Soul Survivors? Not in MY neck of the woods!
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:44 pm
After a year's worth of trailers and all sorts of stories about how the R-rated film became a PG-13, we finally get this long delayed release from Artisan. Well, some of us did--maybe some major city folks. Not me.
You know me as the guy who sees "everything." That is, every so-called horror film that hits my area, completist that I am. But do you think I HAVE to see this one even if I DO get the chance?
Did we need yet another film in which somebody survives a traumatic experience, only to be haunted by apparitions afterwards? (I don't count FINAL DESTINATION--they really DID survive, even if they weren't "meant" to.) Is ONE person going to tell me that I'm not looking head-on at an ending that's going to reveal that the apparent survivor was really... gasp... DEAD ALL ALONG??? Can anybody who's seen this thing, even if they try not to spoil it, avoid mentioning either CARNIVAL OF SOULS or JACOB'S LADDER?
Do we really need yet another horror poster image consisting solely of a row of teenaged faces LOOKING at something?
Look--I don't care if they're teenagers or not. I don't care if one of them was in BUFFY or not. I'm not sorry I saw FINAL DESTINATION and I'm not sorry I saw THE FORSAKEN, even if it wasn't perfect. You CAN do good horror even with a "hip" young cast. But this thing?
You tell me. Really, you tell me. If it opens in my town, do you think I should bother? I won't actually review it without seeing it (no, not even this one). But did it do anybody any good when I actually saw I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and went to the trouble of letting you know it was even worse than I thought it would be? Must I go out of my way to find a "worst of 2001?" Won't VALENTINE suffice?
If my reputation is on the line, say the word and so be it. Otherwise, perhaps I'll spend an afternoon feeding the ducks.
Later!
------------------
"Nya-nya, nya-nya, nyahh-nyahh... I made you eat your parents!!!" --Cartman
You know me as the guy who sees "everything." That is, every so-called horror film that hits my area, completist that I am. But do you think I HAVE to see this one even if I DO get the chance?
Did we need yet another film in which somebody survives a traumatic experience, only to be haunted by apparitions afterwards? (I don't count FINAL DESTINATION--they really DID survive, even if they weren't "meant" to.) Is ONE person going to tell me that I'm not looking head-on at an ending that's going to reveal that the apparent survivor was really... gasp... DEAD ALL ALONG??? Can anybody who's seen this thing, even if they try not to spoil it, avoid mentioning either CARNIVAL OF SOULS or JACOB'S LADDER?
Do we really need yet another horror poster image consisting solely of a row of teenaged faces LOOKING at something?
Look--I don't care if they're teenagers or not. I don't care if one of them was in BUFFY or not. I'm not sorry I saw FINAL DESTINATION and I'm not sorry I saw THE FORSAKEN, even if it wasn't perfect. You CAN do good horror even with a "hip" young cast. But this thing?
You tell me. Really, you tell me. If it opens in my town, do you think I should bother? I won't actually review it without seeing it (no, not even this one). But did it do anybody any good when I actually saw I STILL KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and went to the trouble of letting you know it was even worse than I thought it would be? Must I go out of my way to find a "worst of 2001?" Won't VALENTINE suffice?
If my reputation is on the line, say the word and so be it. Otherwise, perhaps I'll spend an afternoon feeding the ducks.
Later!
------------------
"Nya-nya, nya-nya, nyahh-nyahh... I made you eat your parents!!!" --Cartman