Well, the Valentine's Day horror movie marathon this year was only half a disaster, and that half was (disappointingly) the 1999 remake of the Vincent Price classic "House on Haunted Hill."
Instead of remaking the narratively complex original version, wherein the characters all turn out to be linked in unexpected ways, and human agency is responsible for all the "haunting" going on -- and in which a vat of acid figures prominently -- the makers of HoHH '99 seemed to feel that those 1950's writers had simply used storyline as a crutch because they hadn't had the advantages of the kinds of special effects that we have nowadays.
To correct the drama-heavy character-development of the past, the writers of HoHH '99 (or producers or what-have-you; everyone involved) squished in all the special effects available to them in 1999, thus realizing what they must feel was the original dream for the movie. "If they'd had CGI, they could have gotten rid of all this extraneous plot!" they must have been thinking.
Instead of human machinations leading to death and destruction, it was now the insane-asylum house itself that was getting revenge on the descendants of some other people who had died there. Instead of Vincent Price and his on-screen wife engaging in witty banter that only danced on the line between "sarcastic and sharp" and "going too far," the billionaire and his wife engage in a hate-fest that only cuts through the lack of plot thanks to the purity of its vitriol. Instead of doubles and who-done-its, we got actual ghosts. Instead of acid, we got a meaningless tank of blook that hurt no one, but was somehow meant to be creepy.
There were a few moments of good fun, but they're all tangential, and most happen in the first ten minutes. Lisa Loeb has a cameo, as does the guy who played "Spike" on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a stroke of genius in casting; Taye Diggs does a decent job at a terrible role, as does Ali Larter (Nicki/Jessica from Heroes), and Geoffrey Rush is brilliant as ever, but the inclusion of Peter Gallagher could only have been justified by an attempt at self-referential humor -- one that the movie did not make.
The movie is a failure, but many horror movies are. The difference with this one was the name-branding and the high expectations it created. I'm left now with more than the simple disdain I hold for "Gravedancers" or the strangely ambitious failings of "Unspeakable": I'm left with contempt for a movie that's probably ruined the chances of viewers going back in time to see the original, far superior, "House on Haunted Hill."
Our second feature, "The Lazarus Project," was a much more successfully done horror film. It, like HoHH '99, also features a prolonged stay at an insane asylum, but that is where the similarities end. It's in the vein of "Life of David Gale," though I know that movie doesn't read immediately as horror, and that makes "The Lazarus Project" unique in my experience: it is essentially a horror film for liberals.
The main character is basically innocent of all crimes, which is important to mention, and is convicted of assisting in three homocides in Texas, which is also important -- Texas being the state most likely to kill you. The main thrust of the movie's argument (I told you it was for liberals) is that we shouldn't get to manipulate people's lives, even if we're saving them. It's an interesting movie, even if the anti-death-penalty plot has been done better in "David Gale" and the crazy-guy-who's-not-really-crazy has been done better in a dozen other places (including a TNG episode).
At any rate, it was a fun night, started off with an episode of Criminal Minds, from season 1, which is always a good starter. As a celebratory drink, we had what you see above, which is not champagne -- it's actually Green Tea Pomegranate soda, which P.C. and I have taken to calling "fixins soda" because it tastes like all the extra ingredients on a fast-food hamburger -- and drunk from the plastic champagne glasses from my brother's wedding.
No comments:
Post a Comment