS respective series. And to me, it was a fantasmagoria of absolutely everything that the Godzilla series has been over the past fifty years... from the deadly serious war/horror allegory, to the superheroics, to the goofball comedy, to the human action that mirrors the flavor of the day (MATRIX, what hast thou wrought), to the American revisioning (resolved with what is hands-down the BEST English subtitle of the year), and everything in between. It's exciting, it's funny, it's ridiculous, it's imaginative--no matter what sort of G-fan you are, it's got something just for you.
On to 2006. Looks like we're kicking off with Eli Roth's HOSTEL, an UNDERWORLD sequel, another Uwe Boll movie, and three consecutive remakes.
If I don't make it through the year, I hope you'll forgive me. But I'll try.
Remo D.