2006 in review
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:50 am
Well, here it is—or rather, there it was. 2006 was the year that I seriously considered hanging it up as any sort of genre completist. Not that I would have turned my back on horror entirely—that’s never going to happen, and I’ll always be there as a reviewer/historian. But the need to keep up with current theatrical trends sure didn’t make itself evident this time around—indeed, 2006 was one of the most utterly uninspired (not to mention uninspiring) genre years in quite some time. I caught up with several of this year’s items on DVD rather than go to any trouble to see them on the big screen—and to this day I have let such items as UNDERWORLD: EVOLUTION and THE COVENANT go completely ignored (and likely to remain that way—leather/goth/Matrix business is high on the list of things of which I am most utterly sick.
No, this year it was comedy that hit all the right buttons for me. And I don’t mean latter-day Frank Capra fluff like MAN OF THE YEAR—I mean comedies that managed to tackle audiences in ways that you’d normally leave to horror films, be it with consummate genre/historical knowledgeability and authenticity (NACHO LIBRE); the pure unadulterated geekshow (JACKASS NUMBER TWO); in-your-face confrontations with the worst human leanings, be they scripted (the brilliant LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, which I have only just now seen) or spontaneous (BORAT); or full-scale, delirious hysteria (the unforgettable CRANK, which, naturally, wasn’t pitched as a comedy).
But horror? Pure horror? Remember a few years back when I commented on what appeared to be a new trend in 70s/early 80s remakes and cover versions, highlighted by Eli Roth’s well-informed tribute CABIN FEVER? It’s been three years since then, and we’re still doing 70s/early 80s remakes and Eli Roth cover versions? Tell me seriously that I would have missed something crucial had I taken the entire year OFF! And what do we get to lead off 2007? HOSTEL 2 and a remake of THE HITCHER! Good grief, people! (Okay, I admit that I really want to see GRINDHOUSE, even though it’s the ultimate in “cover versions.”)
Still and all, there were surprises and highlights, and I’m more than happy to give you my newly non-completist recap of the horror year 2006.
THE GOOD:
Don’t confuse “good” with “great” this time—not in most cases. Eli Roth’s HOSTEL did the trick for me, all right, and not just with the blend of “youth comedy” and gorefest. It’s been said that we’ve hit a new era of “torture porn,” and while it’s hard to defend something so gleefully graphic and sadistic from such charges, I’ll still take a blend of weird surprises and over-the-top assaults over something like WOLF CREEK (which I’d seen less than a month earlier). The difference is simple—WOLF CREEK simply numbed me with extended torture as I correctly predicted each and every dashed hope of the two female protagonists. But no matter how hideous HOSTEL got, I simply had to know what was going to happen NEXT, and that makes all the difference in the world.
The remake of THE HILLS HAVE EYES was one of the most straightforward remakes out there, but I’d never gotten to see the original on the big screen, and this new version was played with plenty of gusto (yeah, guts, too) and took full advantage of state of the art effects. You could tell that the new players were making these characters their own, which also helped—noone was trying to channel Michael Berryman. And you just know that the obligatory sequel will be better than the so-called sequel to the original, too…
SCARY MOVIE 4 was the best in the series since the first one—the SAW and GRUDGE stuff was fun, but the central spoof of the Tom Cruise version of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS was flat-out hysterical. All that and the always-welcome Leslie Nielsen.
THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE BEGINNING surprised the hell out of me by being relevant in addition to obligatory. A prequel to a remake? Never a good sign. But the questions posed by the remake were given very satisfying answers, R. Lee Ermey outstripped Leatherface himself as the new series icon, and the film’s take on the past Korean conflict and then-current Vietnam draft was more than just a history lesson in my book. “Stay the course,” eh?
SAW III was just good enough to squeak to this section of the list—thanks mainly to the well-orchestrated finale it builds up to. But the inevitable signs of wear are there—it would be so smart to make it a true “quit while you’re ahead” finale…. But NOOOOO! If SAW IV doesn’t finally drop the series into the crapper, then it’ll be SAW V, right?
I can always appreciate a surprise like BLACK CHRISTMAS. Had this been a literal remake, it would have been utterly disposable. However, they kept the trappings of the original while trying to do something a bit different and managed to pull off a fairly neat “sicko” thriller that certainly knew how to play to the crowd.
Well, there’s not much there that I’d nominate for future classic status. My PERSONAL favorite horror-related theatrical experience this year was the “TV horror host” documentary AMERICAN SCARY, but that’s not in regular release yet. So I’m going to have to cheat a bit and nominate a film that I actually saw on DVD before the U.S. theatrical release. For its unusual all-female perspective, for its relentlessness, for its lack of compromise and for pure shock value, I’m going to hand my top honor to THE DESCENT (even though it wasn’t a 2006 theatrical release in the U.K., even though I didn’t see it on the big screen, and even though the U.S. version was subjected to some annoying tinkering—at least they’ve set things to rights on the domestic disc). Now if this country could just get around to putting some unexpurgated Neil Marshall business in theatres? But why do something as cool as that when there’s plenty of CRAP to go around?
THE MIDDLE GROUND:
Morgan and Wong did better with their BLACK CHRISTMAS take then they did with FINAL DESTINATION 3. Sure enough, the gags were quite inventive and entertaining (and the interactive DVD is a hoot and a half), but the fact that this premise has been thoroughly played OUT shows all over the place (prophetic pictures like in THE OMEN? Or perhaps the desperate “we can’t think of an ending” fadeout?).
NIGHT WATCH was a decent bit of Soviet fantasy with some very entertaining moments—but I’m neither convinced that I saw anything worth creating a complicated mythology around nor certain that I’d even pick up the story again if they ever get around to releasing the sequel in these parts.
SLITHER was also fun but overrated (certainly not overattended as it turned out, though). Another attempt to do a throwback feature with new effects—but all it did this time was make the video-savvy audience say “Hey, that’s just like NIGHT OF THE CREEPS!”
When you’ve got super-creepy sets and a truly excellent horror-movie presence (the wrestler known as Kane), a talented director can make an out-and-out crackerjack. But a porno director will just rub it in your face and call it SEE NO EVIL. Too bad—this one could have really started something… but it would have had to have been SCARY instead of just gory.
See SCARY MOVIE 4—when you can make an effective joke out of hair ghosts and meowing boys, then a serious GRUDGE sequel isn’t going to cut it. Too bad again, as THE GRUDGE 2 is the movie that Shimizu should have made the first time around (for America) instead of simply re-making JU-ON. But it doesn’t work anymore, thanks to oversaturation.
So much fun hype for SNAKES ON A PLANE. And then the movie opened so everyone could forget about it. Hey, it was what it was, and I’ve seen far more offensive “brainless timekillers.”
THE OMEN was the plainest of all the remakes. Just the exact same movie with new faces set twenty years later (so we could do the 6/6/06 thing). Okay—nice to see John Morghen, and they did a pretty nifty update with the decap sequence. But by and large, it’s still one of the most unnecessary things I’ve ever bothered with. Which leads us to…
THE WORST:
How ‘bout a remake of a film that originally contained three segments? But let’s just take the first segment (because honestly, that’s the only part anybody remembers) and stretch it to feature length? Then let’s take a popular TV starlet, put her in the lead, and dumb the whole thing down to a PG-13 so her fans can go see it? Result: a weak teabag known as WHEN A STRANGER CALLS.
Man, AN AMERICAN HAUNTING was so exciting and memorable that I forgot to include it on my viewing log thread and even in my end-of-year post! Good intentions don't make up for a film in which absolutely nothing HAPPENS, I suppose... hey, just because I gave THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE a number-one spot LAST year wasn't a call for a cash-in, okay?
No matter how much gore he piles on, and no matter what Academy Award-winning cast members he can assemble, we already know that Uwe Boll can’t direct an effective horror film to save his life. Did anyone expect BLOODRAYNE to be an exception?
Not that Uwe has cornered the market on video game adaptations. “There must have been a fire here.” “Look at me. I’m burning.” “Hey, there aren’t any guys in this movie—better tack on a half-hour’s worth of subplot with the husband!” SILENT HILL may have looked nice. For a while. But I couldn’t wait for it to be over.
Such was also the case with the remake of PULSE—yet another disaster that Wes Craven managed to sign his name to somewhere. More J-horror cyberghosts, break out the duct tape, yeah, yeah, yeah. How about something SCARY happening once in a while? Excruciating.
I don’t think anyone was looking forward to a remake of THE WICKER MAN, but the good news is that Nicolas Cage and Neil LaBute had the guts to go through with the original ending (of course, now they advertise a “mind-blowing ending” in advance, so do you think anyone was actually surprised?). But the substitution of the original’s conflict of faith with a blatant anti-woman screed didn’t do much to convey the magic, nor did the extent to which we were expected to believe the pre-manipulations involved this time around. What a weird misfire.
Not only did we get the trailer for HOSTEL 2 before the year was out, we got the first out-and-out HOSTEL ripoff. Well, TURISTAS certainly did have pretty scenery. Did it have ANYTHING else to offer? This was not BLUE CRUSH or INTO THE BLUE... so if you're bound and determined to rip off HOSTEL, could you at least come up with a HORROR filmmaker to assign it to? P.S.: Brazil hates you.
But the very worst horror release of 2006 in my book was STAY ALIVE—and not just because it dredged out video games again. This one hit a new low in nonsense and contempt for the viewer. Elizabeth Bathory as an American? A video game that brings someone back to life that had to have been alive in order to create the stupid thing to begin with? Blatant “this character is DEAD” lies that only an idiot could believe? The fact that the character who isn’t dead has to be Frankie Muniz, so you don’t even get to see Malcolm die? A film that doesn’t make literal sense, video game sense OR horror movie sense—that’s a rock-bottom standard to reckon with!
Not much else happening. Some decent fantasy escapism with PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEN 2: DEAD MAN’S CHEST (love that Davy Jones). A very intriguing rotoscopic experiment with Philip K. Dick’s A SCANNER DARKLY. Plenty of good (and non-hair-ghost) J-horror on DVD and cable with MAREBITO, INFECTION, THE BOOTH and the banned “Masters of Horror” episode IMPRINT. Decent superhero fun with X-MEN: THE LAST STAND, and not-so-decent superhero ponderousness with JESUS … er… I mean SUPERMAN RETURNS. 2001 MANIACS and even HOLLOW MAN 2 were enjoyable direct-to-video items, I continue to enjoy even lesser Argento efforts such as DO YOU LIKE HITCHCOCK (though I preferred THE CARD PLAYER), and while CACHE (“Hidden”) was worth the hype as a maddening psychological thriller, it wasn’t really a “horror” movie in any traditional sense. Oh, also quite liked the Mexican “deadly reality show” item EL NOMINADO… and there was RIPPING GREAT action with DISTRICT B13—second only to CRANK in my book.
And--oh yes--does CASINO ROYALE really count as a remake? Whatever it was, it was top-drawer.
So that’s it for now. Enjoy 2007—but this time YOU may have to tell ME all about it.
Remo D.
No, this year it was comedy that hit all the right buttons for me. And I don’t mean latter-day Frank Capra fluff like MAN OF THE YEAR—I mean comedies that managed to tackle audiences in ways that you’d normally leave to horror films, be it with consummate genre/historical knowledgeability and authenticity (NACHO LIBRE); the pure unadulterated geekshow (JACKASS NUMBER TWO); in-your-face confrontations with the worst human leanings, be they scripted (the brilliant LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, which I have only just now seen) or spontaneous (BORAT); or full-scale, delirious hysteria (the unforgettable CRANK, which, naturally, wasn’t pitched as a comedy).
But horror? Pure horror? Remember a few years back when I commented on what appeared to be a new trend in 70s/early 80s remakes and cover versions, highlighted by Eli Roth’s well-informed tribute CABIN FEVER? It’s been three years since then, and we’re still doing 70s/early 80s remakes and Eli Roth cover versions? Tell me seriously that I would have missed something crucial had I taken the entire year OFF! And what do we get to lead off 2007? HOSTEL 2 and a remake of THE HITCHER! Good grief, people! (Okay, I admit that I really want to see GRINDHOUSE, even though it’s the ultimate in “cover versions.”)
Still and all, there were surprises and highlights, and I’m more than happy to give you my newly non-completist recap of the horror year 2006.
THE GOOD:
Don’t confuse “good” with “great” this time—not in most cases. Eli Roth’s HOSTEL did the trick for me, all right, and not just with the blend of “youth comedy” and gorefest. It’s been said that we’ve hit a new era of “torture porn,” and while it’s hard to defend something so gleefully graphic and sadistic from such charges, I’ll still take a blend of weird surprises and over-the-top assaults over something like WOLF CREEK (which I’d seen less than a month earlier). The difference is simple—WOLF CREEK simply numbed me with extended torture as I correctly predicted each and every dashed hope of the two female protagonists. But no matter how hideous HOSTEL got, I simply had to know what was going to happen NEXT, and that makes all the difference in the world.
The remake of THE HILLS HAVE EYES was one of the most straightforward remakes out there, but I’d never gotten to see the original on the big screen, and this new version was played with plenty of gusto (yeah, guts, too) and took full advantage of state of the art effects. You could tell that the new players were making these characters their own, which also helped—noone was trying to channel Michael Berryman. And you just know that the obligatory sequel will be better than the so-called sequel to the original, too…
SCARY MOVIE 4 was the best in the series since the first one—the SAW and GRUDGE stuff was fun, but the central spoof of the Tom Cruise version of THE WAR OF THE WORLDS was flat-out hysterical. All that and the always-welcome Leslie Nielsen.
THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE BEGINNING surprised the hell out of me by being relevant in addition to obligatory. A prequel to a remake? Never a good sign. But the questions posed by the remake were given very satisfying answers, R. Lee Ermey outstripped Leatherface himself as the new series icon, and the film’s take on the past Korean conflict and then-current Vietnam draft was more than just a history lesson in my book. “Stay the course,” eh?
SAW III was just good enough to squeak to this section of the list—thanks mainly to the well-orchestrated finale it builds up to. But the inevitable signs of wear are there—it would be so smart to make it a true “quit while you’re ahead” finale…. But NOOOOO! If SAW IV doesn’t finally drop the series into the crapper, then it’ll be SAW V, right?
I can always appreciate a surprise like BLACK CHRISTMAS. Had this been a literal remake, it would have been utterly disposable. However, they kept the trappings of the original while trying to do something a bit different and managed to pull off a fairly neat “sicko” thriller that certainly knew how to play to the crowd.
Well, there’s not much there that I’d nominate for future classic status. My PERSONAL favorite horror-related theatrical experience this year was the “TV horror host” documentary AMERICAN SCARY, but that’s not in regular release yet. So I’m going to have to cheat a bit and nominate a film that I actually saw on DVD before the U.S. theatrical release. For its unusual all-female perspective, for its relentlessness, for its lack of compromise and for pure shock value, I’m going to hand my top honor to THE DESCENT (even though it wasn’t a 2006 theatrical release in the U.K., even though I didn’t see it on the big screen, and even though the U.S. version was subjected to some annoying tinkering—at least they’ve set things to rights on the domestic disc). Now if this country could just get around to putting some unexpurgated Neil Marshall business in theatres? But why do something as cool as that when there’s plenty of CRAP to go around?
THE MIDDLE GROUND:
Morgan and Wong did better with their BLACK CHRISTMAS take then they did with FINAL DESTINATION 3. Sure enough, the gags were quite inventive and entertaining (and the interactive DVD is a hoot and a half), but the fact that this premise has been thoroughly played OUT shows all over the place (prophetic pictures like in THE OMEN? Or perhaps the desperate “we can’t think of an ending” fadeout?).
NIGHT WATCH was a decent bit of Soviet fantasy with some very entertaining moments—but I’m neither convinced that I saw anything worth creating a complicated mythology around nor certain that I’d even pick up the story again if they ever get around to releasing the sequel in these parts.
SLITHER was also fun but overrated (certainly not overattended as it turned out, though). Another attempt to do a throwback feature with new effects—but all it did this time was make the video-savvy audience say “Hey, that’s just like NIGHT OF THE CREEPS!”
When you’ve got super-creepy sets and a truly excellent horror-movie presence (the wrestler known as Kane), a talented director can make an out-and-out crackerjack. But a porno director will just rub it in your face and call it SEE NO EVIL. Too bad—this one could have really started something… but it would have had to have been SCARY instead of just gory.
See SCARY MOVIE 4—when you can make an effective joke out of hair ghosts and meowing boys, then a serious GRUDGE sequel isn’t going to cut it. Too bad again, as THE GRUDGE 2 is the movie that Shimizu should have made the first time around (for America) instead of simply re-making JU-ON. But it doesn’t work anymore, thanks to oversaturation.
So much fun hype for SNAKES ON A PLANE. And then the movie opened so everyone could forget about it. Hey, it was what it was, and I’ve seen far more offensive “brainless timekillers.”
THE OMEN was the plainest of all the remakes. Just the exact same movie with new faces set twenty years later (so we could do the 6/6/06 thing). Okay—nice to see John Morghen, and they did a pretty nifty update with the decap sequence. But by and large, it’s still one of the most unnecessary things I’ve ever bothered with. Which leads us to…
THE WORST:
How ‘bout a remake of a film that originally contained three segments? But let’s just take the first segment (because honestly, that’s the only part anybody remembers) and stretch it to feature length? Then let’s take a popular TV starlet, put her in the lead, and dumb the whole thing down to a PG-13 so her fans can go see it? Result: a weak teabag known as WHEN A STRANGER CALLS.
Man, AN AMERICAN HAUNTING was so exciting and memorable that I forgot to include it on my viewing log thread and even in my end-of-year post! Good intentions don't make up for a film in which absolutely nothing HAPPENS, I suppose... hey, just because I gave THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE a number-one spot LAST year wasn't a call for a cash-in, okay?
No matter how much gore he piles on, and no matter what Academy Award-winning cast members he can assemble, we already know that Uwe Boll can’t direct an effective horror film to save his life. Did anyone expect BLOODRAYNE to be an exception?
Not that Uwe has cornered the market on video game adaptations. “There must have been a fire here.” “Look at me. I’m burning.” “Hey, there aren’t any guys in this movie—better tack on a half-hour’s worth of subplot with the husband!” SILENT HILL may have looked nice. For a while. But I couldn’t wait for it to be over.
Such was also the case with the remake of PULSE—yet another disaster that Wes Craven managed to sign his name to somewhere. More J-horror cyberghosts, break out the duct tape, yeah, yeah, yeah. How about something SCARY happening once in a while? Excruciating.
I don’t think anyone was looking forward to a remake of THE WICKER MAN, but the good news is that Nicolas Cage and Neil LaBute had the guts to go through with the original ending (of course, now they advertise a “mind-blowing ending” in advance, so do you think anyone was actually surprised?). But the substitution of the original’s conflict of faith with a blatant anti-woman screed didn’t do much to convey the magic, nor did the extent to which we were expected to believe the pre-manipulations involved this time around. What a weird misfire.
Not only did we get the trailer for HOSTEL 2 before the year was out, we got the first out-and-out HOSTEL ripoff. Well, TURISTAS certainly did have pretty scenery. Did it have ANYTHING else to offer? This was not BLUE CRUSH or INTO THE BLUE... so if you're bound and determined to rip off HOSTEL, could you at least come up with a HORROR filmmaker to assign it to? P.S.: Brazil hates you.
But the very worst horror release of 2006 in my book was STAY ALIVE—and not just because it dredged out video games again. This one hit a new low in nonsense and contempt for the viewer. Elizabeth Bathory as an American? A video game that brings someone back to life that had to have been alive in order to create the stupid thing to begin with? Blatant “this character is DEAD” lies that only an idiot could believe? The fact that the character who isn’t dead has to be Frankie Muniz, so you don’t even get to see Malcolm die? A film that doesn’t make literal sense, video game sense OR horror movie sense—that’s a rock-bottom standard to reckon with!
Not much else happening. Some decent fantasy escapism with PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEN 2: DEAD MAN’S CHEST (love that Davy Jones). A very intriguing rotoscopic experiment with Philip K. Dick’s A SCANNER DARKLY. Plenty of good (and non-hair-ghost) J-horror on DVD and cable with MAREBITO, INFECTION, THE BOOTH and the banned “Masters of Horror” episode IMPRINT. Decent superhero fun with X-MEN: THE LAST STAND, and not-so-decent superhero ponderousness with JESUS … er… I mean SUPERMAN RETURNS. 2001 MANIACS and even HOLLOW MAN 2 were enjoyable direct-to-video items, I continue to enjoy even lesser Argento efforts such as DO YOU LIKE HITCHCOCK (though I preferred THE CARD PLAYER), and while CACHE (“Hidden”) was worth the hype as a maddening psychological thriller, it wasn’t really a “horror” movie in any traditional sense. Oh, also quite liked the Mexican “deadly reality show” item EL NOMINADO… and there was RIPPING GREAT action with DISTRICT B13—second only to CRANK in my book.
And--oh yes--does CASINO ROYALE really count as a remake? Whatever it was, it was top-drawer.
So that’s it for now. Enjoy 2007—but this time YOU may have to tell ME all about it.
Remo D.