|
 |
|
|
| Friday, April 15, 2005 |
Oh the horror?
I long ago came to terms with the fact that not all movies are created equal, and I'm not talking about talent or budget or even the marquee status of the actors. Rather, I speak of intention. Some films were made to be Oscar winners. Others were purposely crafted to cash in at the box office, while still others were made to be... you know, good. Each film should be judged on the merits of its category, I suppose.
 All of which is why I won't call "The Amityville Horror" a bad movie. There are plenty of other critics out there willing to take their swipes with the critical ax. The Associated Press' David Germain and Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek are particularly brutal.
This remake of a fairly mediocre 1979 horror film is clearly designed to be a box office draw, and in the pantheon of horror flicks this one is designed to scare your girlfriend into your lap. On the first count, this film will probably be a success -- with an estimated $18 million budget, it will probably turn a profit in theaters, and will certainly turn one on DVD.
On the second count, yes it'll probably succeed too. It has to, given the copious use of horror flick cliche. Ghastly figures showing up just around the darkened corner accompanied by sharp bang noise, for example, are the most common tool. It's not exactly McG, but the MTV-influenced editing helps out in jolting the audience. That's not surprising, given the director's roots in commercials and music videos.
For the average movie-going couple, this is probably enough. For the horror aficionados, the poor dialogue, middling acting and plodding plot points (just kill the dog already, you've telegraphed it on a Times Square billboard) will surely offend. It can't, however, be as offensive as other excuses for a horror film that have found their way to the silver screen in recent years. In the end, for both sets of audiences, it'll be forgotten in a month (probably less).
And in the end, is it worth damning a film whose worst crime is that it's merely forgettable, not nearly as good as any other horror remake we've been suckered into over the past couple years but not nearly as bad as a Jennifer Love Hewitt slasher vehicle?
Yes, if you're asking the film to be more than it's trying to be. Sure, we'd all be better off if Hollywood could get back to making good films first, even good blockbusters. But ask yourselves honestly. How much revisionist history have we been spoon fed to believe Hollywood was ever in the business of making good films rather than profitable ones? The art is tied up in the talent of those involved, and is something of a happy accident in any event. To fight the battle for a utopian film industry where art is revered above glitz, glamour, and whatever gets your $18 million dollars back on opening weekend is hardly worth the time.
It's certainly not worth the Pavlovian froth of the critics who constantly lambaste these films simply because their publication requires them to see them.
If you're looking to scare your date into your lap, then go see this film and whichever one will inevitable replace it in a few weeks. For the rest of us, forget about. Whether you see it or not, you'll forget about it anyways. So don't go see it, save yourself some money, and send it to me and all the other critics so offended by "The Amityville Horror" (including the original).
It just might take the edge off our candor.
|
|
|
|
