WiHM, Box Office Retrospective: 2010
Mar. 7th, 2015 10:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
glitter_n_goreHappy International Women's Day! My retrospective is still topical! WOOO!
This was an intriguing year for horror. Pickings were slim this year, but there's an overall uptick in quality that started in the late 2000s, after we got tired of torture porn and remaking stuff from Japan and Korea. (Although remaking stuff from the '70s is still an issue.) Also, with David Slade at the helm for the third entry in the Twilight saga, we got some actual terror, tension, and action thrown into the mix along with the romance, and Melissa Rosenberg did such a solid job with the script that the line reads are intentionally funny in all the right places.
Twilight Saga: Eclipse - $300.5 million
Black Swan - $106.9 million
Paranormal Activity 2 - $84.7 million
(A Nightmare On Elm Street - $63 million)
Resident Evil: Afterlife - $60.1 million
The Last Exorcism - $41 million
The Crazies - $39.1 million
(Vampires Suck - $36.7 million)
As I said, we didn't get much, but what we did get was truly unnerving and truly above the bar. I'm talking, of course, about Black Swan.
Black Swan: All hail Natalie Portman, first actress to win the Best Actress Oscar for a horror movie since Jodi Foster for Silence of the Lambs in 1991! This movie made me cry. Not because it's sad, but because it is so intensely, emotionally overwhelming. I was introduced to Darren Aronofsky in high school, and quickly realized he's one of those filmmakers you can appreciate, but maybe not "enjoy" because that's simply not the right word. His movies get under your skin and make you think, but I'm not in a hurry to watch any of them ever again, because they destroy me every time. This one is no exception. Nina's struggle to be "perfect" at the cost of her relationships, her sanity, even her life comes across as a particularly feminine issue. Be innocent and sweet, but only under certain conditions. Be sexy and alluring, but only when we tell you to. Be risky and adventurous, but only when it's convenient or someone else's idea. Follow instructions and behave with propriety, but don't be predictable or boring. It is an impossible standard to live up to, and Nina's attempts to achieve that standard regardless is what ultimately destroys her. I can't say I "like" this movie, because again that's just not the right word. But I always appreciate it when horror doesn't just creep me out, or stir my imagination, but really makes me feel something. It's powerful, tragic, and, ironically, quite perfect.
A Nightmare On Elm Street: People who have seen it, is there a Nancy in this movie? And is she as cool and self-reliant as Heather Langenkamp? I know there's no Robert Englund, which is a shame, but Nancy's characterization is what drew me in to the original Nightmare. It's not my favorite of the classic slasher franchises (that'd be The Evil Dead), but it is easily the most fun. What makes the movie work for me isn't just that so much of it takes place in a dreamland, which means literally anything is possible, but that Nancy is so creative and determined not to lose. She's not especially book-smart or popular, she's not stronger or faster than any of her peers, but she's clever and imaginative and that's what makes her such a formidable opponent to Freddy. Nancy feels like she could be any of us, so seeing her outsmart Freddy over and over gives it a hopeful edge that a lot of slasher franchises just don't have. But that's the original series, at least what I've seen of it. So, what's the deal with this one? Anyone?
The Last Exorcism: Exorcism movies tend to fall into the same tropes, which makes them hard for me to take seriously. I'd be quite happy to never again see a movie try to "prove" a certain religion is "right" by throwing significant symbol-things around. This one doesn't do that. It's self-aware enough to recognize what all the tropes are and why it's a mistake to retread them, but smart enough to know which of those same tropes still work and why. This is set up like a documentary/exposé intended to pull the rug out from under fake preachers and exorcists . . . until our chosen case study turns out to be a bit too disquietingly real for the film crew. The question laid out is this: If there's no such thing as demonic possession, what is actually wrong with this girl, and how worried should we be for the people around her? Because no matter what you believe in--demons, mental illness, backwoods brainwashing--the danger here is real, and not something you want to mess around with. Ashley Bell is riveting in this movie--I couldn't take my eyes off her, and became convinced in some shots that she could somehow see me through the screen. It is super-creepy, and I rather loved it . . . until the last scene. The ending kind of undoes all the great, subversive stuff going on in the preceding story, which I wish they hadn't done because it was such a terrific change of pace. Still worth seeing for Bell's performance at least.
The Crazies: I have not seen the original George Romero film that was the basis for this, and I don't really know much about it. I do remember my initial reaction to the first five minutes of this movie though, after you see the shot of the town with everything destroyed and on fire, when it slams to black and says, "Two days ago. . ." I was like, "Whoa, two days? Damn, how did this happen in TWO DAYS??" So, well done editing team. This is one of those zombie-movies-that-isn't-really-a-zombie-movie-except-it-totally-is. When people in this sleepy little town get "the crazies," they start killing everyone, and the infection inevitably spreads. There's also an Evil AI/Government Lock-Down thing going on, but that just means tanks and guns are present in addition to everything else. Timothy Olyphant and Radha Mitchell are our focal protagonists, and manage to somehow keep their cool through most of the chaos. But there's one big reason this type of plot doesn't work for me: if they're not zombies, why are they randomly killing everyone? What exactly is going on in their brain chemistry to make that happen? This was my problem with The Happening too, by the way--how do you lose control of all your mental faculties and sense of self, but retain enough motor function to use things like pitchforks and chainsaws? If you're not hungry for brains, what's going on there? Eh, it's a pet peeve, but I think I'm one of like three people who didn't like this movie, so never mind.
Honorable Mention: Piranha - $25 million
I'm not including the "3D" as part of the title because 3D IS NOT A TITLE. I keep seeing movies that do this, I don't know exactly when this became a thing or why, but I hate it, it's pointless, we know your movie is available in 3D and I can still choose to watch it in some other format, it's still the same movie, what it is even the hell? Anyway. This is one of the '70s under-the-radar "classics" that Alexander Aja decided to bring into the new millenium, along with The Hills Have Eyes. Even after watching the previews, I can't tell who the lead character is supposed to be.
Now, that's part of the trick with this retrospective--the fact that I can't always tell who the main character is, and whether I should even include it on the list. But it leads me to my wrap-up question, because I've noticed something else since I started doing this: In a few cases, not all but a few, I'm fudging who I deem to be the main character in order to include it. If there's no clear protagonist, or if the main characters are part of a group, does it "count" if one member of that group is a woman? If, in the case of most exorcism movies, the only female characters are the possessed person and/or their mother, does that count, or do I focus on the priest/documentary crew/best friend instead? It's hard to know where to draw the line as to what counts as representation and what doesn't, and it's made this project . . . interesting in ways I didn't expect. So where would you draw the line? Are there any movies I've talked about so far that you think maybe shouldn't be here? Have a missed some that I maybe should've talked about, since trailers are sometimes horribly misleading?
Let me know in the comments, and I'll be back next time with 2011!
This was an intriguing year for horror. Pickings were slim this year, but there's an overall uptick in quality that started in the late 2000s, after we got tired of torture porn and remaking stuff from Japan and Korea. (Although remaking stuff from the '70s is still an issue.) Also, with David Slade at the helm for the third entry in the Twilight saga, we got some actual terror, tension, and action thrown into the mix along with the romance, and Melissa Rosenberg did such a solid job with the script that the line reads are intentionally funny in all the right places.
Twilight Saga: Eclipse - $300.5 million
Black Swan - $106.9 million
Paranormal Activity 2 - $84.7 million
(A Nightmare On Elm Street - $63 million)
Resident Evil: Afterlife - $60.1 million
The Last Exorcism - $41 million
The Crazies - $39.1 million
(Vampires Suck - $36.7 million)
As I said, we didn't get much, but what we did get was truly unnerving and truly above the bar. I'm talking, of course, about Black Swan.
Black Swan: All hail Natalie Portman, first actress to win the Best Actress Oscar for a horror movie since Jodi Foster for Silence of the Lambs in 1991! This movie made me cry. Not because it's sad, but because it is so intensely, emotionally overwhelming. I was introduced to Darren Aronofsky in high school, and quickly realized he's one of those filmmakers you can appreciate, but maybe not "enjoy" because that's simply not the right word. His movies get under your skin and make you think, but I'm not in a hurry to watch any of them ever again, because they destroy me every time. This one is no exception. Nina's struggle to be "perfect" at the cost of her relationships, her sanity, even her life comes across as a particularly feminine issue. Be innocent and sweet, but only under certain conditions. Be sexy and alluring, but only when we tell you to. Be risky and adventurous, but only when it's convenient or someone else's idea. Follow instructions and behave with propriety, but don't be predictable or boring. It is an impossible standard to live up to, and Nina's attempts to achieve that standard regardless is what ultimately destroys her. I can't say I "like" this movie, because again that's just not the right word. But I always appreciate it when horror doesn't just creep me out, or stir my imagination, but really makes me feel something. It's powerful, tragic, and, ironically, quite perfect.
A Nightmare On Elm Street: People who have seen it, is there a Nancy in this movie? And is she as cool and self-reliant as Heather Langenkamp? I know there's no Robert Englund, which is a shame, but Nancy's characterization is what drew me in to the original Nightmare. It's not my favorite of the classic slasher franchises (that'd be The Evil Dead), but it is easily the most fun. What makes the movie work for me isn't just that so much of it takes place in a dreamland, which means literally anything is possible, but that Nancy is so creative and determined not to lose. She's not especially book-smart or popular, she's not stronger or faster than any of her peers, but she's clever and imaginative and that's what makes her such a formidable opponent to Freddy. Nancy feels like she could be any of us, so seeing her outsmart Freddy over and over gives it a hopeful edge that a lot of slasher franchises just don't have. But that's the original series, at least what I've seen of it. So, what's the deal with this one? Anyone?
The Last Exorcism: Exorcism movies tend to fall into the same tropes, which makes them hard for me to take seriously. I'd be quite happy to never again see a movie try to "prove" a certain religion is "right" by throwing significant symbol-things around. This one doesn't do that. It's self-aware enough to recognize what all the tropes are and why it's a mistake to retread them, but smart enough to know which of those same tropes still work and why. This is set up like a documentary/exposé intended to pull the rug out from under fake preachers and exorcists . . . until our chosen case study turns out to be a bit too disquietingly real for the film crew. The question laid out is this: If there's no such thing as demonic possession, what is actually wrong with this girl, and how worried should we be for the people around her? Because no matter what you believe in--demons, mental illness, backwoods brainwashing--the danger here is real, and not something you want to mess around with. Ashley Bell is riveting in this movie--I couldn't take my eyes off her, and became convinced in some shots that she could somehow see me through the screen. It is super-creepy, and I rather loved it . . . until the last scene. The ending kind of undoes all the great, subversive stuff going on in the preceding story, which I wish they hadn't done because it was such a terrific change of pace. Still worth seeing for Bell's performance at least.
The Crazies: I have not seen the original George Romero film that was the basis for this, and I don't really know much about it. I do remember my initial reaction to the first five minutes of this movie though, after you see the shot of the town with everything destroyed and on fire, when it slams to black and says, "Two days ago. . ." I was like, "Whoa, two days? Damn, how did this happen in TWO DAYS??" So, well done editing team. This is one of those zombie-movies-that-isn't-really-a-zombie-movie-except-it-totally-is. When people in this sleepy little town get "the crazies," they start killing everyone, and the infection inevitably spreads. There's also an Evil AI/Government Lock-Down thing going on, but that just means tanks and guns are present in addition to everything else. Timothy Olyphant and Radha Mitchell are our focal protagonists, and manage to somehow keep their cool through most of the chaos. But there's one big reason this type of plot doesn't work for me: if they're not zombies, why are they randomly killing everyone? What exactly is going on in their brain chemistry to make that happen? This was my problem with The Happening too, by the way--how do you lose control of all your mental faculties and sense of self, but retain enough motor function to use things like pitchforks and chainsaws? If you're not hungry for brains, what's going on there? Eh, it's a pet peeve, but I think I'm one of like three people who didn't like this movie, so never mind.
Honorable Mention: Piranha - $25 million
I'm not including the "3D" as part of the title because 3D IS NOT A TITLE. I keep seeing movies that do this, I don't know exactly when this became a thing or why, but I hate it, it's pointless, we know your movie is available in 3D and I can still choose to watch it in some other format, it's still the same movie, what it is even the hell? Anyway. This is one of the '70s under-the-radar "classics" that Alexander Aja decided to bring into the new millenium, along with The Hills Have Eyes. Even after watching the previews, I can't tell who the lead character is supposed to be.
Now, that's part of the trick with this retrospective--the fact that I can't always tell who the main character is, and whether I should even include it on the list. But it leads me to my wrap-up question, because I've noticed something else since I started doing this: In a few cases, not all but a few, I'm fudging who I deem to be the main character in order to include it. If there's no clear protagonist, or if the main characters are part of a group, does it "count" if one member of that group is a woman? If, in the case of most exorcism movies, the only female characters are the possessed person and/or their mother, does that count, or do I focus on the priest/documentary crew/best friend instead? It's hard to know where to draw the line as to what counts as representation and what doesn't, and it's made this project . . . interesting in ways I didn't expect. So where would you draw the line? Are there any movies I've talked about so far that you think maybe shouldn't be here? Have a missed some that I maybe should've talked about, since trailers are sometimes horribly misleading?
Let me know in the comments, and I'll be back next time with 2011!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-03-08 04:29 am (UTC)Oh, man, the Nightmare is terrible compared to the original. There is a Nancy, but she's substandard compared to original!Nancy. The only thing the remake has going for it is its aesthetic; but even then it's a little too polished. It isn't as gritty as the original.
If there's no clear protagonist, or if the main characters are part of a group, does it "count" if one member of that group is a woman?
For me, it would come down to what role the female member of the group plays. Does she drive the narrative, does she make choices, does she have an active role in the finale that isn't her being the damsel in distress, etc. The first two are my main lines in the sand. For instance, Selena in 28 Days Later does get (somewhat) regulated to damsel in distress at the end; but it doesn't take away from her bad-assery previously.