glitter_n_gore (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
glitter_n_gore) wrote2016-02-22 11:35 pm
glitter_n_gore) wrote2016-02-22 11:35 pm
Entry tags:
WiHM, Box Office Retrospective: 2013
Coming in a touch later than planned, because my lappy crashed and I needed to pick up a new one. Luckily I backed up my work. Go me!
Way back in 2014, I happened to pick 2013's year-end box office numbers to look at the results. That turned into this post, and eventually this ten year retrospective. So finally talking about this year in depth feels like coming full circle. Huzzah!
2013:
The Conjuring - $137.4 million
Insidious: Chapter 2 - $83.6 million
Mama - $71.6 million
The Purge - $64.5 million
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters - $55.7 million
Evil Dead - $54.2 million
Carrie - $35.3 million
(Texas Chainsaw - $34.3 million)
Honorable Mention: You're Next - $18.5 million
Beyond my personal connection to it, something else makes this year stand out: None of those monster franchise machines. For the first time IN TEN YEARS there is nothing at the box office from Twilight, Underworld, Resident Evil OR Paranormal Activity. Savor it, kids, because that will not happen again.
The Conjuring:
In the early 2010s, I had a pronounced craving for a good old-fashioned haunted house movie. 2012's The Woman In Black helped feed that need somewhat, but this was really the movie I wanted. And apparently I wasn't alone, because The Conjuring was among the twenty highest-grossest movies of the year--probably would've been higher if it didn't have The Hunger Games, The Hobbit and three comic book franchises to compete with. To be clear, it is very paint-by-numbers. There's a creepy house that the family moves into because Cheap, creepy things happen, the ghost hunting experts come in, and there's a big, noisy finale where they use the Power of Love and Friendship or something to drive out the demon. But I dunno, there's something cozy and familiar about it. It's not a Blumhouse production, but it sure feels like one. Sharing a director with Insidious helps (James Wan, for whom 2013 was a very good year), but beyond that, it has a lot of the trappings I've come to associate with Blumhouse: the focus on a single location as the setting, the emphasis on the emotional impact of the hauntings on the characters' relationships rather than the mystery of the haunting itself, the clean, simplistic approach to SFX that leaves the space nicely uncluttered, and the atmosphere is more spooky than scary, with a few jump scares thrown in for good measure because it's just what we've come to expect. It even has the vague, evocative title that tells you nothing except it's probably supposed to be scary. This movie is like fairground candy or popcorn--you know it's overpriced for what you're getting, and it has way too many empty calories to be good for you, but there's something comforting and magical about it that makes it a must-have for that certain time of year when the fair is in town. The only thing that drags it down for me is the sequel-baity Annabelle subplot, which just gets in the way of the main story. (I'll talk more about Annabelle . . . later.)
Mama:
This is when Jessica Chastain entered my life. I had heard her name, and heard everyone singing her praises after seeing Zero Dark Thirty, but this was the first time I saw her. What drew me to it is the premise: a pair of young girls is abandoned in the woods, grow up feral until the police find them, and then get adopted by a couple who feel obligated to help them because of family ties but never wanted children of their own. The process of integrating them into the civilized world again is complicated by the fact that someone--or something--got attached to them in the woods, kept them alive in fact, and now it wants them back. I was disappointed that the ethereal, sinister "Mama" creature was just a ghost who lost a baby, as opposed to a fairy tale wood nymph type thing. The movie has the mood and imagery of a dark fairy tale, and seeing Guillermo Del Toro's name attached helped feed that expectation on my part. Also, it gets a bit weird in the third act when Mama acquires new powers as the plot demands--a cheap device used by way too many ghost movies. However, what makes it hang together are the performances of this amazing cast, including Chastain of course, but also the two girls, who are absolutely phenomenal and riveting in every scene. Lily, the younger one, is as wild and mischievous as a fairy changeling; while Victoria, the older one, has this gravitas and presence to her character that feels disquietingly out of place for a child, but fitting given the circumstances. And then there's Chastain, who has no interest in raising children, but in a weird way that helps her communicate with them better than she would have if she had that motherly instinct. She talks to Victoria and Lily the same way she talks to everyone else, and is unapologetically herself, always. It's hard to explain--you just have to see it. Seriously. See it. It's fantastic.
Evil Dead:
My opinion on this remake of the goresploitation classic has gone back and forth. At first, I hated it. Then I liked it a lot. Then I was a bit bored and frustrated by it. Then I loved it again. At this point, I've come to the following conclusion: This is an excellent movie wrapped around a pedestrian, predictable one, and the main problem is the shift in point of view after Mia gets possessed. The central plot is Mia is a drug addict attempting to kick her habit by going through a cold-turkey lockdown with her friends to keep her honest. If you take all the supernatural violence as a metaphor for addiction--which I sometimes do--then what you get is a story about a girl with a monster inside her that destroys everything she cares about until she's strong enough to defeat it herself. The fact that the demon in this version is a twisted image of Mia, wearing her face, supports that interpretation--she has to face this thing that's part of her and tell it to go to Hell. Nobody else in her circle, despite how much they love her and want her to get better, can do it for her. Still, even with that interpretation, there's this big chunk of nothing in the middle that retreads all the iconic scenes from the original and makes me wish I was watching that instead. Listen: I love Mia, and I appreciate the physical and psychological hell-stew Jane Levy went through for this performance. But for too much of the movie, Mia isn't even there. She's Sleeping Beauty, with a foul-mouthed, blood-spewing demonic possession in place of a sleeping curse, waiting on her brother to wake her up. And then she gets to strap on her badass armor and go to work. Basically, I like the idea of this movie, and I admire the extremely grotesque practical effects in place of CGI, but I'd rather pick out the scenes I like from the first and third acts, and skip the rest.
You're Next:
The last time I mentioned this movie was in this part of the retrospective, about home invasions generally and whether they have anything new to offer the genre. I hadn't seen it yet at that time, but the relentless praise heaped on it by ALL my fellow horror hounds finally convinced me. I have never been happier to be wrong. Because this movie is awesome. The premise is deceptively simple on the surface: a family reunion is happening and suddenly there are people with masks and crossbows trying to break in and kill everyone. Seems like your standard home invasion, right? Well, that's certainly the impression I got, at least from the trailers and all the marketing, but there's a twist: Erin (Sharni Vinson), the girlfriend of one of the brothers who has never met the rest of the family before, *just happens* to be a ridiculously competent survivalist who knows exactly what to do in this particular situation, holds it all together, and takes the baddies OUT. There's another twist nearer to the end--the one that reveals why this home is being invaded in the first place--but Erin is the reason everyone is raving over it. Many times, I watch these movies and wonder what I'd do in this kind of awful, seemingly no-win situation. This movie, and this character, are what I think all of us *want* to do. The ability to be that clear-headed and kick that much ass with so little warning, using only the resources from your immediate surroundings, is a goal to aspire to. Also: Barbara Crampton. One can never have too much Barbara Crampton.
But let's talk about the marketing for a second, because the trailer gave no indication of just what a game-changing history-maker this movie was going to be. I've been talking elsewhere about trailers and how badly they can fail their audience, either by giving away the entire plot, putting forth an inaccurate picture of the actual movie, or using too many moments that aren't going to wind up in the final cut of the film. Now, I'm a little forgiving of that last one honestly, because trailers are often cut together before the finished product is ready to go. But to give away the ending, or to make the audience think they're getting a completely different movie--what is the purpose of that?
That's my question this time. What is the last movie you saw with a trailer that either completely misled you, or gave away the ending or key plot points, and how did it affect your initial viewing experience? What do you think is worse: Giving away the ending, or giving a false impression of the movie overall? How much does this stuff even matter in the long run, since your first impression is something you only experience one time?
Hang in there, we're almost done! Next time: 2014.
Way back in 2014, I happened to pick 2013's year-end box office numbers to look at the results. That turned into this post, and eventually this ten year retrospective. So finally talking about this year in depth feels like coming full circle. Huzzah!
2013:
The Conjuring - $137.4 million
Insidious: Chapter 2 - $83.6 million
Mama - $71.6 million
The Purge - $64.5 million
Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters - $55.7 million
Evil Dead - $54.2 million
Carrie - $35.3 million
(Texas Chainsaw - $34.3 million)
Honorable Mention: You're Next - $18.5 million
Beyond my personal connection to it, something else makes this year stand out: None of those monster franchise machines. For the first time IN TEN YEARS there is nothing at the box office from Twilight, Underworld, Resident Evil OR Paranormal Activity. Savor it, kids, because that will not happen again.
The Conjuring:
In the early 2010s, I had a pronounced craving for a good old-fashioned haunted house movie. 2012's The Woman In Black helped feed that need somewhat, but this was really the movie I wanted. And apparently I wasn't alone, because The Conjuring was among the twenty highest-grossest movies of the year--probably would've been higher if it didn't have The Hunger Games, The Hobbit and three comic book franchises to compete with. To be clear, it is very paint-by-numbers. There's a creepy house that the family moves into because Cheap, creepy things happen, the ghost hunting experts come in, and there's a big, noisy finale where they use the Power of Love and Friendship or something to drive out the demon. But I dunno, there's something cozy and familiar about it. It's not a Blumhouse production, but it sure feels like one. Sharing a director with Insidious helps (James Wan, for whom 2013 was a very good year), but beyond that, it has a lot of the trappings I've come to associate with Blumhouse: the focus on a single location as the setting, the emphasis on the emotional impact of the hauntings on the characters' relationships rather than the mystery of the haunting itself, the clean, simplistic approach to SFX that leaves the space nicely uncluttered, and the atmosphere is more spooky than scary, with a few jump scares thrown in for good measure because it's just what we've come to expect. It even has the vague, evocative title that tells you nothing except it's probably supposed to be scary. This movie is like fairground candy or popcorn--you know it's overpriced for what you're getting, and it has way too many empty calories to be good for you, but there's something comforting and magical about it that makes it a must-have for that certain time of year when the fair is in town. The only thing that drags it down for me is the sequel-baity Annabelle subplot, which just gets in the way of the main story. (I'll talk more about Annabelle . . . later.)
Mama:
This is when Jessica Chastain entered my life. I had heard her name, and heard everyone singing her praises after seeing Zero Dark Thirty, but this was the first time I saw her. What drew me to it is the premise: a pair of young girls is abandoned in the woods, grow up feral until the police find them, and then get adopted by a couple who feel obligated to help them because of family ties but never wanted children of their own. The process of integrating them into the civilized world again is complicated by the fact that someone--or something--got attached to them in the woods, kept them alive in fact, and now it wants them back. I was disappointed that the ethereal, sinister "Mama" creature was just a ghost who lost a baby, as opposed to a fairy tale wood nymph type thing. The movie has the mood and imagery of a dark fairy tale, and seeing Guillermo Del Toro's name attached helped feed that expectation on my part. Also, it gets a bit weird in the third act when Mama acquires new powers as the plot demands--a cheap device used by way too many ghost movies. However, what makes it hang together are the performances of this amazing cast, including Chastain of course, but also the two girls, who are absolutely phenomenal and riveting in every scene. Lily, the younger one, is as wild and mischievous as a fairy changeling; while Victoria, the older one, has this gravitas and presence to her character that feels disquietingly out of place for a child, but fitting given the circumstances. And then there's Chastain, who has no interest in raising children, but in a weird way that helps her communicate with them better than she would have if she had that motherly instinct. She talks to Victoria and Lily the same way she talks to everyone else, and is unapologetically herself, always. It's hard to explain--you just have to see it. Seriously. See it. It's fantastic.
Evil Dead:
My opinion on this remake of the goresploitation classic has gone back and forth. At first, I hated it. Then I liked it a lot. Then I was a bit bored and frustrated by it. Then I loved it again. At this point, I've come to the following conclusion: This is an excellent movie wrapped around a pedestrian, predictable one, and the main problem is the shift in point of view after Mia gets possessed. The central plot is Mia is a drug addict attempting to kick her habit by going through a cold-turkey lockdown with her friends to keep her honest. If you take all the supernatural violence as a metaphor for addiction--which I sometimes do--then what you get is a story about a girl with a monster inside her that destroys everything she cares about until she's strong enough to defeat it herself. The fact that the demon in this version is a twisted image of Mia, wearing her face, supports that interpretation--she has to face this thing that's part of her and tell it to go to Hell. Nobody else in her circle, despite how much they love her and want her to get better, can do it for her. Still, even with that interpretation, there's this big chunk of nothing in the middle that retreads all the iconic scenes from the original and makes me wish I was watching that instead. Listen: I love Mia, and I appreciate the physical and psychological hell-stew Jane Levy went through for this performance. But for too much of the movie, Mia isn't even there. She's Sleeping Beauty, with a foul-mouthed, blood-spewing demonic possession in place of a sleeping curse, waiting on her brother to wake her up. And then she gets to strap on her badass armor and go to work. Basically, I like the idea of this movie, and I admire the extremely grotesque practical effects in place of CGI, but I'd rather pick out the scenes I like from the first and third acts, and skip the rest.
You're Next:
The last time I mentioned this movie was in this part of the retrospective, about home invasions generally and whether they have anything new to offer the genre. I hadn't seen it yet at that time, but the relentless praise heaped on it by ALL my fellow horror hounds finally convinced me. I have never been happier to be wrong. Because this movie is awesome. The premise is deceptively simple on the surface: a family reunion is happening and suddenly there are people with masks and crossbows trying to break in and kill everyone. Seems like your standard home invasion, right? Well, that's certainly the impression I got, at least from the trailers and all the marketing, but there's a twist: Erin (Sharni Vinson), the girlfriend of one of the brothers who has never met the rest of the family before, *just happens* to be a ridiculously competent survivalist who knows exactly what to do in this particular situation, holds it all together, and takes the baddies OUT. There's another twist nearer to the end--the one that reveals why this home is being invaded in the first place--but Erin is the reason everyone is raving over it. Many times, I watch these movies and wonder what I'd do in this kind of awful, seemingly no-win situation. This movie, and this character, are what I think all of us *want* to do. The ability to be that clear-headed and kick that much ass with so little warning, using only the resources from your immediate surroundings, is a goal to aspire to. Also: Barbara Crampton. One can never have too much Barbara Crampton.
But let's talk about the marketing for a second, because the trailer gave no indication of just what a game-changing history-maker this movie was going to be. I've been talking elsewhere about trailers and how badly they can fail their audience, either by giving away the entire plot, putting forth an inaccurate picture of the actual movie, or using too many moments that aren't going to wind up in the final cut of the film. Now, I'm a little forgiving of that last one honestly, because trailers are often cut together before the finished product is ready to go. But to give away the ending, or to make the audience think they're getting a completely different movie--what is the purpose of that?
That's my question this time. What is the last movie you saw with a trailer that either completely misled you, or gave away the ending or key plot points, and how did it affect your initial viewing experience? What do you think is worse: Giving away the ending, or giving a false impression of the movie overall? How much does this stuff even matter in the long run, since your first impression is something you only experience one time?
Hang in there, we're almost done! Next time: 2014.