Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
November 2, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: With regards to our new horror list, what do you like about it? What grievances do you have? What omissions do you consider the most noteworthy?
Josh Spiegel: As I said in the discussion about the annual horror-movie franchise, I'm not a big horror movie fan, so the list we created is more about movies I either haven't seen or don't like simply because they disgust me. The few films on the list that I've seen and enjoy, I'm happy to have helped represent them and seen them be represented by other folks on the site. I'm sure my colleagues will point out noteworthy omissions, but as my list would be demonstrably smaller, I can't answer too honestly.
Brett Beach: I can understand the trepidation of the "old-timers" at BOP about adding an update to their most prized article. You don't want to cheapen the integrity of such a piece with an unnecessary part two. I think eight years is a fair amount of time to wait and this was borne out by the quality and depth of the choices that wound up in the top 25, as well as the fact that the #1 film (and a few others) were from just a few months after the cut-off of the original poll. They have had enough time pass to see the initial positive reception hold up to history.
Some may quibble over the definition of horror (i.e. none) that was used in allowing us to make our choices, but due to that freedom, I am not really bummed about the five on my list that didn't make it. To briefly address both those points: I put Final Destination 2 at #3 in my personal top 10, but also chose it as one of my favorite American comedies of the last 10 years (along with Wet Hot American Summer) in my self-penned list of the best films of the '00s. It's all relative.
If our list leads people to consider films they normally wouldn't or makes them aware of films of which they didn't have prior knowledge, then it's a job well done.
Max Braden: Movies on the list that I thought were great:
1408 - Because for an excruciatingly long time, nothing jumps out when you expect it to. That's great suspense building.
Sweeney Todd - Because the musical performances are superior to the Broadway recordings. (But for horror? It's pretty tame, on par with a regular episode of a prime time crime procedural.)
Zombieland - Because of Bill Murray, because of the character Tallahassee, because of the rules and that clown, but most of all because of Emma Stone.
Shaun of the Dead - Because amid all the absurdly funny horror, there's a moment of genuine sincerity in facing the zombie version of someone you love that most other horror movies try to deliver with sweeping music but are obviously trying to jerk tears.
The one movie on the list I most disagree with:
Dawn of the Dead - Because it's over-the-top gore for the sake of it shock value. Zombie baby? Seriously? That ruined everything positive about the movie.
Some movies that didn't make it on the list but deserve checking out:
I can't remember if I've seen 28 Days Later, but the only Later movie that comes to mind is 28 Weeks Later, and for my money that's the film that deserves to be number one on the list. 28 Weeks Later is absolutely *relentless* and *uncompromising* and those descriptors can't be stressed enough. Also recommended: Carriers, Severance, and two scenes in The Village that genuinely tap into the fear of monsters in the woods.
Tom Houseman: As BOP's resident Hollywood-hater, I was extremely pleased at the independent and foreign films represented on the list. Seeing great films that haven't had very much exposure, like Inland Empire, Night Watch and The Orphanage, made me really happy, because it's proof that some people, at least, appreciate great cinema, and don't feel the need to laud the garbage produced by the major studios.
Matthew Huntley: All in all, I think the list is very solid. I hadn't even thought about Slither or Coraline, but I was pleased to see they made the cut (and the "Why it's on the list" explanation for Coraline is quite sensible - good job!). A couple titles I would have added included 28 Weeks Later, which I felt maintained the same tension and urgency as its predecessor, and the original Hostel. As hard as Eli Roth's torture pic was hard to watch, it was often wrist-clenching and exciting, not to mention humorous.
Two movies I would have removed are The Ring and 1408. In my opinion, The Ring was just plain cheesy and made absolutely no sense (I was always baffled by this movie's inexplicably sturdy legs at the box-office back in 2002). And 1408, unfortunately, was more exciting to look than it was to think about or absorb. The emotional hook didn't pay off for me, either. Both movies also suffered from the PG-13 syndrome and were limited on a gore/violence/thematic material level. A hard R probably would have given the filmmakers more freedom to be effective and suggestive with their material. As is, they seem to play it safe.
Kim Hollis: I'll echo the folks who have said 28 Weeks Later should be added, as well as noting that I think The Crazies is a worthy choice, too. It might just be a little too new for most people to have seen it. I also had voted for My Name Is Bruce, and it feels super wrong to me that there is no Bruce Campbell film on the list.
Shalimar Sahota: I'm with Tom. Half the films I voted for were foreign films, and although not all of mine made it, I'm happy to still see some in there.
David Mumpower: When the voting results were tabulated, I felt significant surprise when I realized that I had seen 24 out of the 25 selections. #25, David Lynch's Inland Empire, is the only one I have yet to see and given that it's available to Watch Instantly on Netflix, I'll be correcting that in a few days.
Overall, I thought it was a strong list. I'm hyper-critical as a rule, so I knew going in that I would disagree with some of the selections. In particular, I think that Identity and Sweeney Todd are pretty lousy films. I also wasn't impressed by Let the Right One In or Slither and Cloverfield is a premise I enjoy more in theory than in execution. That's five titles out of 25 (20%) that didn't do much for me.
I thought that the rest of selections were a strong compilation featuring several pleasant surprises such as The Skeleton Key, Night Watch, and 1408 (sorry, Mr. Huntley). Where I feel that the list proves itself, however, is in the top five as all of those entries that should stand the test of time not just as horror films but as great movies. Max's dissatisfaction with the zombie baby notwithstanding, Dawn of the Dead is exactly the sort of film I'd want to make. I re-watched it on Sunday and its overriding quality from start to finish impressed me anew. I also feel that we got #1 right in the original horror list, and we did again here. That's an imperative when we do these master compilations.
With regards to other comments in the thread, I've seen Brett praise Final Destination 2 previously and my thought is the same each time he does. I primarily remember that movie as being one giant Apple ad straight down to the guy unpacking his shiny new MacBook right before dying horribly. I always found that to be a strange product tie-in. "Buy a Mac and die!" I think Steve Jobs is just testing user loyalty in instances such as this. I also considered 28 Weeks Later, which has an opening sequence only marginally behind Dawn of the Dead's introductory scene, the one I consider to be the best of the 2000s to date. My problem with the film is that it loses focus midway through. I could make an argument for it being superior to our other zombie selection, Land of the Dead, but I understand why people chose the genre creator over an inferior but still solid sequel.
More zombies. We love them.
Kim Hollis: There's been significant interest among the staff in the new AMC series The Walking Dead. For those of you that watched, what were your impressions of the debut episode?
Josh Spiegel: As I've mentioned elsewhere in this week's MMBQ, I do not like horror movies. I've always been very squeamish, and I also find that most modern horror films are just lifeless retreads of everything inventive in the genre. So why would I even be interested in The Walking Dead? First, simply, it's on AMC, so I'm giving anything from the network of Mad Men a chance. Second, the showrunner is Frank Darabont, and even if I'm not a huge fan of The Mist, Darabont wrote and directed The Shawshank Redemption, so he has a lifetime pass from me. This is all a preamble to me saying I loved the pilot, because how could you not? While it was certainly quite gory, I never felt it was gratuitous; the lead actor, Andrew Lincoln, was compelling; the filmmaking was excellent. I'm close to saying that the remaining five episodes in this short first season could suck, but I'd be cool with it because the pilot was so great.
Max Braden: It's Justified meets Dawn of the Dead! I think I'm already 10% more desensitized to violence because all the headshots. But I'll stick with the series for a while because like any post-apocalyptic movie, it teases the questions: What would you do? Where would you go? How would you survive? But then again, Lennie James was also in the post-apocalyptic series Jericho, and I gave up on that one quick.
Tom Houseman: I don't care about this show, so I'm gonna hijack this topic, and ask something else instead:
What were you for Halloween? I was The Bear Jew, and was very pleased with my costume, even though most people didn't recognize who I was without being told... uncultured Philistines.
Matthew Huntley: A fantastic debut episode. For me, one of the most refreshing aspects of the series (so far, anyway) is the characters are written as smart and cautious (who wouldn't be during a zombie apocalypse?), so it's clear Frank Darabont is taking the premise seriously. However, I do think the sheriff should have immediately shot the dead soldier in the tank (he waited too long), but the payoff made up for it.
Some of the writing - like the dead flowers, or the picture of the family hanging from the sheriff's sun blocker, etc.) - does a good job of filling in information without being blatant. And for an AMC series, the special effects are quite good (how about that half-body zombie crawling its way across the lawn?). Some good emotional moments as well that aren't overly predictable (will the father eventually shoot his wife?). Bring on the next episode!
Tom Houseman: Thanks for making me look stupid, Matt.
Kim Hollis: The Walking Dead is one of the few shows I was really anticipating. Unlike a lot of BOPers, I haven't read the source material, but I did think that the commercials looked fantastic.
Yet, I was pretty much bored. While I understand that there is a need to establish the "rules" of this universe, I felt like the premiere episode lingered too long on too many things. Edit that sucker and you could have had a tight, suspenseful debut that still got all of that out of the way. There were also a couple of things that annoyed me - the first scene with the little girl (there's no way he would have been surprised that she was a zombie - it's not like she was the first one he had actually ever seen) and the need for them to show him pulling the picture of his family out of his visor just in case we're so stupid that we can't figure out that was them in the previous scene.
And finally, I was looking for more originality. Yes, I realize that I watched Zombieland, 28 Days Later and Dawn of the Dead this weekend, giving The Walking Dead some high standards to live up to. Even so, I don't think I saw anything here that I've never seen before. Ho hum. I'll watch another episode, but if it doesn't grab me, I'm not going to keep wasting my time on it.
Tony Kollath: Thumbs up for me...aside from the decision to bring the horse along (?!?!?). It laid a lot of groundwork, and I know that a lot of viewers had issue with the lack of excitement, but all of Darabont's stuff is very deliberately paced. I appreciated that the filmmakers didn't feel the need to go into the whys and hows of the apocalypse.
One touch that was sort of interesting was that the zombies seemed to have some level of recollection of their prior lives. The little girl stopping to pick up the stuffed animal (whether or not it was originally hers)....the zombie wife wandering up the stairs of the house....the Walking Dead seem to be able to recall some basic stuff from when they were alive.
Max Braden: Kim brings up something that bothered me that contradicts what Matthew said. For a cop, he wasn't very safe or prepared. He assumed the little girl was alive, he didn't check the back of the farmhouse truck for danger, he didn't scrounge the town for food/water/clothes/resources (unless I wasn't watching during that scene), he didn't leave any written signs of that he was alive and headed somewhere, he took off in a heavyweight vehicle without any concern for fuel, he got himself trapped by a bunch of slow walkers, and he didn't shoot the soldier on sight. (Though this makes me wonder about the state of the bodies laying outside the hospital). That kind of absentmindedness is human and will get the character into situations that will make for good TV, but it can get pretty annoying. When the haunted house says "Get out!" you get out, you don't go into the basement.
David Mumpower: With regards to Kim and Max's criticisms, we should keep in mind that he had been drugged out of his mind for an indefinite period during his hospital stay. His decision making would be impacted somewhat by his muddled focus. Of course, if that's the explanation, he should also go through a period of withdrawal, which may or may not be taken into account in a later episode. When the pilot fractures time, this is always a possibility. Of course, I'll say the same thing now that I did when I watched The Event. The pilot just didn't grab me enough.
To be fair, I probably did the show the same disservice that Kim did. In re-watching Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later over the weekend, I set the bar high for zombie entertainment. The Walking Dead can still be a good show without matching the lofty heights of those two features. While I admire AMC's demonstration of confidence in the television series by slotting it after them, all this did was remind me of how deadly dull this film is, especially compared to the dexterous pacing of Zach Snyder and Danny Boyle's works.
The fallout from turning a lot of the pilot into a one-man play is that I spent a significant period of time trying to remember how I knew the actor rather than being drawn into his post-apocalyptic experience. Presumably, this happened because he was over-acting a lot and it was bugging me. Eventually, I came to realize that he's the poster board guy from Love Actually. If the show had engaged me more, this line of thinking would have been discarded immediately. Similarly, a BOP staff member is an extra in the tank scene overhead shot and during the time when I should have felt creeping tension and claustrophobia, I was so nonplussed by the events on screen that I was expending more effort determining which zombie he was.
Of course, there were some fine moments during the pilot. I liked the sense of dread created by the chained door. The hand-painted sign not to open it was a deft touch. I also enjoyed the voice on the radio, which hints at a key plot point from the comic book series (that I've read but didn't enjoy much). And I thought that the "save one bullet" moment when he was under the tank was the best part of the pilot. Unfortunately, that's only three strong moments in about 80 minutes of video. I need a higher ratio to hold my attention. I plan to watch the six episode run, but if the second episode doesn't improve by a lot, I'll probably watch them sequentially in one sitting in mid-December rather than on a weekly basis.