With the Academy Awards show coming this Sunday, and everyone wondering which films will be selected as the best of 2007, now seems a good time to look over the films that the Oscars overlooked. It is no secret that cinefantastique is typically shut out of consideration in the major categories, seldom even earning nominations in anything other than technical areas like special effects and sound design. This tendency does not always hold true – witness the Best Picture win by LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING – but Peter Jackson’s fantasy epic remains the exception rather than the rule. Genre stigmatization is still evident in the way that several obviously Oscar-worthy films were ignored or slighted in this year’s nominations.
To be fair, the Academy did offer a handful of nominations to films that were either hybrids (the horror-musical SWEENEY TODD) or borderline cinefantastique (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, which features a villain easily as horrifying as THE HITCHER). Also, 2007 was an uneven year for the genres: the studio blockbusters that pleased audiences worldwide were not necessarily magnificent works of art, and the handful of great science-fiction, fantasy, and horror films did not sell enough tickets to generate the kind of momentum (a la RETURN OF THE KING) that can break down the barriers to Oscar acceptance. Nevertheless, there are some titles, some performances, some screenplays that simply cry out for recognition. Hence, we offer this tour of an alternate universe in which science-fiction, fantasy, and horror films receive the respect they deserve.
Our rules for qualification do not conform exactly with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (which requires a one-week continuous run). To appear on this list, a film need only have screened in Los Angeles at an event open to the public. So, for example, one-time festival screenings count, but press screenings do not.
BEST PICTURE
2007 offered at least two genre films that utilized the medium almost to perfection. A synthesis of great writing, acting, and direction – complimented by excellence in technical areas. These are movies that could have been nominated in almost any category.
SWEENEY TODD
You’ll laugh. You’ll cry. You’ll…gag in horror at the fountains of blood pouring out of the screen!What more can you ask for? Tim Burton’s filmization of Stephen Sondheim’s musical, starring Johnny Depp as the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, features some of the best work of the director’s career. Not only a musical, SWEENEY TODD is also a black comedy and a moody piece of Gothic horror – all foggy streets, dark shadows, and dingy living spaces.
Against this virtually monochromatic backdrop (in the style of 1930s Universal films ), Burton lets the gore fly faster and freer than it ever did in the most outrageous Hammer horror from the ’60s. By combining motifs from these two great classic horror traditions, Burton not only pays homage to the films he (and we) loved as children; he also gives the stage musical a vivid cinematic live that destroys any vestige of the proscenium arch. Even more important, Burton proves, once again, that he truly understands the power of a good visual: it must not merely flash by looking pretty; it must linger in the mind’s eye with emotional resonance. The bucket-loads of blood in this film are not gratuitous; they are the visual expression of the passion, rage, love, revenge, regret, and recrimination of the title character. With bold artistic brushstrokes that exceed even the most delirous extravances of Dario Argento (TENEBRE) or Pupi Avati (HOUSE OF THE LAUGHING WINDOWS), Burton uses the crimson color to paint a picture of devastating impact. It’s grand guignol elevated to high art. Beside this masterpiece, most of the year’s Oscar nominees (not to mention official horror films like HALLOWEEN) resemble childish crayon scribblings.
The Academy deserves credit for awarding SWEENEY TODD nominations in the categories for Actor in a Leading Role (Johnny Depp), Art Direction (Dante Ferretti and Francesca Lo Schiavo), and Costume Design (Colleen Atwood). Nevertheless, we are disappointed that the film was ignored in the Best Picture category. We would make room for it by removing the over-rated THERE WILL BE BLOOD, which loses points for ripping its title off from the tag-line of the SAW franchise.
THE HOST
Bong Joon-ho’s Korean monster movie has it all: a great monster, a great cast of characters, and a great story. Unfortunately, this film, which truly set the bar for high-quality genre fare, received only a limited art house release. In terms of box office, it was no match for the high-powered CLOVERFIELD, but it is easily the better of the two films, following its premise through to a satisfying conclusion without ever descending into manipulative movie cliches. In a nutshell, this is a monster movie that works, because it never winks to the audience and say, “This is just a monster movie, you know, so don’t expect any integrity.”
As a film that works on so many levels – monster-movie, comedy, family drama, political thriller – THE HOST is certainly worthy of a Best Picture nomination. Having already removed THERE WILL BE BLOOD to make room for SWEENEY TODD, I would pluck ATONEMENT out of the list. Even if the Acadmey could not see the wisdom in this move, they at least should have realized that THE HOST deserves a slot among the Best Foreign Language films. As an ensemble piece, it does not quite have a stand-out performance I would have nominated in the acting categories, but its script (typically a weak link in monster flicks) is strong enough to deserve recognition in the Original Screenplay category, and director Bong Joon-ho deserves credit for balancing the elements so well.
DIRECTING
Tim Burton for SWEENEY TODD
Tim Burton provides some of the best work of his career: he puts his strong visual sense to use, giving us a modern take on old-fashioned Gothic horror imagery, which is tied to a screenplay (adapted by John Logan from the musical by Stephen Sondheim and Hugh Wheeler) that is strong enough to support the stylistic flourishes. Burton also gets the performances from his actors, and he makes the emotional beats register with full melodramatic impact. Surely, he deserves the slot occupied by Paul Thomas Anderson, who allowed THERE WILL BE BLOOD to run on like an actor’s improve gone bad, wherein the director was afraid to yell cut at star Daniel Day Lewis.
Juan Carlos Fresnadillo for 28 WEEKS LATER
This strong effort stops just short of being one of the great horror movies. A follow-up to 28 DAYS LATER, it reactivates the Rage Virus but (like George Romero’s DEAD movies) avoids continuing characters in favor of examining the phenomenon at a later stage in its development. As England begins to re-patriate beneath the protection of a U.S.-led NATO force, human frailty subverts security protocol, allowing the seemingly defeated disease to escape control. The resulting chaos plays out in a shorter time frame and a smaller area than its predecessor, yet it is depicted in far larger scope, thanks to some great special effects and action scenes (including a nighttime aerial bombing to kill off the infected).
Atypical for the horror genre, the film is in some way strongest in its early section, when it is establishing the characters and playing out their personal dramas, which will lead to disastrous results for all (a husband abandons his wife to the Infected; when he begs forgiveness of her in an isolation ward, she accidentally passes the disease on to him, triggering the outbreak). Once the outbreak occurs, the story loses a little of its emotional hold; it turns from an intense drama played out against the background of a horrifying atrocity, into a run-and-jump escape movie, as the survivors try to outrun not only the Infected but also the military, who have orders to kill everyone rather than risk letting the virus spread.
In effect, this becomes a remake of Romero’s THE CRAZIES (1975), which also focused on a band of survivors attempting to escape a military quarantine. As in that film, the audience is asked to identify with the escapees, even while the military action is, at least in some sense, justified: in attempting to save themselves, our protagonists are potentially threatening the lives of millions of others. The irony in this case is that a young boy has immunity from the disease, but the military officer in charge of medicine is overruled in her attempts to study him; consequently, she must break ranks to save the life of her patient.
As in films like THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE and CHILDREN OF MEN,the remainder of the narrative systematically kills off the surrogate parental characters, who sacrifice themselves to keep the boy alive. Unlike those films, the sacrifice turns out to be in vain. The cynicism of the ending is effectively done, but it reduces an otherwise great film to the level of a cheap exploitation movie, in which audience investment in the characters is violated for the sake of a black humor “twist” ending; still, you have to give the film credit: as frustrating as the denouement might be, it is justified within the context of the story. With its depiction of a military occupation, 28 WEEKS LATER deliberately evokes images of Iraq without preaching any overt message, except that the rules of engagement inevitably lead to collateral damage, and that the resulting us-versus-them mentality prevents the sort of cooperation that could lead to a successful resolution of the crisis.
Having undermined itself ever so slightly with its determination to be downbeat at all costs, 28 WEEKS LATER loses its shot at earning an Alternate Best Screenplay nomination. On the other hand, director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo does a fine job of marshaling the resources at his command: he has you along for the ride from beginning to end, and you never feel as if you’re being dragged against your will; you’re on board and eager to follow. Neither DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERLFY nor JUNO offered such big challenges to overcome, so either Julian Schnabel or Jason Reitman could make way in the category for Fresnadillo.
SCREENPLAY
This category can sometimes be a weak one in genres where sometimes more effort is put into creating fantastic worlds than in crafting the narrative that takes place in those worlds. Fortunately, 2007 saw some strong efforts in this area. As mentioned above, we think the visuals of SWEENEY TODD and THE HOST worked well because they were in the service of strong scripts. Below we pick out another film that is not as much an overall success but nevertheless benefits from good writing.
STARDUST
This is a sweet, endearing variation on the typical fantasy formula, with quirky British humor and some eccentric twists and turns that elevate it above the standard fare. Yet it does not quite thrill and amaze; your sense of wonder will be tickled but not overwhelmed. For compensation, you get an oddball turn by Robert DeNiro as a cross-dressing sky pirate and a deliciously evil witch personified by Michelle Pfeiffer, having more obvious fun than she has had on screen since playing Catwoman in BATMAN RETURNS. These entertaining performances are part of an ensemble, so they perhaps do not stand out enough for me to make a case for including them in the acting categories. Still, the writing – by Matthew Vaugn and Jane Goldman, working from the novel by Neil Gaiman – is imaginative and endearing enough to deserve a nomination in the Adapted Screenplay category, in place of the over-nominated THERE WILL BE BLOOD.
Brian Solomon of Vault of Horror argues that FIDO (the satirical zombie movie that got a platform release in 2007) deserves recognition in this category. Read his Oscar picks here. John Morehead at Theofantastique also found FIDO worth considering.
ACTING
There were some good genre films in 2007 that tripped up in some way or another, not quite reaching the level that would make us want to slot them into the Best Picture category. Often, these films were saved by strong performances that engaged viewers and overwhelmed any minor flaws.
Robert Carlyle in 28 WEEKS LATER
Carlyle deserves a nod for his performance as the husband who does the one thing that no husband should ever do in a horror movie: he runs out and leaves his wife behind with the infected maniacs! I still cannot believe the film had the nerve to do this; it is a bold move far more convincing than the ending of THE MIST. The amazing thing is that, as much as you hate him and loathe the character, you never hate and loath him more than he hates and loathes himself. Carlyle registers the conflicting cowardice and guilt so perfectly that you sympathize; he forces you to look into the face not of an ideal Hollywood hero but of a flawed and all too believable human being. It’s debatable whether Carlyle’s role is big enough to qualify as Lead Performance, but I would have no problem with removing Daniel Day Lewis from the category to make room for a far more worthy nominee. Lewis is also playing a man who is supposed to hold our interest even while he performs loathsome actions, but his high-toned scenery chewing is far less successful than Carlyle’s understated performance.
Brian Solomon seconds our choice in his Oscar Picks at Vault of Horror.
John Cusack in 1408
Who would have thought that the most successful horror movie of the year would be a little drama about a guy alone in a room, which just happens to be haunted?* While the gore films were dropping like flies in 2007, this adaptation of a Stephen King story proved that a good old-fashioned haunted house – or in this case, haunted hotel room – could still deliver the chills. 1408 does an impressive job of keeping its limited space visually interesting for feature length, even if it does not fully live up to its promise. There seems to have been some confusion about resolving the story, which resulted in two different endings, both available on DVD, neither one satisfactory.
Fortunately, John Cusack’s performance forces you to overlook the dramatic deficiencies. As the author who makes a living writing about spending the night in haunted locations, the actor provides a virtual one-man show, allowing the audience to experience his terror with an almost first-hand immediacy, so that the shock effects never degenerate into mere mechanical jump-and-scare tactics. Instead, the supernatural manifestations represent the inner demons plaguing the character, and the ghost story can easily be read as a psycho-drama of a man examining the failures of his life. Had the film abandoned the supernatural overtones, and presented its flashbacks a la WILD STRAWBERRIES, Cusack would have had a shot at earning a real Oscar-nomination. Having already knocked out Daniel Day Lewis to make room for Robert Carlyle, it is hard to say who else should move aside to make room for Cusack. I would probably move aside Tommy Lee Jones’ nomination for IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, which seems like a surrogate nod for his work in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN.
Will Smith in I AM LEGEND
Will Smith gives an Oscar-worthy performance, turning this action-horror film into a character study. The portrait of a solitary man trying to survive in a world where the rest of the population has been reduced to night-lurking monsters is thoroughly engrossing and frequently frightening – so much so that this could have ranked as a potential genre classic. Sadly, things start to go downhill when it turns out that the “Last Man on Earth” is not really alone, and the finale completely falls apart with its utterly unconvincing happy ending. Had this film been able to sustain itself with conviction to the bitter end, it would have surely ranked as one of the Best Pictures of the Year.
John Morehead of Theofantastique makes a far more eloquent argument for Will Smith’s including in the Best Actor category. We urge you to check it out.
Belen Rueda for THE ORPHANAGE
This fine Spanish-language ghost story effectively follows in the footsteps of THE DEVIL’S BACKBONE and PAN’S LABYRINTH. It may not quite match the achievement of those films, but it does orchestrate its spooky terrors as well as one could want, mixing them in with an involving human story as well. In the end, the methodical pacing, which helps build tension, is too slow, and the plot’s twists and turns do not line up in a way that clearly makes sense. We’re left with a flawed gem that’s good enough to make us want to overlook the imperfections. Those imperfections do not extend to lead actress Belen Rueda, who practically carries the movie on her capable shoulders. You are always engaged with her character, which is the major coup that carries you past any weaknesses in the script (which raises more questions than it answers). Since the Academy saw fit to nominated Cate Blanchett for both a Lead and a Supporting role, I think she should be gracious enough to bow out of the Lead Actress category, especially since the nomination for ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE seems to have been inspired mostly by a desire to create a historical footnote (it is the second time she has been nominated for playing Queen Elizabeth).
Timothy Spall in SWEENEY TODD
We had been hoping for a Supporting Actor nomination for Timothy Spall as Beadle Bamford in SWEENEY TODD. As a man who thinks he is smarter and smother than he really is, Spall makes the most of his limited screen time; every nod and would-be sly smile is pure gold, and yet he never overdoes it. Bad, Academy, bad!
Who else thinks Timothy Spall deserved the nomination? Click here to find out!
BEST SCORE
We must express disappointment that Academy rules no longer allow for a specific category for scores comprised of songs and/or music adapted from existing material, both of which are the case for SWEENEY TODD, the screen version of Stephen Sondheim’s stage musical. Certainly, Sondheim’s music is worthy of recognition, but the only way he could have qualified would have been by writing a new song, which could have been admitted into the Best Song category. Frankly, there is something wrong when great work is ignored simply because there is no slot available for it.
For more music that was overlooked by the Academy, check out Randall Larson’s picks for the best soundtracks of 2007.
VISUAL EFFECTS
THE HOST
A nomination in this category would certainly not have been out of order for the Korean monster movie. This year’s three nominees (GOLDEN COMPASS, PIRATES OF THE CARRIBBEAN: AT WORLD’S END, and TRANSFORMERS) offered plenty of visual flash, but none of them were truly convincing; they were fantasies in which suspension of disbelief was readily available. THE HOST puts its monster right down in the middle of the real world and makes you believe it.
SUNSHINE
This engrossing piece of drama (from the creative team behind 28 DAYS LATER) falls just short of being one of the best films of the year. Its story of a (virtual suicide) mission to re-ignite the sun is conveyed with a desperate conviction, worthy of the high-stakes of the story. Unlike most cinematic science-fiction, this one remains rooted in reality (despite one or two leaps of faith in the premise), and the special effects, besides being spectacular, also have to be convincing. Had the screenplay not descended into schlocky territory in the third act (it practically becomes an old-fashioned monster movie), this might have been good enough to rank among the classics of the genre. Still, for using its special effects to help create a more believable portrait of space travel, we think this one deserved more Academy attention than the fantasy films that were actually nominated.
MAKEUP EFFECTS
HATCHET
The biggest cinematic crime of 2007 is that Adam Green’s retro-slasher masterpiece HATCHET was consigned to a low-profile stealth release despite earning adulation from horror fans on the worldwide festival circuit in 2006. Opening on a handful of screens, with almost no advertising (on the same weekend that Rob Zombie’s misguided HALLOWEEN opened in thousands of theatres), HATCHET never had much of a chance to find an audience beyond the hardcore fans who carefully check their local theatre listings. In terms of quality and craftsmanship the distinction between the two films is so wide that it would be laughable if not for the fact that HALLOWEEN raked in $70-million while HATCHET pretty much came and went without a peep – essentially a “platform” release to garner some reviews and hopefully boost video sales. In a year that saw botched efforts like GRINDHOUSE, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT, and THE MIST fail to suck audiences into theatres despite heavy promotional campaigns, it is a shame that the true crowd-pleaser – the one truly capable of galvanizing an audience with shocking hard-core horror – will be enjoyed mostly by people in their living rooms. Without the roaring appreciative audience, this film loses some of its lustre, and it does not quite hold up to a second viewing as well as one would like: the humor is still funny, but it does not qutie sustain the pacing during the first half, before the horror fully kicks in.
Of course, this kind of low-budget shockfest never, ever receives Academy Award consideration, but we find ourselves wondering whatever happened to the Achievement in Makeup category that so famously earned the ire of Siskel and Ebert when it was first instituted back in the 1980s: the Laurel and Hardy of film critics named it their “Dog of the Week,” predicting that the category would be an excuse to honor gory splatter effects of the kind seen in FRIDAY THE 13TH movies. All we can say is: this is one prediction we wish had come true, at least in this case. HATCHET features some of the best and bloodiest makeups ever seen on the screen, courtesy of John Carl Buechler.
BORDERLINE GENRE TITLES
Since its inception as a print magazine in 1970, Cinefantastique always defined the genre broadly, reviewing many films that others considered to be mainstream or art house efforts. Below are listed some worthwhile titles that do not quite fit our brief, which was to highlight films that had been overlooked because of their disreputable genre associations. Nevertheless, they were to some extent overlooked, so we give them their due here.
BRIDGE TO TERABITHIA
This was advertised as though it were a knock-off of THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA – another whimsical young-adult fantasy with lots of special effects. In fact, it is something much better: a convincing, heart-warming story about two young friends, who find brief escape from their daily lives into a make-believe world they call Terabithia. The fantasy excursions are charming, but the film’s real coup is the every-day drama of real world. The plot takes a heart-breaking turn near the end that ranks about a ten on the hankie-scale, easily outdoing the final-reel fatality in HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX. As a genre film, this barely ranks, but it is good enough to include here as a borderline genre entry. The screenplay has a nice depth to it, bridging the gap between wistful childhood and adult tragedy – worth a nomination.
ZODIAC
This grim recounting of the real-life serial killer, who terrorized the Bay Area decades ago, is grim, intelligent, and surprisingly moving. Its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: the devotion to detail envelopes you in the story, but it also wears you down over the course of the extensive running time. Consequently, the forest tends to be obscured by the trees, but the basic idea behind the film does seep through: the unknown Zodiac Killer terrifies us because to our minds he seems like a faceless Boogey-Man; if we could just put a name and a face to him, he would lose his mythic status, reduced to something merely human. A great achievement, but the running time does seem to stretch more than necessary. Like TERABITHIA, this is only a borderline cinefantastique entry: although not, technically, a horror film, it deals with themes relevant to the genre. It is also an ambitious project that excels in numerous categories, from its script to its photogrpahy to its editing. The ensemble acting is of the sort that does not necessarily produce an obvious stand-out for Oscar consideration, but director David Fincher, one of the most talented men working in his field, should have received attention from the Academy for bringing such a difficult project to fruition.
CFQ contributor Andrew Fitzpatrick, who runs the Blood-Spattered Scribe, argues passionately for ZODIAC’s deserving a Best Picture nomination; read it here.
ACTUAL NOMINEES
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
This borderline horror effort (it features a villain as lethal and frightening as any masked maniacal stalker) received the kind of Academy respect not lavished on outright genre efforts, including nominations for Best Picture, Directing (Joel and Ethan Coen), Adapted Screenplay (Joel & Ethan Coen), Supporting Actor (Javiar Bardem), Cinematography (Roger Deakins), Editing (Roderick Jaynes), Sound Editing (Skip Lievsay), and Sound Mixing (Skip Lievsay, Craig Berkey, Greg Orloff, and Peter Kurland). Despite the trappings of “realism,” the film actually takes place in a weird kind of enclosed universe wherein horrible events that should send ripple into society at large instead impact only a handful of main characters. (One is reminded of the 1964 TWILIGHT ZONE episode “The Jeopardy Room,” in which a lethal game of bullets and bombs goes on in a pair of hotel rooms without ever attracting the notice of any lawful authorities.) In this case, after a drug deal goes wrong and a thief (Josh Brolin) escpapes with the money, hired gun Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) goes on a killing spree across half the state without attracting much attention beyond one tired old sheriff undergoing an existential crisis (Tommy Lee Jones). There are one or two lip service mentions given to a DEA agent on the case, but we never see him, and even though Chigurh’s first on-screen victim is an officer of the law, there is no statewide manhunt or even very much effort put into his pursuit. The effect is to create an alternate reality ruled only by chaos and random chance, where the rules of law and society seem to have been suspended. Morality is barely an issue, and the occasional pang of conscience will only put you in harm’s way. Despite basing their work on a novel by Cormac McCarthy, writer-directors Joel and Ethan Coen seem equally inspired by James M. Cain (the car accident near the end, as in The Postman Always Rings Twice – which they previously used in THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE) and Sergio Leone (Chigurh’s lethal visit, to fulfill a vow made to a dead man, plays like a variation on Angel Eyes [Lee Van Cleef]’s fulfilling a contract made to a dead man in THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY). The film deserves accolades, but ultimately the Coen’s may be too true to their vision for their own good: the non-ending, although consistent with the film, is a terrible disappointment.
CFQ contributor John T. Stanhope offers his appraisal: “…horror fans, be of good cheer: if NO COUNTRY can be considered a horror film at least to some degree, then it is the first to knock the ball out of the park with the Oscars.” Read the entire review here.
RATATOUILLE
This computer-animated film from Disney and Pixar was the most well-reviewed film of the year, so it is little surprise that it nabbed a nomination for Best Animated Feature. The Academy also gave it the nod in categories for Original Screenplay (Brad Bird, story by Bird, Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco), Original Score (Michael Giacchino), Sound Editing ( Randy Thom and Michael Silvers), Sound Mixing (Randy Thom, Michael Semanick, and Doc Kane). Some fans and commentors have even gone so far as to suggest that RATATOUILLE warranted a Best Picture nominaton and that the Best Animated Feature nom was a mere consolation prize that allowed Academy voters to overlook the film. We tend to disagree. The Animated Feature category should not exist (there are not enough animated films each year to justify its existence), but since the category does exist, and since RATATOUILLE has been nominated, it is a bit of a stretch to maintain that the film is being neglected.
Writer-director Brad Bird’s film is a delightful confection, but it is not quite the fine cuisine that its supporters would have us believe. The screenplay apparently went through a difficult development history (a process obliquely hinted at on the DVD), and the result suffers from too many cooks throwing in too many good ingredients that do not quite compliment each other. Although this sounds like a recipe for disaster, the results are actually quite tasty, just not fully satisfying – rather like a plate whose arrangement, aroma, and flavor are perfectly pleassing, until you finish and realize there was not much of a meal hidden beneath the flavorful sauce.
In this review, We go into more depth regarding RATATOUILLE’s non-nomination for Best Picture.
Both Brian Solomon and Brian Collins think that BEOWULF should have been nominated for Best Animated Feature.
THE EDGAR G. ULMER AWARD
This, obviously, is not an official Oscar category but one invented to bestow accolades on low-budget independent films. Although movies should be reviewed based on their achievements, not their budgets, it is hard not to be amazed by what some filmmakers manage to do with almost no resources. Years ago, Myron Meisel (film critic for the now-defunct L.A. Reader) used to include the “Edgar G. Ulmer Award” in his annual year-end list. Ulmer was a talented director who most often worked in independent films, and Meisel awarded this honor to a worthy film that, for whatever reason (usually meagre resources and limited distribution), would otherwise go unrecognized for its artistic merits.
In 2007, there were relatively few sleeper hits that would qualify in this category – little movies that fill the artistic void left by the high-profile Hollywood blockbusters. Instead, we got a string of disappointments (GRINDHOUSE) and one or two outright disasters (THE MIST, MR. MAGORIUM’S WONDER EMPORIUM). The year’s installment of the After Dark franchise offered only one title, THE DEATHS OF IAN STONE, with almost enough imagination to justify consideration; unfortunately, its potential was dissipated by ill-conceived borrowings from THE MATRIX. Two festival favorites from 2006 did get a platform theatrical release in 2007: HATCHET might have qualified, but despite its low budget and limited release, the film seems too slick to truly qualify in the spirit of this category. Therefore, the Ulmer Award goes to…
THE OTHER SIDE
This action-horror-fantasy, which like HATCHET earned some attention on the festival circuit in 2006, finally got a one-week platform release in Los Angeles before heading to video. This film feels like the cinefantastique equivalent of EL MARIACHI – an action-packed low-budget flick designed to launch a big-budget sequel-remake. The story (about souls who escape from Hell, pursued by Reapers intent on bringing them back) cleverly lays out the groundwork for the future and still stands on its own, nicely wrapping up several plot threads into a neat package. On first viewing, you will be blown away by how much director Gregg Bishop got on camera. Unfortunately, after the initial enthusiasm has worn, subsequent viewings betray the budgetary shortcomings more clearly. Let’s hope he gets a chance to do a big-budget version soon.
After posting this article, I was embarrassed to realize that I had overlooked FIDO, the satirical zombie film that received only a small platform release before being forgotten by critics and Academy voters. The Vault of Horror and Theofantastique fill the void left by me.
FESTIVAL FAVORITES
As with the Ulmer Award, this category was invented to benefit low-profile efforts that cannot compete fairly with wide releases; in many cases, they do not even qualify for the Oscars because they never get a genuine release. There were several stand-outs last year, but two of them, THE SIGNAL and George A. Romero’s DIARY OF THE DEAD, were fortunate enough to be picked up for theatrical release in 2008, so we will not include them here. Some others films were not so lucky, even though they were almost equally deserving.
STORM WARNING
This excellent Australian variation on the violent “torture porn” formula cleverly turns the tables. The story follows a married couple who get lost on a boating holiday and come face-to-face with dangerous locals – imagine DELIVERANCE cross-bred with TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, and you will have some idea of the results. The sick joke of the movie is that the crazy family holding our heroes hostage do just enough to make you hate their guts, and then the captured husband and wife – mostly the wife – deliver some well-deserved and extremely gruesome payback that elicits cheers from the audience. It’s nice to see the maniacs on the receiving end for a change, and this film easily bests THE HILLS HAVE EYES, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE BEGINNING, THE HILLS HAVE EYES 2, and other recent examples of the form. In fact, even if you normally avoid this kind of movie, you may find yourself enjoying the mayhem. STORM WARNING truly deserved a U.S. theatrical release, but it went direct-to-video, since the box office failure of HOSTEL 2, TURISTAS, and CAPTIVITY has soured Hollywood on the financial prospects of violent horror films.
ROOM 205 and ALONE are two foreign language ghost stories (from Denmark and Thailand, respectively) that share some similar strengths and weaknesses: like THE ORPHANAGE, they build carefully to their supernatural effects, which are nicely achieved, but the result is a lack of the kind of narrative momentum that engrosses the audience in the story from beginning to end. Nevertheless, both of them deserve an art house release in the United States; audiences willing to give them a chance will be amply rewarded. Although not perfect, each film has enough going for it to deserve consideration in the Foreign Language category, but only ALONE comes close to have the kind of art house cache that actually attracts Academy voters. (Read more about both films here.)
DVDS
We leave the Academy Award conceit completely behind here, so that we can acknowledge a handful of discs that preserved some of out favorite classic horror films. There were many great home video releases in 2007. The two most significant, in terms of making great films available to their audience, were MGM’s Midnight Movies DVD release of WITCHFINDER GENERAL and the Fox Horror Classics box set.
The former is a 1967 Vincent Price film that had been released in altered form for its theatrical run and then further altered (its original score replaced with sound-alike synthesizer music) for home video. MGM’s DVD finally presented the film to U.S. viewers in its restored form, with a nice making-of featurette and an informative audio commentary by actor Ian Ogilvy and producer Phillip Wadilove.
The Fox Horror Classics set included three moody black-and-white thrillers from the 1940s (THE UNDYING MONSTER, THE LODGER, and HANGOVER SQUARE) that had been previously unavailable on DVD. This alone made the set worthwhile, but the discs also contain a wealth of interesting background material, much of it focusing on Laird Cregar, the ominous actor who effectively played deranged killers in LODGER and SQUARE.
SUMMING UP 2007: THE YEAR WITHOUT END
If last year demonstrated one trend worth mention, it is the tendency for films to fall apart in the finale.
- I AM LEGEND was not only a great thriller but also a great drama about a lone man trying to hang onto his sanity without the normal social interaction that makes life bearable; at least it was for the first three-quarters. Then it turned into a dumb Hollywood formula film, with a dopey ending.
- NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN was a gripping thriller about the vicissitudes of fate, until it decided to simply stop.
- SUNSHINE made you feel the threat of doomsday – and appreciate the sacrifice the characters made to avert it – until it turned into resorted to including an unlikely villain in its third act.
- THE MIST started off strong, then gradually degenerated into a mess o’ monster cliches, finally winding up with one of the most botched endings ever recorded on film – a bad joke that writer-director Frank Darabont plays on his lead character.
- 28 DAYS LATER basically told audiences it would have been better for the world (or at least France) if the military had killed the innocent kids we root for throughout the running time.
- 1408 could not decide how to conclude, so it offered two endings: one in the theatrical version and another on the two-disc DVD. Neither one fully does the film justice.
We only hope and pray that, during 2008, filmmakers learn the value of dramatic catharsis and resolution. It is, after all, one of the big reasons that audiences attend movies.
ACADEMY OF THE OVERRATED
Finally, in honor of a line of dialogue in Woody Allen’s 1979 comedy MANHATTAN, we like to hand out this annual award to a film that truly earned more critical praise than it deserved.
THE MIST: What can we say? Hard-core horror fans loved it. Some called it the best film of the year. Some called it the best Stephen King adaptation ever. If either of those statements were true, than the horror genre would be further along the road of rotted putrefaction than even the most decayed zombie in DIARY OF THE DEAD. THE MIST starts off strong, but it does not deliver the scares, and it is doubtful that anyone truly enjoys the ill-conceived ending; more likely, they admire its audacity (in the same way that pundit Andrew Sullivan once gushed over the “boldness” of George W. Bush’s economic plan, regardless of whether or not it would actually work, which it didn’t). Curiously, this was a case (like GRINDHOUSE) where the genre press proved themselves as out of touch with audiences as mainstream critics are often accused of being: despite rave reviews, viewers stayed away in droves, and the film evaporated from theatres faster than the titular fog when hit with a Martian heat ray. It was a well-deserved box office fate that almost restores one’s faith in the taste of the American public (until you look at the 2007 films that went blockbuster, that is).
Brian Collins of Horror Movie a Day gives an alternative list of Oscar nominees here, including a radically different appraisal of THE MIST.
RELATED ARTICLES:
[*I AM LEGEND made far more money than 1408, but the Will Smith film seems to be regarded as a science-fiction action-adventure, despite its horrific elements.]