Have splatter-horror films lost their bite?

email this story
read comments (56)
post a comment

Did the measley $8.8 million earned by Hostel, Part II "put a nail in the coffin of a dying horror boom last weekend," as N.Y. Times guy Michael Ciepley contends? Did the moral revulsion factor (i.e., which I realize doesn't apply as far as Las Vegas-residing Hispanic mothers with 15 month-old daughters are concerned) have at least something to do with this?

Abortion is a Hollywood no-show<< previous | next >>Hilton talks to Walters

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 11, 2007 at 9:46 AM

comment #1

christian says ...

sometimes the customer is always right.

it's not the end of horror as the hypeheaded hollywood machine needs to trumpet, but maybe the audience is sated with incessant brutality. for now. it'll come back in style.

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 9:54 AM

comment #2

Bocephus says ...

It'll come back. Probably around the time that the hispanic mom's 15 month old hispanic child grows up hispanically to become a hispanic adult who will no doubt bring their hispanic toddler to see Hispanic Hostel 8.

Posted by Bocephus at June 11, 2007 10:00 AM

comment #3

bachelorcool says ...

Set in the Hispanic Room no doubt.

Posted by bachelorcool at June 11, 2007 10:03 AM

comment #4

jimjonesiii says ...

it was a bomb of hispanic proportions.

Posted by jimjonesiii at June 11, 2007 10:03 AM

comment #5

Rich S. says ...

It wasn't the nail in the coffin. I'd say it was more the nail in the middle of the forehead while the victim's eyes are being held open with forceps and his wrists are tied to his chair with barbed wire.

Posted by Rich S. at June 11, 2007 10:07 AM

comment #6

foxnewsisfake says ...

Modern horror films should only be released in the Late Fall/Winter, when the human brain is pumped and primed for all things dreary, wearisome, and insufferable. Hostel II would've killed six months ago.

Posted by foxnewsisfake at June 11, 2007 10:11 AM

comment #7

Ian Sinclair says ...

Perhaps it will enjoy a revival somewhere down the line, perhaps under a title such as DR STRANGELOVE: OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE HOSTEL: 2

Posted by Ian Sinclair at June 11, 2007 10:26 AM

comment #8

corey3rd says ...

The movie didn't have an outrageous budget - should do well on video and foreign. This isn't Grindhouse 2.

This was a major case of marketing screwing up - there wasn't a proper teaser as to what the hell was going on.

Posted by corey3rd at June 11, 2007 10:39 AM

comment #9

Wrecktum says ...

I asked a few of my negro friends what they thought about hispanics mothers taking their hispanic babies to Hostel 2. Several of my negro friends were OK with it. But a few other negro friends were against it.

Why can't the world be more like us caucasians, I wonder?

Posted by Wrecktum at June 11, 2007 10:40 AM

comment #10

Rich S. says ...

"This was a major case of marketing screwing up - there wasn't a proper teaser as to what the hell was going on."

Huh? Couldn't the teaser for Hostel: Part II simply have said: "See Hostel: Part I"?

Posted by Rich S. at June 11, 2007 10:49 AM

comment #11

christian says ...

and of course the Myth Of Marketing: that saturation equals sucess. it don't. otherwise everything would be successful.

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 11:12 AM

comment #12

messiahcomplexio says ...

I wonder how many of the target audience already had the DVD?

It may be hostel 2, but from a piracy standpoint this is closer to soul plane 2.

Posted by messiahcomplexio at June 11, 2007 11:17 AM

comment #13

messiahcomplexio says ...

couldn't have happened to a nicer guy though, huh?

Posted by messiahcomplexio at June 11, 2007 11:18 AM

comment #14

jeffmcm says ...

You can argue about how 'nice' Eli Roth is, but he's certainly more talented than Alexandre Aja, Darren Bousman, or Marcus Nispel, to name just three.

I doubt that piracy was an issue. I'm inclined to believe what Bob Weinstein says: that this year there's been a glut of movies that just didn't look interesting enough to the average moviegoer. Of course the article brushes all horror movies under the same blanket, from the gory ones like Hostel 2 to the Asian-inspired ghost story movies like The Messengers and The Return to the excellent 28 Weeks Later, so the analysis is over-generalized.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 11:23 AM

comment #15

jeffmcm says ...

Of course, if I was behind the miserable-looking 1408, or Captivity. Things could pick up for The Invasion in August, but that seems like it's getting dumped, or maybe Rob Zombie's Halloween, which probably has the best positioning (even though it obviously should have been released in October). I'd love it if Saw IV bombed, though.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 11:38 AM

comment #16

Josh Massey says ...

I too am wondering why Wells is hammering the "Hispanic" point home - but good lord, that's a true stereotype. I teach school in a heavily Hispanic neighborhood, and it was shocking how many of the children (5th grade and under) saw the original Hostel in theaters, and were well-versed in the Saw films, Hills Have Eyes, etc.

Posted by Josh Massey at June 11, 2007 11:47 AM

comment #17

Craig Kennedy says ...

I doubt any of the people who were the film's core audience experienced "moral revulsion" at what they got.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at June 11, 2007 11:53 AM

comment #18

jimjonesiii says ...

as opposed to white kids, they don`t even know these movies even exist.

Posted by jimjonesiii at June 11, 2007 11:59 AM

comment #19

movieirv says ...

There's enough horror in the pipeline to keep the fans happy for years. Roth should definitely change his cinematic tune if he wants to be taken seriously...He does have talent.

Posted by movieirv at June 11, 2007 12:53 PM

comment #20

movieirv says ...

There's enough horror in the pipeline to keep the fans happy for years. Roth should definitely change his cinematic tune if he wants to be taken seriously...He does have talent.

Posted by movieirv at June 11, 2007 12:56 PM

comment #21

frankbooth says ...

Roth is more talented than Aja? Time to get new prescription for those eyeglasses, Jeff. Is Roth more talented than anybody, including the performers who shot The Blair Witch Project on their camcorders?

I suppose it's possible that his abilities have increased a hundredfold since Cabin Fever, which would put him at the level of the average Everybody Loves Raymond episode-director, but this strikes me as unlikely. I finally gave in recently and watched Roth's first feature, and words fail me--but I'll try anyway.

Smirky frat guy watches Evil Dead 2, Re-Animator and Dead Alive. Gets really, really baked and writes script. It's only sixty pages long, so he goes back and throws in an extended cameo for himself, the bowling alley story, the business with the rednecks at the general store and all sorts of other un-entertaining padding. No one is honest enough to smack him in the head and tell him to start over.

Somehow raises budget and shoots the very first draft of this script. Problem is, he has all the visual skill of Kevin Smith, displaying a rare ability to put the camera in the wrong place, every time. But he does toss in slow-motion ass shots for the hell of it.

Makes a ninety-minute movie that feels longer than Return of the King. Even the alleged gross-out factor is tame if you've never seen the classics of this splatstick sub-genre (or even a mediocre example of it, like a Return of the Living Dead sequel) leaving a few seconds of tit shots as the only possible entertainment value -- but even those are fake. And how about the kung-fu kid, and that crowning "My niggers" gag with the rifle? Truly astounding.

Our young "director" receives inexplicable praise (he must have amazing oral-sex skills) and, so emboldened, gets the bright idea to produce uncredited remakes of Ilsa flicks, minus the Nazi uniforms.

Well, you know the saying: fool me once, shame on you...

Do I sound irritated out of all proportion? It's because I can't believe I wasn't steered away from this utter waste of time by critics and bloggers who should know better. I actually have less respect for anyone who says anything about Roth and talent in the same sentence, except to say that he has none. I seriously haven't seen a case of an overhyped small genre film this egregious since the equally unwatchable Clay Pigeons (or at least the first Saw.)

Shame about the lousy b.o. If it's due to pirates, pillage on, me mateys! Or maybe people just wised up. Let's hope he winds up making straight-to-DVD American Pie sequels. Thanksgiving remains his best work, by virtue of its length. That's my belated rant, and the last I have to say about Eli Roth (though I do find it funny that Mr. Wells has sat through 2 more of his movies than I have.)

And get thee to an optometrist, Jeff.

Posted by frankbooth at June 11, 2007 12:58 PM

comment #22

jeffmcm says ...

Roth has more talent than Aja, Bousman, or Nispel. As evidence: Haute Tension, Saw III, Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake.

Roth has less talent than Fresnadillo, Del Toro, or Shimizu.

Try arguing your case instead of just writing 500 words of invective.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 1:05 PM

comment #23

christian says ...

i just found out that roth does audio commentary on BLOODSUCKING FREAKS -- truly one of the most repulsive soul deadening films ever made. i can only imagine the political insights roth bring to the scene where the dentist pulls out a woman's teeth so she can give him better forced oral.

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 1:42 PM

comment #24

BurmaShave says ...

Alexandre Aja is ten times the filmmaker Eli Roth is. He may be many things, but a hack is not one of them. THE HILLS HAVE EYES was horrible, but it was also compelling and oddly beautiful in places. I could have done with the whole rape/gunpoint baby part, but imagine how long Roth would have lingered on that.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 11, 2007 2:35 PM

comment #25

jeffmcm says ...

I'll give Aja credit for knowing his cinematography and how to stage an action sequence, but if that was all that it took to make a good director, Michael Bay would have won three Oscars. I've seen two movies by him and their quality was totally dependent on the quality of the script: horrible and insulting in the case of Haute Tension, mediocre in the case of Hills Have Eyes. Plus, he brings nothing that I could call a personal sensibility or vision to his films, which is really of primary importance to me.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 2:42 PM

comment #26

christian says ...

really jeffmcm, what has roth done to be considered the next great hope of horror? don't you have to make at least one widely acknowledged genre masterpiece? i think don coscarelli only made one genre classic -- PHANTASM -- but it's worth all of roth's rather sparse canon. sure there are other directors with only one "classic" to their name but CABIN FEVER and HOSTEL are arguably not included.

you can imagine the type of ego stroking that happens to filmmakers with a hit movie under their belt -- you start pretending it's more than it is and comparing your HOSTEL sequel to ROAD WARRIOR or EMPIRE STRIKES BACK...

and roth wrote that he would love to remake ZAPPED! which doesn't imbue one with hope...

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 3:13 PM

comment #27

jeffmcm says ...

I have never said that Roth was 'the next great hope of horror' or that he has made a 'classic' (although I think the first Hostel is pretty damn close - and a better movie than Phantasm). My whole point has merely been that he's a better director than a huge number of other currently working horror filmmakers but for some reason (probably his own innate ability to self-promote) nobody assails them for being schlockmeisters as much as they do him.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 3:19 PM

comment #28

christian says ...

that's my point -- he hasn't made a film that truly seperates him from the others. PHANTASM is still in our genre collective consciousness and while HOSTEL may be loved by some fans, it just doesn't leave the same wake. PHANTASM is actually about something more than a silver ball. and it has ten times more creative vision than anything roth has done. BOY!

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 3:32 PM

comment #29

WJ says ...

I ended up watching this Sat. night and it's not such a bad movie from a technical standpoint. Roth is a decent director and with the right scripts, i.e. not written by himself, he could make some good movies.

The biggest problem I have with Hostel 2 is how pointless it all is. All this violence adding up to nothing: a cynical plot twist and a lot of blood. I don't have a problem with gore, there are "better" examples of "torture porn" and "gross-out" films than Hostel 2. Last House on the Left was much more disturbing than Hostel 2; but at least that film had some underlying theme, something to back the shock value. Hostel 2 also suffers from the same problem a lot of horror sequels do... it's the same set-up as the first film with different characters. Three friends enter the slaughterhouse and one leaves.

Aja is even worse than Roth. He had to rip off a Dean Koontz novel and a Wes Craven film to break into the US market. How fucking pathetic is that? According to IMDb, he's also remaking Piranha, which closes the book on him as a filmmaker imho.

Posted by WJ at June 11, 2007 3:42 PM

comment #30

BurmaShave says ...

BUBBA HO-TEP is Coscarelli's masterpiece.

Posted by BurmaShave at June 11, 2007 4:13 PM

comment #31

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Anyone gonna give Roth props for making two solid horror films on opposite ends of the tone spectrum? Cabin Fever was a lark in the vein of Re-Animator or Return of the Living Dead with a gleeful wink at the conventions of cinematic horror. Even if it's not really scary at all, I think his gift for humor is on great display here and he could arguably have a brighter future working in that genre.

Having said that, I thought Hostel was very effective at establishing a tone of discomfort, repulsion, and guilt. Many posters have brought this up as a negative quality. THIS IS A HORROR FILM, if the film puts you at unease IT HAS SUCCEEDED. Eli Roth wasn't afraid to confront the nasty sides of human nature and I applaud him for that. I am not putting this film in the same league as these films, but my impulsive reaction to watching Hostel was similar to viewing such films as The Vanishing, Repulsion, and some of Hitchcock's earlier talkies (Suspicion).

Yes, Hostel 2 was a bit of a letdown and his worst film (it will also hopefully be his last sequel). While Roth is not as technically gifted a director as Aja, but he's a MUCH better filmmaker. He obviously has more passion and love for movies (his, and everyone else's), writes his own original scripts, and doesn't shy away from potentially off-putting subject matter while exploring difficult themes. In other words if i want to sell some fuckin' Reeboks, I'll hire Aja for a 30 second spot. Otherwise, gimme Roth.

I guess I see Roth in a similar position to Sam Raimi around 1987. They had both made a critically-acclaimed serious horror film (Hostel, Evil Dead), an interesting, but uneven horror-comedy (Cabin Fever, Crimewave), and sequel. Obviously, ED2 was a raging success for Raimi, but also one of the highest peaks before a steady decline (only exceptions being Simple Plan and SM2). So where does that leave Roth? Hard to say, and despite having some good writers on board, I have a hard time seeing much good coming out of adapting Stephen King (again!). I dunno...it just seems way too early to count him out.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at June 11, 2007 4:33 PM

comment #32

jeffmcm says ...

Christian: if your point is that Roth 'has not made a film that separates him from the others' then I totally disagree. The makers of Saw 1-3, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes, the Hills Have Eyes remakes, etc. have _nothing_ worthwhile going on in their movies. Roth has (for me) a sense of humor and a sensibility that those guys lack. His movies aren't as polished as 28 Weeks Later or Pulse (the original) or Pan's Labyrinth, but that's because those are the high points of the horror genre in recent years.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 4:46 PM

comment #33

Ian Sinclair says ...

28 Weeks Later and Pan's Labyrinth are not better than Roth's sadistic and misogynistic pictures because they are more "polished" but because they were made by directors with more talent and taste than Roth. In fact, even mentioning Pan's Labyrinth in the same breath as a talentless, barely literate tool like Roth betrays a breathtaking lack of taste.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at June 11, 2007 4:55 PM

comment #34

jeffmcm says ...

Please tell me, Dr. Sinclair, as you might to a small child, how Roth's pictures are 'sadistic' and 'misogynistic'. Because I am unconvinced that they are.

Please.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 4:57 PM

comment #35

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"taste, taste, sadistic, misogynistic..."

Ian, if you just throw these ten-cent words instead of actually SAYING something when I'm on your couch, I would want my fucking money back.

It's amazing how many posts you've made that dump on Hostel/Roth without actually making any sort of relevant or coherent point.

The Hostel movies are ABOUT sadism and misogynism, but never mistake the subject of a movie for an approval of the behavior which is portrayed onscreen.

Now I'm finding myself suddenly curious about your thoughts on "Clockwork Orange"...

Doctor?

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at June 11, 2007 5:08 PM

comment #36

jeffmcm says ...

Indeed. Sinclair has made a great deal of noise ranting about how much he hates Roth and his films, but not a single post explaining why. I'm sure that there's a term for someone with irrational obsessions with particular people or things that only expresses itself in rage or anger and not in constructive dialogue, but I'm not a trained therapist.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 5:17 PM

comment #37

Ian Sinclair says ...

A Clockwork Orange is a brilliant picture made by a brilliant director based on a brilliant novel by a brilliant novelist.

As to Eli Roth, after glancing at the weekend's box-office totals, I don't think anyone will be talking about again him for quite some time, including me.

Posted by Ian Sinclair at June 11, 2007 5:23 PM

comment #38

jeffmcm says ...

What a shameless dodge.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 5:33 PM

comment #39

Mcflyboy says ...

There's no defending hacks like Darren Bousman or Marcus Nispel, but I think Aja is clearly talented. I enjoyed Haute Tension aside from its idiotic ending but I was surprised by how good his Hills Have Eyes remake was. Craven's original is nearly unwatchable to me now, but Aja made an intense, clever film that happened to be ulta-violent.

Aja is very much like Roth because I also think the first Hostel is far more clever than most give it credit for. The first two acts would have made it nothing more than a slightly above average horror flick but the third act is what really sold me because I honestly didn't see it coming (credit to Jay Hernandez is due, a fine actor who gave the part some weight). I feel like the seeing the sequel will just diminish my regard for the first as a great stand alone thriller but I'm sure I'll check it out eventually.

Posted by Mcflyboy at June 11, 2007 6:03 PM

comment #40

christian says ...

yes, roth is better than 90 percent of new horror directors today. but that playing field is composed of the remake debris you cited. kevin smith clearly loves comic books but he understands that doesn't translate into being able to make a comic book movie.

because i thought THANKSGIVING was so snappy and perfect, i'm wiling to give him a chance on other things but he needs to dispense with his inner frat boy.

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 6:27 PM

comment #41

christian says ...

of course, i would argue with ian that A CLOCKWORK ORANGE isn't that far removed from an artful form of torture porn. kubrick makes you identify with alex by presenting everybody else a stone rotter - much different from burgess' humanist intent. and look how the droog look has been commodified -- glorifying rapists! i'm just sayin'...

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 6:31 PM

comment #42

jeffmcm says ...

Who's glorifying rapists?

Posted by jeffmcm at June 11, 2007 6:39 PM

comment #43

christian says ...

if you dress up like a droog or as bands and fans do, it's certainly not condemning them. i'm just countering ian's post as some folk may think A CLOCKWORK ORANGE celebrates ultra-violence -- and kubrick did pull it from release in england because of copycat attacks.

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 7:03 PM

comment #44

breadlymoore says ...

"because i thought THANKSGIVING was so snappy and perfect"

Besides the fact that Roth got the voiceover wrong and all of it was too winky.

Posted by breadlymoore at June 11, 2007 9:31 PM

comment #45

christian says ...

i can see that but i loved that it looked like a terrible 1980's straight to vhs film...it just made me laugh.

Posted by christian at June 11, 2007 10:37 PM

comment #46

frankbooth says ...

I didn't argue my case? I explained exactly why I thought CF was crap: dumb script, lack of rudimetary technical skill, complete lack of control of tone, dumb digressions and other filler. Or how about: it wasn't scary, wasn't funny, looked ugly and wasn't even all that gross.

I'd say you haven't made your case. You just make a blanket statement: Roth has more talent than so-and-so.

Tell me what was good about Cabin Fever.

Posted by frankbooth at June 11, 2007 10:49 PM

comment #47

frankbooth says ...

And Christian, I don't think he's likely to dispense with his inner frat-boy, any more than Tarntino is likely to stop being a movie-geek who references other films, or Scorsese is to quit being Catholic.

Posted by frankbooth at June 11, 2007 10:53 PM

comment #48

jeffmcm says ...

Frank:
For everything you said in criticism of Cabin Fever, I could just say turn it around and say 'well I liked it'. Nothing you say is arguable in any concrete sense. I thought it was funny. I liked the digressions because they showed that Roth wasn't slavish to Robert McKee-esque three-act structure. What you see as tonal inconsistency, I see as tonal playfulness. It was technically crude but not so much that it detracted from my enjoyment, and more importantly, Roth showed that he knew where to put the camera for specific moments - showing the girl at the opening screaming 'Spring Break!' and cutting to a blank, uncaring little kid's face; the finale intercutting between a dead kid and a hoedown; and more. The kung-fu kid is hilarious. I've never seen that in a movie before. The fingering scene has a perfect timing and payoff and even a subtext.

I absolutely believe that Cabin Fever is a better movie - because it is playful and clever - than anything made by Darren Bousman, who seems to think he can justify grim scenes of gore by dressing them up with thin pseudo-philosophical moralizing; boring rehashers like Jaume Collet-Serra, Martin Weisz, Simon West, Greg McLean, or John Stockwell, who seem to be bored making their movies; or Marcus Nispel or Dave Meyers, who literally are attempting to aestheticize gore with their insistence on gorgeous cinematography and hot actresses instead of story or characterization.

There is no final answer to this. It's totally an 'it worked for me/it didn't work for you' kind of thing.

I will say that, in scenes of Hostel 2, there are strong scenes of Roth expanding his moral compass beyond the realm of mere adolescent jokery (which, granted, much of Cabin Fever and Hostel 1 consist of) and into a more interesting realm of morality tale. But since you're not going to see it, I won't bore you with the details.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 12, 2007 1:36 AM

comment #49

frankbooth says ...

That's better.

No, nothing I say is arguable in a concrete sense because, as you say, we're talking about matters that can't be settled with a "correct" answer. It's not math.

I see your points, but we just don't agree. Digressions can work in the right hands -- the shooting of Marvin in Pulp Fiction, for instance. But to me, Tarantino is working an an entirely different level.

As far as the other directors you mentioned, you'll get no argument from me. I made the mistake of giving the Saw franchise a second chance after sitting through the first one. Big mistake. I do agree with those who like Aja, with some reservations. His HHE was the best of the recent spate of remakes, despite descending into action-movie style fight scenes with the hero being thrown through walls.

But basically it sounds as if you're saying contemporary horror sucks, only this guy sucks the least.

I will give you this -- Roth, and by extension, his films, projects a distinct personality. It's just not one I'd want to spend time with. And it's entirely possible that his smirky, smug, juvenile persona has made people less likely to be responsive to whatever good qualities you see in his work.

I'd have to say The Descent is the best American-made horror film I've seen in the last few years, and Cure and Pulse the flat-out scariest and most disturbing internationally.

Posted by frankbooth at June 12, 2007 7:02 AM

comment #50

jeffmcm says ...

Modern American horror does suck; it's in a two-part rut, split between the studios' insistence on remakes and the indie trendiness for nothing but cheap gore movies. But I don't think Roth 'sucks least' because I think he sucks very little indeed. And yes, he is working on a different level (lower) from Tarantino.

I have to correct you though - The Descent is British in almost every aspect.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 12, 2007 7:10 AM

comment #51

christian says ...

i can tell you from personal experience that studios want limp sparse bland horror scripts without a shred of vision or personality. and their reward for this lack of vision is a dwindling market. they fuck up and then blame us for not wanting to see their hollow tentpoles.

but hey, at least we can look forward to the re-imagining of MY BLOODY VALENTINE...

Posted by christian at June 12, 2007 9:29 AM

comment #52

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

I know this thread is at the brink of extinction at this point, but what is so smug about Cabin Fever? I think if it has any faults, it's that it's a little too eager to please with its playfulness and obvious affection for the genre. Obviously, Hostel takes a more hardcore approach so the venom spewed against that movie is more expected/understood. But c'mon, Cabin Fever is a charming little movie. Tonally, it's the best Friday the 13th movie that nobody made in the 80s.

Just got back from watching Bug. Now you guys want to talk about a bomb in the genre. Yeooooch. Friedkin gives his actors free-reign while he swings for the fences, and absolutely whiffs on this one. I never saw the Wicker Man remake, but sight unseen - I would almost give this film the edge on unintentionally hilarious moments. As I sit here writing this I still can't fathom how absolutely and utterly this movie fails on every single dramatic level, let alone horror.

From the director of the Exorcist, indeed.

Posted by CitizenKanedforChewingGum at June 12, 2007 12:23 PM

comment #53

frankbooth says ...

Christian,

What kind of experience?

Citizen,

Don't wanna get into it again, but F13? Those were completely formulaic slashers with absolutley no personality, and I doubt that's what Roth was going for. Seems to me he wanted to make a splatter comedy like Re-Animator or ED 2. I just didn't think it worked. Maybe I was in a bad mood (nah, never!) but my viewing companion felt the same way, and yelled at me to turn the damned thing off when I tried to watch the special features.

Friedkin? Been off his game for 25 years or so.

Oh, and Jeff -- I know Marshall is a Brit, but the American setting and Lion's Gate release of Descent threw me. (Btw, did you like it?) But right you are, which makes things even worse for USA horror.

Finally saw Dagon, which was good despite bogging down a bit in the middle during the extended chase. Still, Gordon's making something of a comeback from oblivion with this, Edmund and the first half of King of the Ants. Somebody give the man a budget!

I realize that the so-called masters of horror were overrated, with very spotty output and lots of duds. Romero, Craven, Carpenter, Hooper, Argrento...they all dissapointed in the end. But they look like giants compared to most of the current crop. Where is the new Cronenberg?

And what happpend to Lucky McKee's May follow-up? Wasn't it a Suspiria sort of thing? I had hopes for the guy.

The thread is dead. Long live the thread!

Posted by frankbooth at June 12, 2007 2:28 PM

comment #54

jeffmcm says ...

The new Cronenberg is coming this fall. Oh, do you mean the new young Cronenberg? After Disturbia I have been thinking about writing a teen-version of Videodrome...

I don't think that list of directors 'all disappointed in the end'. Most of them simply fell out of fashion. But Land of the Dead, Ghosts of Mars, and Red Eye showed that those guys still have it, in my opinion.

Posted by jeffmcm at June 12, 2007 2:49 PM

comment #55