Regular readers may recall that several times a year I do posts about horror/sci fi movies that I feel haven't gotten the attention they deserve, or are underrated. Today I thought I'd go negative, and focus on on the opposite. Also unlike the underrated articles, which focus in depth on one movie, this one will be shorter bits about many movies. And yes, I realize that this is a bit click bait-y, on my part. Obviously, taste in movies (or books, or music, or art, or anything creative) is subjective, so these are just my opinions. I understand that many people disagree with me, sometimes very strongly. Finally, there are a couple types of overrated films discussed here. Some I think are terrible, or at least below average. And some I think are good or even very good, but not as stupendously awesome as many viewers think. I'm including some statistics, too. The IMDB number is from the Internet Movie Data Base website, and their number is from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best. RT score is for the Rotten Tomatoes website, which collects various film critics' reviews, and averages these. These scores are represented as a percentage, with a higher percentage meaning a better film. There are also "Audience Scores" on Rotten Tomatoes, which are made up of non-professional viewers' reviews. And I've listed the films' budgets and box office amounts, expressed in U.S. dollars, if known. Both of these are somewhat inexact, as Hollywood accountants sometimes "cook the books," so take these numbers as being rough. And it probably goes without saying that there are some SPOILERS AHEAD.
Movies I thought were poor:
1) Dracula (1931). Directed by Tod Browning, and starring Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, and Edward Van Sloan. RT 91%, Audience 81%, IMDB 7.6. It's hard to exaggerate how important a movie this was to American films, and horror films in particular. Although reviews of the time were somewhat mixed, audiences loved this movie, and it opened the door to the horror movie genre in general. It also made Bela Lugosi a star, and a legendary horror movie icon. Even now, 87 years later, people still recognize Lugosi's Dracula as a famous terror icon, and can even quote some of his lines. But while I acknowledge and respect the effect the movie had, sitting through it wasn't a positive experience for me. It's just plain dull. The story is somehow slow even though it's a short movie, the violence is mostly offscreen, and even the visuals aren't that compelling. And I'm not adverse to early 20th century movies, either. I enjoy "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), "The Island of Lost Souls" (1932), "The Invisible Man" (1933), "The Wolf Man" (1941), and "King Kong" (1933), to name a few, so I can appreciate black and white movies of that time period, with their different styles of acting, primitive special effects, and lack of explicit violence and gore. I would like to see the Spanish version of "Dracula," directed by George Melford and starring Carlos Villaries in the title role, shooting at night on the same sets, with the same costumes, as the English language version. Reportedly this version is more interesting and exciting.
2) The Haunting (1963). Directed by Robert Wise, starring Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson, and Russ Tamblyn. RT 87%, Audience 82%, IMDB 7.6. Budget of 1.05 million, box office take of 1.02 million. As you can see from the stats, this wasn't a financial success. But it's held up as one of the classic haunted house movies by fans and critics. And I don't understand why. I like some horror movies that are "slow-burns," methodically paced, with subtle scares. But this one left me cold. I get that special effects back then weren't as sophisticated, but to me it was a movie where the ghosts couldn't be bothered to do much to frighten us. I need a lot more than just a bulging door and a shaking spiral staircase. That said, the novel the film is based on, "The Haunting of Hill House," by Shirley Jackson, is quite good, as on the page some of the scenes are more frightening, and you can understand the characters' thoughts and motivations better. I haven't seen the 1999 remake, which was savaged by critics and fans as being overly reliant on unconvincing CGI special effects.
3) The Birds (1963). Directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Tippi Hendren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Suzanne Pleshette, and Veronica Cartwright. RT 96%, Audience 83%, IMDB 7.7. Budget of 3.3 million, box office of 11.4 million. Clearly, Hitchcock is incredibly respected, and this one is considered to be one of the very best nature-run-amok films. I, though, just think it was goofy. The special effects were unconvincing. I know it was long ago, but when the movie is about killer birds, and they don't seem to be in the same place as the characters, it doesn't work. The tone was probably a mistake, too--playing it straight, and grim, with a story about psychotic pigeons just seemed silly. To be fair, Hitchcock is kind of hit and miss for me. "Dial M for Murder" (1954), "Psycho" (1960), "Frenzy" (1972), and "Rear Window" (1954) I all liked, but this, "Family Plot" (1976), and "Vertigo" (1958) I found forgettable at best. Also, Hitchcock reportedly was a monster to Hendren, blackballing her when she rebuffed his advances, and freaking out her daughter, Melanie Griffith, by giving her a morbid wax figurine of her mother in a coffin for her 6th birthday.
4) Event Horizon (1997). Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, starring Lawrence Fishburne, Sam Neill, Kathleen Quinlan, and Joely Richardson. RT 26%, Audience 61%, IMDB 6.7. Made 26.7 million on a 60 million budget. This movie is admittedly a stretch for this list, as it was a critical and box office dud. However, it's amassed a bit of a cult following over the years, so that's why I'm including it. I like the set up of the story, and there's clearly talent in the cast. But what they did with these just didn't impress me. You'd think a movie involving people opening a portal to Hell would be more memorable. I even gave it a second viewing over 15 years later, and I still didn't enjoy it.
5) Diary of the Dead (2007). Written and directed by George Romero, starring Michelle Morgan, Joshua Close, Shawn Roberts, Amy Lalonde, and Joe Dinicol. RT 61%, Audience 41%, IMDB 5.7. Again, maybe a stretch for this list, but because it was made by horror maestro George Romero, I think it was regarded better than it deserved. Romero joined the found footage conceit way too late, and ineffectively. I also didn't like that it changed the (admittedly shaky) dead returning to life timeline, and made it happen in 2007. But mostly it's just so sad, and pointless, from the guy who created the modern zombie. Tedious characters, not enough action--it felt like a ripoff of a George Romero "Dead" movie, only it was made by the man himself. "Land of the Dead" (2005) and "Survival of the Dead" (2009) were mediocre to disappointing entries in the "Dead" series, but "Diary" was clearly the worst of the bunch.
6) The Amityville Horror (1979). Directed by Stuart Rosenberg, starring James Brolin, Margot Kidder, Rod Steiger, Don Stroud, and Murray Hamilton. RT 31%, Audience 52%, IMDB 6.2. Made 86.4 million on a 4.7 million budget. Obviously the critics rather disliked the movie, but it did fantastic business, and jump started a ludicrously successful series. There are 10 official ones, including a remake, and 11 related Amityville movies! It helped, certainly, that it's based on an allegedly true story (and book) on Long Island. I invite readers to research this story themselves, and decide whether or not the Lutz family, Ronald DeFeo's lawyer, the Warrens (a now famous pair of supernatural researchers) , and others were making things up or not. But I agree with the critics here--the movie's boring. I read the book, and while I think it's fiction, it at least keeps the reader engaged. Not much goes on in the movie, and the special effects of the demonic pig were especially ridiculous. And this was the late 1970's, too--they should have been able to do the effects better. Or write a good script. Or create characters you care about. Or--you get the idea. The 2005 remake was similarly mundane. I haven't seen any of the other entries in this series, and I'm not planning to, as I hear mostly negative reviews.
7) Bubba Ho-Tep (2002). Directed by Don Coscarelli, starring Bruce Campbell, Ossie Davis, Bob Ivy, and Reggie Bannister. RT 71%, Audience 79%, IMDB 7.1. Grossed 1.2 million on a 1 million budget. This one hurts to admit. I really like Coscarelli's "Phantasm" series (well, most of them), which feature Bannister, and I similarly adore the "Evil Dead" movies, of which Campbell is the star. And the plot--a secretly alive Elvis and a man who thinks he's an alive JFK battle an ancient mummy who's killing old folks in a retirement home--sounded wonderfully original, weird, and funny. But sadly, all of that is for naught. Incredibly, the movie was largely forgettable. I had to look at the plot summary online to see what happened, as I forgot nearly everything about it, except that I didn't enjoy watching it. This movie seemed tailor-made for me, and I wanted to like it. But I didn't.
8) Salem's Lot (1979). Television miniseries film, directed by horror icon Tobe Hooper, starring Reggie Nalder, David Soul, James Mason, Lance Kerwin, and Bonnie Bedelia. RT 85%, Audience 64%, IMDB 6.8. This is a TV movie, but it's still highly regarded in some circles. Based on the Stephen King novel. Even understanding that because it was on network TV it couldn't be as explicit as a theatrical movie doesn't justify its hokeyness. They took a very good horror novel and watered it down. I was especially appalled with the Kurt Barlow head vampire design, too. Instead of the book's seductive, darkly charismatic figure we get a stupid, monstrous, creature. It looks like a cross between the Nosferatu vampire and a Smurf, and is utterly ridiculous. Hooper, was, let's face it, more miss than hit as a director, and this was definitely a miss, not great like his "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974) or "Poltergeist" (1982).
9) From Hell (2001). Directed by The Hughes Brothers, starring Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Ian Holm, Robbie Coltrane, and Ian Richardson. RT 57%, Audience 66%, IMDB 6.8. Made 75 million off a 35 million budget. I really liked most of The Hughes Brothers' output, and the cast was certainly good. But the movie itself didn't grab me. It used one of the more absurd Jack the Ripper theories, for one. Weird flourishes like making the main inspector an opium addict didn't contribute anything, either. And for all the care taken to properly use period appropriate costumes, props, sets, etc., they then use too pretty, and too clean Heather Graham to portray a diseased, downtrodden, poverty-stricken prostitute. This is a rare case where I liked the DVD extras better than the movie--there were documentary-type features about the real Jack the Ripper case that were quite interesting and informative.
10) eXistenZ (1999). David Cronenberg wrote, directed, and co-produced this, and the movie starred Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law, Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, and Sarah Polley. RT 73%, Audience 69%, IMDB 6.8. Budget was 15 million (U.S.), box office was only 2.9 million. I'm usually a huge fan of Cronenberg, who made such classics as "The Brood" (1979, see my March 1, 2013 post), "Scanners" (1981), "Videodrome" (1983), "The Fly" (1986), and "A History of Violence" (2005), but this one was by far my least favorite. His movies are usually kind of strange, but this one seemed, "weird for the sake of being weird" to quote Moe from "The Simpsons." Original as always, but dense, and confusing, and not in a good way. I was barely remember anything about it, which is not a good sign.
11) Resident Evil (2002). Directed and written by Paul W. S. Anderson again, and starring Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriquez, Eric Mabius, James Purefoy, and Martin Crewes. RT 34%, Audience 67%, IMDB 6.7. This may seem like an odd choice, given its lack of critical acclaim, but hear me out. This one made 103 million on a 33 million budget. It then spawned a series of 6 movies (as of now), which have grossed 1.235 billion (!) It's also based on a popular video game. I really hated this movie. It was all Matrix-style ripoff action and slow-motion, when it wasn't ripping off other action movies and zombie films. It also had a dumb plot, unrealistic dialogue, and unconvincing CGI special effects. Bad acting, bad writing, bad editing, bad directing, bad everything. Also, I can't buy skinny little Milla Jovovich as some bad-ass fighting expert. An insult to zombie movies. Maybe movies in general. I wasn't inclined to see any of the sequels, as you can guess, but I have nonetheless heard awful things about them. But clearly millions of people keep paying to see these, so the series endures.
12) John Carpenter's Vampires (1998). Directed by John Carpenter, of course, and starring James Woods, Daniel Baldwin, Sheryl Lee, Thomas Ian Griffith, and Maximilian Schell. RT 38%, Audience 47%, IMDB 6.1. Box office take of 20.3 million off of a 20 million budget. This one also hurts to admit, as I love my Carpenter movies usually. "Halloween" (1978), "The Thing" (1982), "Escape from New York" (1981), "The Prince of Darkness" (1987), "In the Mouth of Madness (1995), "Assault on Precinct 13" (1976), and "They Live" (1988) are all great, in my view. Hell, even his expanded student film, "Dark Star" (1974) was funny, and worth watching despite its tiny budget. But not this one. The opening scene was kind of cool, but it was all downhill from there. I didn't particularly like the characters, and the story was overly simplistic and disappointing. I recall that the major third act plot twist about which character was secretly betraying them, was laughably easy to figure out, since there was only really one candidate. I felt embarrassed, as I'd taken a group of friends to see it, while extolling how much I liked Carpenter's movies. Alas, since the mid 1990's John Carpenter has rarely done any movies, and the few he did weren't even mediocre.
13) Paranormal Activity (2007). Directed by Oren Peli, starring Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Mark Fredrichs, and Ashley Palmer. RT 83%, Audience 56%, IMDB 6.3. Box office take of 193.4 million off of a $15,000 budget! I know, this is kind of going after low-hanging fruit. This is a massively polarizing movie--obviously many people loved it, but it also has many vocal detractors. Count me as one of the detractors. This movie epitomizes one of the things I hate most about a lot of modern horror movies, which is filmmakers who substitute jump scares for real, significant scares. Startling an audience is childishly easy, yet ultimately hollow. I like movies that are creepy, unsettling, that make you think about them later on, that give you nightmares. Jump scares aren't bad in and of themselves, but if that's all your movie has, then you've failed. I gave this series a fair trial, watching the first 3 movies, and they were interminable. Literally, much of the films' run time is watching found footage of nothing--the camera shows people sleeping, or even empty rooms, for lonnnnnnnnng waits, followed by a startling noise, or door slamming, or someone being grabbed. There is almost no characterization, little to no plot, or even change of venues. I give Peli credit--this series has grossed over 890 million, on tiny budgets, but to me these movies are incredibly tedious.
14) Sharknado (2013). Another made-for-TV movie, in this case for the Syfy channel. Directed by Anthony Ferrante, starring Ian Ziering, Tara Reid, John Heard, and Cassie Scerbo. RT 82%, Audience 33%, IMDB 3.3. I realize this seems like cheating, too--who can even criticize a movie which is so over the top, deliberately cheesy and bad? At the risk of coming across as being stuffy, I find this film a bit offensive. There are a lot of cheesy, inept movie out there---just in the past few months I've watched "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (1959), "Manos: The Hands of Fate" (1966), "Zaat" (1971), and "Death Bed: The Bed that Eats" (1977). But, as bad as they are, I at least have a modicum of respect for the filmmakers, because at least they were trying. The results were laughable, and at best so-bad-they're-good, ironically enjoyable, but the filmmakers were doing their best, and were sincere. Whereas, movies like "Sharknado" are intentionally shitty, which I find lazy, and contemptuous of their audience. Anybody can intentionally do something that's terrible, but should they? Yes, some enjoyment can be had, some laughs will be generated watching "Sharknado," but they're not earned. It's clear that many people disagree with me, as we're up to 6 movies in the series, and 1 spinoff. This was made by The Asylum, the company that blatantly rips off other movies, while only slightly changing the title, and enough of the plot, and characters, to avoid being sued.
The following are movies that were good, or even very good, but not as great as many viewers claim:
15) I Am Legend (2007). Directed by Francis Lawrence, and starring Will Smith, Alice Braga, Charlie Tahan, and Dash Mihok. RT 69%, Audience 68%, IMDB 7.2. Earned 585.3 million on a 150 million budget. This was the 3rd try at Richard Mathewson's "I Am Legend" novella, the others being "The Last Man on Earth" (1964), and "The Omega Man" (1971). There's a lot to like about this movie. The sets and overall visuals were great--Manhattan really seems desolate, crumbling, and empty. Will Smith does a very good acting job, too. There's none of his usual, "Aw Hell No," brash, overly cool, cliche persona here--he really seems like a lonely, somewhat crazy guy dealing with the apocalypse. But then things kind of fall apart. The vampires are extremely unconvincing, like "Star Wars Prequels" level bad CGI, like a poor video game. With ridiculous, unbelievable abilities, too, like having the skill to leap like 40 feet in the air, or dig through walls and floors with their bare hands. And the ending is foolish. Smith's character could have easily hidden himself away from the grenade blast, but instead he sacrifices himself for no reason. And the sanctuary they go to after doesn't seem safe at all. How could its low walls stop the super strong, super jumping vampires? Evidently this movie was significantly reedited, and had several scenes cut, and I've heard the ending was as well. Maybe I would like it more seeing these alternate versions. But as it is, I regard "I Am Legend" as a decent film which wasted a lot of talent and potential.
16) Don't Breathe (2016). Directed/co-written/co-produced by Fede Alvarez, and co-produced by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert, who created the awesome "Evil Dead" movies. Film starred Jane Levy, Stephen Lang, Dylan Minnette, and Daniel Zovatto. RT 88%, Audience 78%, IMDB 7.1. Earned 157.1 million on a 9.9 million budget. I only liked this movie. And most reviews I've read rate it a bit too high, in my opinion. It was certainly tense, and disturbing. It was a slight twist on the home invasion trope. However, there is a huge problem, and that is the main characters are rather awful. They're scumbag thieves, who rob from ordinary people. And, the meat of the movie sees them attempting to rob a blind ex-soldier who's been devastated with grief because his daughter was killed by a drunk driver. We later learn that he's evidently gone insane, or was messed up to begin with, as he's kidnapped the drunk driver (who got off with a slap on the wrist) and is forcing her to give birth to another child. (He claims he didn't rape her, showing us that his grasp on what constitutes consent is absurdly literal and psychotic.) But the key thing is--the three thieves don't know this until after they've broken in. So it makes it hard to sympathize with them. The woman thief is shown having a crappy home life, with a possibly abusive mother and stepfather, and a younger sister that she's trying to save by leaving home together. But why couldn't she just flee to California using money that she earned legally, or get help from another family member, friend, or shelter? So, in short, you're kind of rooting for the alleged protagonists, but they're pretty terrible. Also, I thought the movie was clearly inspired by/ripped off Wes Craven's "The People Under the Stairs" (1991). I thought Craven's film was superior, while being even more disturbing and even darkly comic.
17) The Shining (1980). Directed and written by Stanley Kubrick, starring Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, and Scatman Crothers. RT 86%, Audience 93%, IMDB 8.4. Grossed 44.4 million on a 19 million budget. That's right, I'm going here--come at me! This isn't a bad movie--it's actually quite good. I own a copy on DVD, and have seen it many times. It's got the usual great Kubrickian visuals, interesting shots, methodical pace, and a lot of genuinely creepy and disturbing goings-on. But there are some problems. I should note that the movie is based on Stephen King's novel, which I love. Kubrick obviously didn't like certain aspects of the book, and made many changes, some of which were very significant. First off, Jack Nicholson is clearly a very talented actor, but I don't understand why he played Jack Torrance the way he did, and why Kubrick accepted this. The whole point of the book is that it's about a normal guy, struggling with alcoholism and a strained marriage, who's gradually driven insane by supernatural forces in a hotel that's completely isolated in the winter months. But he redeems himself at the end. Nicholson's Jack Torrance seems crazy right from the beginning, so his character arc is basically a straight line. Duvall is also miscast. She's not the stronger Wendy from the book, she's a bit too much of a damsel in distress. Major plot points are also ignored. I understand why the hedge animals couldn't be convincingly rendered in 1980, so that's a justified cut. But where's the boiler, and the accompanying hodgepodge of hotel records? Why is the maze turned into the main part of the ending? And why wasn't Jack redeemed? Supposedly Kubrick didn't like the supernatural aspects of the book, and wanted to keep the story ambivalent, so we're not sure if they're really happening, or if the characters are just imagining them. (And there are scores of theories about the true meaning of the film, and there's even a whole documentary, "Room 237" that explores these.) I actually liked the television movie version better than Kubrick's, basically because it follow King's book more accurately, and doesn't have the drawbacks that I mentioned. (King was more involved in the script and production of the TV version.) Kind of like "I Am Legend," but even more so, this movie, while very good, could have been even better if Kubrick had just altered some things. Yet, Kubrick's "The Shining" is so lauded. Pretty much every horror director cites it as one of the very best horror movies ever, and even non-horror fans mention it as being the best horror movie. So there it is--very good, but not as great as it could have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment