Monday, November 4, 2013

Part 2 - The Best, The Worst & The "At Least Watchable" Horror Movies of 2013 (to date)

Written by Scott Ruth


Last time out I left you all with my list of 10 "middle of the road" horror films from 2013. These were the films that weren't awful but they also weren't the best that the genre had to offer over the past 10 months or so.

Click here to check out Part 1

Now we're moving on to the worst horror films of the year to this point. There are only 8 films on this list but most of these were complete abominations and a total waste of time and money. Sadly many, if not most, were quite successful at the box office which goes to show you just how soft the movie-going public has become. Cheesy, run-of-the-mill supernatural movies, made for those same unfulfilled horny housewives who can't get enough of TV shows like American Horror Story, Sleepy Hollow and the new Dracula series, have been dominant at the box office for a while now. Any chances of that changing any time soon? Not likely considering that every television season we are bombarded by more of these shows which are more like gothic versions of 50 Shades Of Grey than they are actual tales of horror. End of rant. 

Now on to my choices for the worst horror films of 2013, in no particular order..


The ABC's Of Death - It seems that anthology genre films are all the rage these days. As a matter of fact the only other sub-genre more popular with filmmakers is the aforementioned flimsy supernatural thriller. The ABC's Of Death takes the anthology idea to the extreme with 26 short films. Each segment is based on the alphabet, beginning with A and naturally ending with Z. Unfortunately for most of the segments the letter "Z" followed by a few more Zzzzzz's seems to fit best. There are a few standout segments which include "F is for Fart" which is more bizarre than it is scary, "J is for Jidai-geki", which takes the idea of Japanese sword fighting to a new level and "Q if for Quack", a short that is sure to overjoy those who oppose animal cruelty. There are a few other segments that are somewhat enjoyable but those are outweighed by the abundance of senseless and rather unoriginal. Perhaps The ABC's Of Death Part 2 will show us that the next group of filmmakers have learned from the mistakes of their predecessors. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Conjuring - Alright, alright. Stop throwing tomatoes! It's only hurting your computer screen! The Conjuring, like so many other supernatural "thrillers" is chock full of the usually cheap jump scares and the same old tired "haunting movie" tricks that uninspired filmmakers have been using since the beginning of cinema. The film was "inspired" by the "true to life" adventures of Ed and Lorraine Warren, self-professed psychics and paranormal investigators, as they are haunted and taunted by a dark entity in their rural farmhouse. The film stars Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, is directed by James Wan and would have better served as a made-for-TV movie airing on Discovery Channel, Travel Channel or one of the countless cable networks that is forever running these "my house is haunted" and "I got gang-banged by a group of anorexic, dyslexic ghosts while filing my tax return in 1973" type of television shows. The Warrens have a less than credible track record having been involved in bogus "investigations" including the Amityville Horror and many scripted investigations for the horrible tv show "Paranormal State" which happens to be the most phony of all of today's paranormal/supernatural "reality" series. Even allowing for suspension of disbelief when it comes to my distaste for the Warrens, I still found The Conjuring to be a totally useless rehashing of a dozen other supernatural genre movies. This film is perhaps the most overrated movie of the past decade!
----------------------------------------------------------------------


World War Z - What do you get when you take a zombie story based on an amazing piece of writing by Max Brooks, combine it with a stiff actor like Brad Pitt and make sure that it's appealing to audiences of just about any age? You get World War Z, a watered down zombie story featuring lightning fast zombies that move more like insects than they do the living dead and a story that may be relate-able in our age of fear of the "end times" if it weren't so poorly executed. In the end, it's nothing more than an average apocalypse scenario type film, no greater than other similar films such as The Day After Tomorrow and I Am Legend. With no real zombie-on-human nor human-on-zombie violence I honestly saw no purpose for this film at all. I believe that the studio took a book that they knew would automatically have a large, built-in audience and used to in a lame attempt to cash in on the success and popularity of AMC's hit series The Walking Dead. Nothing more. Skip it. Even if it's free, skip it. You'll never get the 2 hours of your life back once you've wasted them on this train wreck of a film. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------




Insidious : Chapter 2 - Yikes. Two of these horrible, trendy supernatural thrillers in one year? It's too much to take, I tell you! Just like The Conjuring, Insidious 2 relies completely on using the same old ghost story tricks that movies have been using since the first such film was made. They may have worked back then but after decade upon decade of the same lame shit, it's time to move on. It's time to find some new schtick and stop with the rehashing. Sure these movies do well at the box office, and since Hollywood only cares about the revenue and not at all about the art, I'm sure they're very happy with the way things are going, but as someone who actually loves the horror genre, I am offended that these lousy movies keep getting made and I'm even more offended that people who call themselves horror fans keep supporting this nonsense! Yes, I get it. It's another "ooo look it's a scary ghost that looks like a shriveled up old lady" spooky movie. Just like 13 Ghosts and countless others that came before it. Anyway, the film picks up after the first, with the Lambert family trying to figure out why their family is being haunted. Yada, yada, yada. Oh and hey look, it stars Patrick Wilson and is directed by James Wan. Why not combine both The Conjuring and Insidious : Chapter 2 into one long, boring, redundant ghost story and give us a break already? Money and lots of it. That's why they won't stop making these "cookie cutter" movies  and that's why Wan was hired to make the same movie twice in the same year. The guy is a plague on the horror genre and needs to be forgotten about whenever there's a film out there looking for a director. Sure, the first Saw movie was good but beyond that James Wan and his partner Leigh Whannell have nothing of any real value to add to the horror genre so I wish they'd take all of those big-ass paychecks that they've received for making so many bad movies and retire already! 


----------------------------------------------------------------------



Carrie - Let me start by stating that I am not one of those people who automatically hates any and all remakes. As a matter of fact I tend to defend remakes from the haters, unless, of course, the remake has nothing of value to offer, and thus, deserves the hate bestowed upon it. Carrie's actually gotten far less hate than it deserves. Back in 2002, the first Carrie remake was made. It starred Angela Bettis (for "May" fame) and actually attempted to modernize the story rather than simply remake the same film as Brian De Palma made back in 1976. As for this, the 3rd and latest remake of the story based on a book written by Stephen King, it missed the mark in a number of areas. First, and foremost, the character of Carrie White is easily sympathized with in both the original (where she was played by Sissy Spacek) and in the 2002 remake because she looked different. Carrie wasn't ugly, but she wasn't what would be traditionally attractive. She was weird. She looked weird and she acted weird. For those of us who didn't fit in with the "cool kids", she was a very familiar character with a very familiar plight. The latest remake missed this mark completely. Actress Chloe Grace Moretz (best known from her role as Hit Girl in the Kick-Ass films as well as from her work in another horror remake, Let Me In) isn't odd looking in the least. She's actually quite the opposite. That fact right there took me out of this movie. I couldn't really find anything about my own younger self within this new Carrie White. The film really brought nothing new to the table. When remaking a film, it can either work if the filmmaker has some new take on the subject, or it can  fail when  the filmmaker is simply retelling the exact same story and unfortunately Kimberly Peirce, the director of this film, failed miserably. Let me end this by explaining one more thing. Had this not been a remake. Had there never been a 1976 nor 2002 version of Carrie, I believe that I would have appreciated this film more. But as things stand, it's nothing to write home about. Carrie is just another impotent Hollywood horror film with no original personality and one that will have no longevity whatsoever. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Dracula 3D - Dario Argento. For decades his is a name that has garnered more respect than most other filmmakers working within the horror genre. The man's early films are pure works of art. Films such as The Bird With The Crystal Plumage, Deep Red, Inferno, Tenebre, Two Evil Eyes, Sleepless (my favorite Argento film even though it's not one of his more well known pieces) and many others have wowed audiences both in his native Italy as well here in the US and worldwide! The man is considered by most to be a genius in his field. Although I personally did not care for Suspiria, I still saw the genius within, from the amazing color palate to the stellar cinematography. Over the years, more recently particularly, Argento's work has taken a turn for the worse. His 2007 film Mother Of Tears failed to capture the uniqueness that his previous work always had. 2009's Giallo also seemed more than a bit "off". I couldn't really put my finger on it, but neither Mother Of Tears nor Giallo felt like true "Argento films". They were lacking. What were they lacking, other than that uniqueness that I previously mentioned? They seemed to be lacking the heart that all of Dario's films have had. They simply felt empty....soulless. When I first heard that Argento was taking a shot at making a Dracula film I felt anxious, in both a good and bad way. As a huge fan of the Tod Browing 1931 Dracula, I always look forward to seeing what other gifted filmmakers' take on the story will be so naturally, as an Argento fan, I was looking forward to how he's perceive the story. However, considering how I feel his work has taken a major backslide in recent years, I was concerned that he'd disappoint me when approaching a tale like Dracula, one that is very near and dear to my heart. Although there's always been a very sexual vibe to the tale of Count Dracula, most of the best films on the subject are those which are careful to use the sexuality as more of an undertone rather than in an "in your face" manner. Nine out of ten times when the sexual themes are on the forefront, they tend to overpower the story itself, causing the film to become more of a softcore porno than a horror film with sexual tones. Unfortunately, Argento made the mistake of putting too much emphasis on the sexual nature of the vampire and in doing so the film felt more like a risque soap opera than it did a horror movie. With a great cast that included Argento's lovely daughter Asia as well as Thomas Kretschmann ("Grimm Love") as Dracula and Rutger Hauer as Van Helsing, Argento' Dracula should have been far better than it actually was. Is there a point in life when we reach an age where our creative juices simply slow down and stop flowing as brilliantly as they once had? I can't say for sure that this can happen, but when you look at the later films of many of the cinema's finest filmmakers, you may notice a decline in their success as they grow older. Perhaps it's simply a matter of boredom as they'd spent so many years making movies that maybe they've simply grown tired of the entire process? Or perhaps there is something to my theory that as humans, our creativity lessens as we grow old. I don't know which is the case but sadly it seems to me that when it comes to the more recent films of Dario Argento, something is indeed missing. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Hatchet III - Has the Hatchet franchise run it's course? I say....YES. Actually I believe that it never should have become a franchise. The first Hatchet was a nice one-off film and it should have been left at that. In Hatchet III, we once again see a group of would-be rescuers travel out to the haunted swamp only to meet their demise at the hands of supernatural serial killer Victor Crowley. Once again we get over-the-top kills and just about every slasher film and general horror cliche known to mankind. Sure each film seems to get gorier than the last but is that really all there is to making horror films these days? Taking the previous film, pumping it with steroids and basically just shooting the same damn movie, only with "bigger balls" isn't my idea of the natural progression of the slasher genre. Slasher films have been around at least since the 1970's so it's time that today's filmmakers either head back to the drawing board and come up with some new, original ideas for their next slasher film or perhaps they need to just put the sub-genre to sleep, at least for a while, until someone with some originality comes along and breathes some life into the currently lifeless genre. I have to admit that, from time to time, we've been treated to a few new slasher films that offer at least a slightly new, original take on the idea, but they are few and far in between and even those haven't found a way to totally turn the genre on it's head. Adam Green may not have directed this one like he did the first two, but it looked and felt as if he had, and that's not a good thing. Green's 2010 film Frozen bordered on brilliant, and his "The Diary Of Anne Frankenstein" segment of 2011's Chillerama was a lot of fun but beyond that, he hasn't shown me that he has what it takes to become a great filmmaker. One great film does not make for a legendary career. 


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whew. I feel exhausted after all of that digging and burying. I know much of what I wrote seems harsh but I believe that in order to be a respected writer, one must remain truthful and honest so that his audience knows that he can be trusted. You may not agree with everything I've said above, but one thing that you must know is that I was being honest and straightforward with things as I see them.

Please check back soon for Part 3 of "The Best, The Worst & The "At Least Watchable" Horror Movies Of 2013" when I examine the 10 best films of the year (so far)

1 comment :

  1. I watch horror movies since I was a teenager and I switched from non-visible horror like >> The Haunting of Hill House to other supernatural movies to the classic slashers to 90s teen horror - to Asian horror and I am still very open to movies, I had never watched before...

    ReplyDelete