This list was inspired by a 30 second stopover on Rotten Tomatoes prior to a DVD shop visit. A bit ‘over’ bad movies I decided to take some cues from proper critics and look up a few consensus gems. I put in a search with the following parameters:
- – Film must be released in this millennium.
- – Film must have 10 reviews/ratings or more.
- – Film must have a minimum approval rating of 80% or greater.
And you know what? I disagree with so many of these it isn’t funny.
It is my previously stated opinion that most experienced critics haven’t had to deal with the horror genre to any great extent until the Saw / Hostel arrival a few years ago that announced horror as a mainstream genre more popular than ever.
No longer a dirty little secret niche in cinema that catered to sweaty grubby T shirt wearing losers, films that were previously released direct to VHS were opening in cinemas – later as wide releases. Now it seems hardly a week goes by without a new horror movie opening, this is bad news to professional reviewers.
Let’s think about this logically, if critics liked horror there would have been more horror films reviewed in the 90s. But it’s fair to say that critics didn’t look for it because they didn’t care for it. Leave it to the cellar dwelling slobs and creepy kids covered in cheeto dust.
I can only imagine being forced to watch and review every rom-com that was released each year. I hate rom-coms, therefore 99% of my reviews would be scathing and full of vitriol. So how does your regular ‘real’ critic react to having to check out Amputee Slaughter 16, Ghost Munchers: Redemption and the 76 other variants each year?
He/She can’t bag all of them can they? No they can’t. Most critics are left with no option but to review these films – you can’t just ignore them and hope they go away – so they look for reasons to praise a select few – say 25% released.
Two courses of action spring to mind:
1/ Support films that remind you of other genres that you like.
2/ Guess what you think might be good.
The following list is all from the Top 20 odd rated films in the last decade. My ratings system says that anything I rate as a 7 or greater is in my eyes ‘worthwhile’, anything 6 to 6.5 didn’t do much for me, but I can acknowledge it may be someone’s cup of tea (this is my cop out zone).
Anything sub 6 sucks. Speaking of suck, here’s;
10 Totally Over-Rated horror flicks of the Dubbos.
(Click on the title for the full OGR reviews.)
Plot Summary ‘tweet’ style: A disgruntled HS girl & her pa abduct a boy & host their own private dance – with torture. Violent flick with nods to many others from the genre.
They said: 97% RT approval
OGR said: 5.5 / 10. This is no gem. It is unfunny, unscary and uninteresting. In fact it has nothing that hasn’t been already done and redone in the last few years. And done better.
Why the universal acclaim? (Option 2) “Oh how cute. An Australian made a torture porn movie just like the Americans. And it’s violent too. Well not my cup of tea but well done, here’s an encouragement award.”
Plot Summary ‘tweet’ style: A woman losing her sight investigates the death of her sister by herself, only to find that she cannot trust anything any more.
They said: 94% RT approval
OGR said: 5.5 / 10. Julia’s Eyes us just another decidedly average horror film, just one that happens to be in another language.
Why the universal acclaim? (Option 1) “Wow a horror film with Europeans. Oh it must be smart. And a middle aged cast too? No pretty teens here to spoil things. Well I guess I’ll just ignore the dozens of logical inconsistencies, close my eyes and bask in a language I don’t understand.”
Plot Summary ‘tweet’ style: Military waste creates a giant genetic creature in a city river. A family is embroiled in a search when it takes a young girl.
They said: 92% RT approval
OGR said: 7 / 10. As a monster movie it was only OK, but with all the other elements thrown in it grew muddled and became unfocused, leading me to wonder exactly what audience the filmmakers were targeting.
Why the universal acclaim? (Option 1) “Gee those Koreans make a lot of movies don’t they? Most of them are pretty good too. What’s this one? A monster movie. Welllll… Oh with (clumsy) social commentary and political allegory? You had me at subtitles but that puts this over the top.”
Plot Summary ‘tweet’ style: A bunch of good looking kids visit a remote cabin, only to find that unknown terrors lurk within. Meanwhile others look on from afar with interest.
They said: 90% RT approval
OGR said: 2 / 10. In lieu of genuine cleverness we have twist after twist, none of which make a lick of sense. It’s like the South Park manatees wrote this. Do you know what happens when you twist something too many times? It becomes a spiral, in this case a downward spiral.
Why the universal acclaim? (Option 1 & 2) “Thank you Joss Whedon, for saying that you are shaking up the horror genre with this tongue in cheek masterpiece (that I haven’t watched). The fact that this film makes zero sense and exploits all the very same clichés it purports to send up is irrelevant to me.”
Plot Summary ‘tweet’ style: A young couple on holiday run afoul of a small gang of teens, leading to a terrifying series of events that escalate out of control.
They said: 83% RT approval
OGR said: 3 / 10. Look if this is what you call horror then good luck to you, but an absence of genuine cinema scares and a lack of creativity makes this a depressing and uninspired exercise, not a scary one. I’d think the same even if it was monsters or alien creatures hunting someone – but the fact that it is 12 year olds running around with pocket knives stabbing and lighting people on fire doesn’t make Eden Lake scary – just sad.
Why the universal acclaim? (Option 2) “Imagine if this happened. Well that wouldn’t be nice at all would it? I will choose to ignore the awful implementation of ideas and lack of creativity, instead choosing to give credit that the concept itself is troubling.”
Plot Summary ‘tweet’ style: A young woman from a religious family battles inner voices and influences that alter her behaviour and mental state. ‘Based on true events’.
They said: 88% RT approval
OGR said: 6 / 10. Sometimes Hollywood add the sparkles, glam and distractions for a reason, the unpolished product is pointless.
Why the universal acclaim? (Option 1) “This is how exorcism horror films should be. With no demons, voice, even signs of possession. That way there is no violence or unease. In fact, let’s not even have the exorcism, oh they simply mention it at the end. That’s pleasant. Why can’t all horror movie be this pleasant and unscary?”
Plot Summary ‘tweet’ style: A mentally imbalanced couple kidnap a CEO of a large company, accusing him of being a leader of an alien force that they feel will invade in less than a week.
They said: 87% RT approval
OGR said: 4.5 / 10. Most of all I wish I had my two hours back, might have saved me thinking “Gee I hate this” 117 times. Atrocious. If this is ‘All-Time’ good then I am ‘All-Time’ off the mark.
Why the universal acclaim? (Option 1) “Oh those wacky Koreans are back with their ludicrous hijinks that apparently show us the truth about society. I couldn’t possibly understand any of this even with the subtitles, let’s just give it a tick and move on.”
Plot Summary ‘tweet’ style: A babysitter takes a job at a remote house, only to find that the building houses more than she could ever have imagined.
They said: 86% RT approval
OGR said: 5.5 / 10. Lately filmmakers are basing entire films around a simple question: “What situation would you least like to find yourself in?” Then they made a film about being in exactly that unfortunate circumstance, only they forgot (or didn’t bother) to make it either entertaining or memorable.
Why the universal acclaim? (Option 1) “70s horror was where it was at. Remember The Exorcist, The Omen… and nothing else I guess. But if you make a really slow movie about the 70s then you’re on to something, even if it isn’t a bit interesting.”
Plot Summary ‘tweet’ style: Two rednecks attempt to interact with visiting college students, only their good intentions and subsequent actions all seem to create unfortunate results.
They said: 85% RT approval
OGR said: 5.5 / 10. If you ignore the series of coincidences and instead think ‘gee that’s unfortunate’ at appropriate times you might enjoy this. I sorta did, but I won’t be watching it again. A light horror comedy, and by that I mean it is both light on for horror and comedy.
Why the universal acclaim? (Option 2) “Well at least it isn’t all sex, guts and oggly-booglies. It’s just bland enough that kids will extract nothing negative from it. That’s comforting.”
Plot Summary ‘tweet’ style: A well to do businessman leads a second life when he finds a feral woman near his home and decides to keep her for himself.
They said: 75% RT approval
OGR said: 3 / 10. I am not ‘a woman hater, I am proudly ‘The Woman’ hater. I hated a lot of films from 2011, here was the first I absolutely reviled from start to finish. Critics need to redefine what horror is for them, for me it would be watching this black hole of worthlessness again.
Why the universal acclaim? (Option 2) “Oh this is disgusting, vile stuff. What is he doing to that poor woman? Wait, what is she doing to him? I hate this movie and will never watch it again, but if I bag this reprehensible piece of amateurish nonsense I will lose all street cred with the kids. As a 67 year old wealthy white man we can’t have that can we?”
In Conclusion
My ‘go-to’ comment with critics is to ask if they back up their positive reviews with actions. Specifically would they rewatch this film again? After all if they gave it a **** review then surely they feel it is worth the time.
Roger Ebert is intelligent, respected and consistent, but the man is 70 this year. 70. Do you really think that any of the directors responsible for the films listed above were thinking ‘what will my 70 year old viewers think?’
When I am forced to watch something like Twilight, Bridesmaids and Crazy, Stupid Love I at least have the courtesy to point out I am doing so under protest and wouldn’t ordinarily opt to sit through something with that content.
I feel it is misleading for someone of Roger Ebert’s vintage to not do the same. There should be no more shame in saying ‘I don’t watch horror’ than there should be by saying you do. It’s merely a preference. But by forcing people who genuinely dislike the genre to continually review such films it puts their preferences and biases to the test, leading to them reaching to extol something. Anything.
The ten films above are Exhibits A through J.
Consider finally a female bikini contest with two judging panels, one a group of proudly gay people there against their will, and the other hetero guys who paid for the chance to be front row.
Do you really think that their choices would be fair and balanced? Do you think the results would be the same? Do you think it is fair to all judges?
Making critics watch everything lead to a world where The Woman and The Cabin in the Woods will go down as genre classics.
I don’t want to live in that world.
OGR
