Connect with us

Editorials

A Retrospective of 1997: It Was a Good Year for Horror!

Published

on

1997 Horror Movies

It has been suggested in the comments here at Bloody Disgusting that the 90s were a pretty terrible decade for horror movies. Many of you (whether it be the majority of horror fans in the world or just a vocal minority on this site) think that 1997 is a low point for the genre. I’m not sure where this misconception with the 90s came from, because the 90s were actually pretty fantastic. Our own Daniel Baldwin has gone to great lengths to defend this unjustly maligned decade with an ongoing series about 90s horror in his “Exhumed & Exonerated Series,” but I wanted to put the spotlight on 1997 specifically, because it is hands down one of my favorite years for horror.

Maybe it’s because I was born in 1989, so I was 8 for the majority of 1997. I was young, impressionable and naive. Or maybe it’s just that 1997 was actually host to several fantastic horror films that are still brought up in conversations and debates today. One thing to keep in mind is that even though Scream was released on December 20, 1996, it stayed in the Top 10 through mid-February, making 1997 get off to a strong start for horror.

Let’s start at the beginning, shall we? The first big weekend of the year was January 10th, which saw the release of The Relic, the Peter Hyams-directed adaptation of the Douglas Preston/Lincoln Child novel. While not a box office hit, it open at the number one spot at the box office its opening weekend with just $9 million (it would go on to gross $33.9 million domestically). As a monster movie, The Relic hits all the right notes, and has a nice balance of CGI and practical effects. It’s actually surprising that the film isn’t mentioned more in modern conversations, but maybe it’s due to a lack of star power. It’s not like Penelope Ann Miller and Tom Sizemore are household names, but it’s still a lamentable fact.

1997 wouldn’t see another horror movie hit the big screen until three months later, when Anaconda was released on April 11th. It was so successful, in fact, that it earned the number one spot at the box office for two weekends in a row. Now, when it comes to creature features, you can’t do much better than Anaconda. Sure, it’s cheesy. It’s about several giant killer snakes! Cheesy as it is, it’s got some fantastic kills, nifty special effects (save for some spotty CGI in places) and great cinematography. It also features Jennifer Lopez in one of her early film roles, before she became Jenny Fromdabloc. She’s great in the film. Sue me. Anaconda gets a bad rap but it is one of the better (and more fun) mainstream killer animal movies in existence. Hell, Roger Ebert even gave it three and a half stars!

Horror had another dry spell for a few months, but it came back swinging in August with the one-two punch of Event Horizon on the 15th and Guillermo Del Toro’s Mimic just one week later on the 22nd. Neither film fared very well at the box office, earning $26 million and $25 million respectively.Event Horizon is one of those movies that didn’t make much of an impression upon its initial release but has slowly gained a sizable cult following over the years. Sure, some people still don’t like it, but it is arguably Paul W.S. Anderson’s best film to date (not that there’s much competition there). With Mimic, I’m beginning to see why I love 1997 so much. My affinity for creature features is clearly no coincidence, as 1997 was filled with them. How a movie about giant cockroaches was able to nab a cast that included the likes of Mira Sorvino (then fresh off her Academy Award win for Mighty Aphrodite and her amazing turn as Romy White in Romy and Michele’s High School Reunion, aka one of the best movies of all time), Josh Brolin and Jeremy Northam is a question I’ll never be able to answer, but suffice it to say that Mimic boasts an impressive pedigree both in front of and behind the camera

The only major release in September was the Wes Craven-produced Wishmaster, which Daniel has already covered, so I won’t delve too deeply into the film, but it’s not exactly a good go-to for why 1997 was a good year for horror. The film opened at number 3 with $6 million, behind Frank Oz’s In & Out (a funny movie but definitely a product of its time) and David Fincher’s The Game. While it may not be remembered as a horror classic, it did feature several horror legends together on the big screen (no doubt thanks to the connections of producer Wes Craven and director Robert Kurtzman) and have a certain kind of terrible charm about itself.

October was surprisingly sparse for horror, but that paved the way for I Know What You Did Last Summer to make a killing at the box office when it opened on October 17th.  Not only did open in the number one spot with $15 million, it stayed there for three more weeks (the rest of October). Of course it probably helped that the marketing for the film had “From the Writer of Scream” plastered all over it, but the fact that it was the sole horror offering in October of that year didn’t hurt it. I’ve got a soft spot for the film, as many of you may know. It’s one of my favorite horror movies to come out of the 90s, but many people who weren’t children during that time seem to have a special kind of loathing for it. Say what you want about this Scream knockoff (a knockoff in the same way that Friday the 13th was a knockoff of Halloween, a subject that is a particular hot button issue lately), but some people seem to really enjoy it, as evidenced by the box office numbers. Plus, you can’t go wrong with a 10-minute-long chase scene involving Sarah Michelle Gellar.

1997 Horror

November was actually a pretty decent month for horror. The first weekend of the month saw Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers get released (more of a sci-fi than a horror but c’mon, it’s about giant killer bugs) and Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s controversial sequel Alien: ResurrectionStarship Troopers is another one of those movies that had a fairly polarizing reception upon its release but has gained a rather sizable cult following over the years thanks to its biting satire and wit. When it comes to Alien: Resurrection, I won’t defend it. Don’t get me wrong, I do think it’s a highly entertaining film. It’s a messy and entertaining film that nearly destroyed the  Alien franchise, but it’s entertaining nonetheless. While many fans now consider it to be an atrocious film, it actually didn’t have as negative of a reception at the time of its release. Maybe that was just people trying to convince themselves that the fourth Alien film was good though, as people are wont to do with middling entries in respectable franchises.

Finally, the world saw the release of one of the greatest horror sequels of all time: Scream 2. In a rather brilliant bit of counter-programming, Scream 2 opened on December 12 (less than a year after the original’s release) against Amistad, For Richer or Poorer and Home Alone 3. Needless to say, it snagged the number 1 box office spot easily with $32.9 million (it was knocked down 2 pegs the following week by Titanic and Tomorrow Never Dies). Between Scream 2 and I Know What You Did Last Summer, it was a good year to be Kevin Williamson. Does 1997 really need to be defended any more? My feelings toward Scream 2 are made apparent in nearly every article I write for Bloody Disgusting, but if you need more convincing,  consider some of the data: it has better reviews than the original and it has one of the best audience scores out of any horror sequel ever made. All of this despite numerous script re-writes after multiple versions were leaked on the internet.

Let’s not forget about the foreign horror that came out in 1997 either. That year also saw the releases of the Vincenzo Natali’s Cube and Michael Haneke’s Funny Games. While they weren’t given wide theatrical releases in America, they still left their mark on the year in the best way possible. What are your thoughts on 1997 in terms of horror quality? Do you still believe that it was a terrible year for horror? Or have you crossed over to the dark side and begun to understand my reasoning? Let me know in the comments below or shoot me a Tweet. 1997 horror is something I’ll never get tired of discussing so fire away!

A journalist for Bloody Disgusting since 2015, Trace writes film reviews and editorials, as well as co-hosts Bloody Disgusting's Horror Queers podcast, which looks at horror films through a queer lens. He has since become dedicated to amplifying queer voices in the horror community, while also injecting his own personal flair into film discourse. Trace lives in Austin, TX with his husband and their two dogs. Find him on Twitter @TracedThurman

Editorials

Finding Faith and Violence in ‘The Book of Eli’ 14 Years Later

Published

on

Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.

To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.

Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.

After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.


SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?

Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.

For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.

Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.

Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?


AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?

Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.

From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.

The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.

Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.

With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega


There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.

Continue Reading