Sep 05, 2015
Can you, honestly, name a creative and financially successful, original, as in not a sequel, horror movie from the 90s prior to this film's release? I can wait. I've got all the time in the world. I'm not meaning to suggest that there weren't any quality horror films in the 90s, because I'm sure there were, but the 90s for horror films, themselves, were not a particularly kind decade. This decade was still stuck in sequel-itis, where people relied on the monsters established in the 80s to, hopefully, tell a horror story. The Jasons, the Michael Myers, the Freddies, the Pinheads, among others. It was a decade that struggled mightily to find its own identity to separate itself from the 80s. And, even with the Scream franchise revitalizing a genre that hard, largely, been dead during this decade. It's not like I Know What You Did Last Summer or Urban Legends really set the world on fire coming on the aftermath of Scream's release. So, again, Scream definitely did revitalize the genre, with its subversiveness and self-referential nature that parodied horror cliches, but this movie hasn't aged that well at all. I've already seen Scream before, long time ago, probably on VHS actually, but it wasn't something that I watched multiple times throughout my childhood like the original Nightmare on Elm Street. I was really looking forward to watching this, honestly, to see if it had held up as well as Nightmare. While I do think that this film has some clever moments of subversion, I just think that it flaunts its knowledge about horror cliches much too proudly. To the point that it's detrimental to some of the proceedings. And this is from someone that absolutely loved Cabin in the Woods. Here's the difference though, horror films do not exist in Cabin's universe. So there's no obvious references to various horror cliches in order to subvert them. While Cabin does subvert horror tropes, it does it in an subtler fashion than Scream where they explicitly point out than in regular horror films this will happen, so then X, Y and Z can happen. Stuff like that, you know. And I know that using subtle and Cabin in the Woods in the same sentence might be silly to some, but they don't openly reference that they're a horror movie like Scream does. And I think that's the problem with Scream, in the long run. It wears its cleverness too much on its sleeves and it just ends up feeling self-indulgent and show off-y in parts. Don't get me wrong, though, I did enjoy this movie. It's a fun little slasher film and it's not like the film doesn't make its point about horror movies and its cliches in a smart fashion, it's just that it does so in fashion that might be too meta for some. People that hated Scream would very likely hate Cabin the Woods as well, I can certainly see the similarities between the two. But I still had quite a bit of fun watching this movie, even if it doesn't hold up as well. This is the kind of film that's probably more fun to watch with a group of friends. It's just that type of film. I might've enjoyed it more if I had had a group of friends with me. It's just a fun little movie, I think it captures that charm that some 80s horror films had, where you have fun watching them even if they're not good. Though, in this case, the film has that charm and it's also a good horror movie. With that said, and I may be wrong about this, but it seems like this movie was considerably less violent and bloody than Nightmare on Elm Street. I mean the first two deaths themselves, overall, are probably gorier than just about anything on Nightmare, but, as a whole, I still think this movie is less bloody than Nightmare. Not that that's a bad thing in and of itself. Another thing is the fact that the Ghostface killer itself isn't presented to be nearly as terrifying as Fred Krueger is in Nightmare. And Ghostface is, theoretically, more realistic than Krueger. Granted, I think the film concentrating so much on subverting the tropes and the mystery of who's the killer, that there wasn't much time to actually make this killer even remotely scary. I think it's also the fact that, after this film, everyone pretty much dressed up as Ghostface at one point or another, so that kind of takes some seriousness away from the character. It is what it is, but Ghostface isn't nearly that effective because everything revolves around the identity of the person behind Ghostface and not Ghostface him/herself. It is what it is. But I digress, the years haven't been as kind to this movie as one would hope, but it still offers a clever, if a bit too meta for its own good, subversion of horror cliches and tropes and it is also a pretty good little slasher on top of that as well. Good horror movie, but it's not what I would consider a classic.
Verified