Book Review: Horror Films of 2000-2009

 

 

Back in the mid-90s, John Kenneth Muir staked out ground as a film critic willing to take horror cinema more seriously than most. Buoyed by the success of his early books about iconic directors like Wes Craven, John Carpenter, and Tobe Hooper, he launched a series of mammoth studies of American horror films organized by decade. The nearly 700-page Horror Films of the 1970s came out in 2002, followed by the 800+ page Horror Films of the 1980s in 2007, and the comparatively slim Horror Films of the 1990s in 2011. Now he ventures into a new century with Horror Films of 2000-2009, a 900-page exploration of what Muir characterizes as the triumphant return of the great American horror film. “Bad times make for good horror films,” he declares, and the cultural turmoil of post-9/11 America helped filmmakers—and critics and scholars—rediscover the genre’s “voice and purpose.”

 

Some will quibble, of course. Serious horror cinema scholarship, which began in the 70s, has enshrined that decade as the Golden Age of Cinematic Horror. (It’s no accident that Muir started his series there.) Most would agree that horror films of the 80s are worthy of the Silver or at least the Bronze. Horror Films of the 90s represent an Iron Age, at best. Which leaves… what? Rust? Some Old Guard horror fans—especially those who grew up in the 70s and 80s—have made that claim.

 

In fairness to the nay-sayers, many of the most popular horror films of the early 2000s were throwbacks to the 70s and 80s. Remakes of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, DAWN OF THE DEAD, THE HILLS HAVE EYES, and HALLOWEEN suggested a dearth of imagination in Hollywood, and high expectations killed the initial critical response to the new films. At the same time, the remake phenomenon (which Muir defines broadly—including sequels, prequels, reboots, and bold “re-imaginations”) suggested something significant about the culture: History repeats itself. The idea that we could be trapped in some kind of creative time loop is scary... but maybe not an inspiring recipe for a new Golden Age. As a result, it was incumbent upon a new generation of filmmakers to make the old stories new again, which they did with debatable results. Muir seems to be more enthusiastic than most, giving 4-star reviews to roughly 20% of the current crop of titles, including many of the high-profile "remakes."

 

Although he has written multiple books about the Golden Age of Horror, the author tries very hard to distinguish himself from the Old Guard, avoiding knee-jerk reactions to popular trends within the fan community while remaining laser-focused on how each individual film reflects (or fails to reflect) larger cultural / historical trends. “All horror films are political,” he insists. That might be taking his zeitgeist theory a bit too far (unless perhaps his definition of "politics" is as broad as his definition of "remake"), but the approach provides a consistently interesting lens through which to view the genre and the individual films. Muir offers undeniably compelling takes on zombie films as libertarian metaphors, found footage vs. Final Girls, and torture porn as morality play. With the advantage of hindsight, his latest book also offers critical reevaluations of films that he says have been unfairly maligned or overlooked.

 

True to form, the author offers considerable insights on the films of John Carpenter (a 6-page write-up on GHOSTS OF MARS!), Tobe Hooper (who else has spent so much time contemplating CROCODILE and THE TOOLBOX MURDERS?), and George Romero (4 stars for SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD? Damn straight!). He is also an enthusiastic but judicious viewer of the work of next-gen Masters like M. Night Shyamalan, Rob Zombie, Eli Roth, and Alexandre Aja. I’m not sold on Rob Zombie’s HALLOWEEN as a 4-star movie, but it’s impossible to dismiss the perspective of an intelligent critic who has taken the time to watch and carefully consider more than 300 contemporary horror films en masse. On the whole, his reassessment of this contentious decade of horror cinema is fun, informative, and challenging.

 

In the later part of this book, Muir puts the past behind him and highlights some truly brilliant films that have been overlooked by mainstream viewers—including LAKE MUNGO and PONTYPOOL, which he includes in his Top Ten list for the entire decade. Two subsequent reviews in the 2009 chapter suggest, to my mind, an important arena of focus for Horror Films of the 2010s. Muir all but dismisses the sleeper hit PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, arguing that it “leaves precisely nothing to the imagination” and fails to “engage and deal with the questions we face in real life.” In contrast, he hails the forgotten indie film DAWNING, an existential drama that accomplishes “a lot with very little.” 

 

Going forward, I imagine he’ll highlight more hidden indie gems produced during a decade when horror cinema slipped back into the shadows (because Obama was president?) and I will look for Muir’s next book to remind me of those neglected titles, the way Horror Films of 2000-2009 has reminded me of how much I love GINGER SNAPS, SESSION 9, THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES, DEAD END, DARK WATER,  TEETH, THE FOURTH KIND, THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL… But now it’s time to stop writing and start re-watching. For me, the book has done its job.

 

Horror Films of 2000-2009 is available from www.McFarlandBooks.com.