www.headinjurytheater.com
My only criticism is, of course, that it doesn't rhyme. ABCs should rhyme.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Horror Alphabet by Jared Hindman
Find it at:
www.headinjurytheater.com
My only criticism is, of course, that it doesn't rhyme. ABCs should rhyme.
www.headinjurytheater.com
My only criticism is, of course, that it doesn't rhyme. ABCs should rhyme.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Black Christmas
Black Christmas (2007)
Director: Glen Morgan
Starring: Katie Cassidy, Michelle Trachtenberg and about 8 other 20 something cuties...and one very strange "woman" with a glass eye.
Remakes are odd for several reasons, the biggest being that it is perfectly acceptable to remake a movie, sometimes only a few decades after its initial “making” (for lack of a better word). This seldom happens with other artistic mediums; yes, occasionally an author will write a book that relies heavily on the work of an earlier author (I’m thinking of “Wicked” as a remake of L. Frank Baum's “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” which spawned two films that could never be remade: “The Wizard of Oz” and “The Wiz”), or a character (like Jane Rhys, “Wide Saragesso Sea” gave voice to the importantly silenced voice of Bertha Moore from Charlotte Bronte’s “Jane Eyre”), but these are more reimaginings of theme or character or situation…especially when they cross mediums, say from text to image, film, dance or music. They are not strictly “remakes” or revisions…although perhaps “RE-Visions.” Remakes in films, however, are often just that: re-makes. I am thinking specifically now of Gus VanSant’s remake of “Psycho,” which sometimes so exactly choreographed the scenes of the Hitchcock classic that it seemed obsessive. Despite the efforts to completely “remake” (to what ends, I always wondered?) the film, the result was disasterous: a remuddled mess far inferior to the charm, horror and intensity of the original (I’ll save this dissection for another day). That said, remakes are tricky things, especially when the film being “remade” is a classic. The original Black Christmas is a classic. Filmed in 1974 it did things no other film had done, and it was SCARY! Genuinely scary. Watching it now a person unfamiliar with the history of horror films might see it as cliché: a storm, a sorority house, a psychopathic killer lurking in the dark, phones, a killer cam; but, however cliché the result may seem to a modern audience, the fact remains that Black Christmas was never a cliché…it was, instead, the archetype. Why remake an archetype? Well, because modern audiences have never seen this film; it is, in all honesty, difficult to locate a copy at your local video store (thank god one of the video stores I lived near had a horror-addict manager). Who wants to watch an old movie? Well, I do. If it’s good.
On to the remake: You may ask, why even watch it? Well, because I didn’t know how the film makers would address certain issues about the original plot. I admit, I was curious, and yes, part of me knew it would be a disappointment, but I wanted to know how far the remake would go; what would they keep, what would they throw to the wayside? Without risking a spoiler here’s the deal: they had me going for the first hour…I thought, good lord, they’ve actually made it interesting and good…then…well…um. Perhaps Roy said it best when he looked at me from across the room and said: “Did that make ANY sense to you?” My answer then, as now, was: “No, no it did not.” It wasn’t just a bad remake it was almost an unmake, a reimagining of the original that confounded me, at least. As a result everything that made the first film scary and nightmarish was gone, replaced with um…well…I just don’t know. Oddly, I will say this, the special features of the unrated version serve an important purpose beyond just “added value.” The best scenes of this remuddle were, apparently, dashed to the cutting room floor. And alternate ending number one (of three…all of which were better than the ending that “stuck”) left me with an, almost satisfying, eeriness that was reminiscent of the original.
I’ll end with this: it wasn’t a case of I loved the original too much, for it too had problems; this is more a case of “What have you done?” Which is, incidentally, also the title of the featurette about the remake…ha! The movie wasn’t bad, necessarily, but it was confusing and its directors made very poor choices. If you love horror, it’s worth a watch, if only as a discussion topic. Please, filmmakers, remake the old movies, but do so in a way that adds, re-imagines and reformulates the original; don’t just sling together bits and call it something: that’s just remuddling.
Director: Glen Morgan
Starring: Katie Cassidy, Michelle Trachtenberg and about 8 other 20 something cuties...and one very strange "woman" with a glass eye.
Remakes are odd for several reasons, the biggest being that it is perfectly acceptable to remake a movie, sometimes only a few decades after its initial “making” (for lack of a better word). This seldom happens with other artistic mediums; yes, occasionally an author will write a book that relies heavily on the work of an earlier author (I’m thinking of “Wicked” as a remake of L. Frank Baum's “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” which spawned two films that could never be remade: “The Wizard of Oz” and “The Wiz”), or a character (like Jane Rhys, “Wide Saragesso Sea” gave voice to the importantly silenced voice of Bertha Moore from Charlotte Bronte’s “Jane Eyre”), but these are more reimaginings of theme or character or situation…especially when they cross mediums, say from text to image, film, dance or music. They are not strictly “remakes” or revisions…although perhaps “RE-Visions.” Remakes in films, however, are often just that: re-makes. I am thinking specifically now of Gus VanSant’s remake of “Psycho,” which sometimes so exactly choreographed the scenes of the Hitchcock classic that it seemed obsessive. Despite the efforts to completely “remake” (to what ends, I always wondered?) the film, the result was disasterous: a remuddled mess far inferior to the charm, horror and intensity of the original (I’ll save this dissection for another day). That said, remakes are tricky things, especially when the film being “remade” is a classic. The original Black Christmas is a classic. Filmed in 1974 it did things no other film had done, and it was SCARY! Genuinely scary. Watching it now a person unfamiliar with the history of horror films might see it as cliché: a storm, a sorority house, a psychopathic killer lurking in the dark, phones, a killer cam; but, however cliché the result may seem to a modern audience, the fact remains that Black Christmas was never a cliché…it was, instead, the archetype. Why remake an archetype? Well, because modern audiences have never seen this film; it is, in all honesty, difficult to locate a copy at your local video store (thank god one of the video stores I lived near had a horror-addict manager). Who wants to watch an old movie? Well, I do. If it’s good.
On to the remake: You may ask, why even watch it? Well, because I didn’t know how the film makers would address certain issues about the original plot. I admit, I was curious, and yes, part of me knew it would be a disappointment, but I wanted to know how far the remake would go; what would they keep, what would they throw to the wayside? Without risking a spoiler here’s the deal: they had me going for the first hour…I thought, good lord, they’ve actually made it interesting and good…then…well…um. Perhaps Roy said it best when he looked at me from across the room and said: “Did that make ANY sense to you?” My answer then, as now, was: “No, no it did not.” It wasn’t just a bad remake it was almost an unmake, a reimagining of the original that confounded me, at least. As a result everything that made the first film scary and nightmarish was gone, replaced with um…well…I just don’t know. Oddly, I will say this, the special features of the unrated version serve an important purpose beyond just “added value.” The best scenes of this remuddle were, apparently, dashed to the cutting room floor. And alternate ending number one (of three…all of which were better than the ending that “stuck”) left me with an, almost satisfying, eeriness that was reminiscent of the original.
I’ll end with this: it wasn’t a case of I loved the original too much, for it too had problems; this is more a case of “What have you done?” Which is, incidentally, also the title of the featurette about the remake…ha! The movie wasn’t bad, necessarily, but it was confusing and its directors made very poor choices. If you love horror, it’s worth a watch, if only as a discussion topic. Please, filmmakers, remake the old movies, but do so in a way that adds, re-imagines and reformulates the original; don’t just sling together bits and call it something: that’s just remuddling.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Amanda’s 15 Favorite Funny Horror Movies
(in the particular order of Roy's List )
1. Jack Frost—I think I’ve seen this film about 167 times and it keeps getting funnier every single time I see it. The gore of it coupled with elaborate death scenes and cheesy one-liners is better on repeat. I distinctly recall watching a beheading over and over on rewind. This film is not scary, but it does take what should be a joyful image (magically alive snowman in a holiday film) and twist it into a phenomenally bad and delightfully ridiculous film.
2. Shaun of the Dead— I very nearly choked on snacks the first time I watched this. This is the brainchild of true horror fans, and the subtle references to the genre greats (and not so greats) sprinkled throughout the film alone make this worth the watch. It takes a true fan to bend and tweak the standard tropes of the zombie film into something funny, new and freaking smart!
3. Dead Alive—A total gore-o-rama from the director of Lord of the Rings…before he was plus-sized, high-budgeted and hobbity. If you’ve seen the LOTR you know what this man can do with money, but this very low-budget film is pure genius and invention. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the money was spent on food coloring and karo syrup. (Deep down this is an insightful bildungsroman about a timid boy looking for true love and a means to assert his independence over a domineering mother…who is zombified.)
4. Freddy vs. Jason—I agree with Roy that no one with common sense should have expected anything really frightening from this film. It is what it is, a fan-tastic (fan!! Heh!) slaughter-fest. What’s interesting about this film is it’s real tensions between each killer. On one hand you have an abused child turned puritanical executioner working with (and then against) a child abuser turned malevolent dream spirit: this is an analytical goldmine! Unlike Roy, though, I was rooting for Freddy. A side note: we saw this twice in the theater, both times it seems we were the only patrons laughing. I couldn’t decide if this meant we were weird, or if they were weird. The only drawback: no Kane Hodder as Jason. The new actor playing Jason Voorhees didn’t have the eerie bodily charm of Hodder, and despite the fact that every Jason is in mask and make-up it was evident from the first 10 minutes of the film that Hodder was gone.
5. Jason X—Jason on the Holodeck! This movie is hilarious…ly bad. One of those lovely charmers that’s so bad it’s good. The campiness potential of all the previous films is maximized (space-style) and the earlier films are spoofed in fantastic ways. There are several great death scenes and it stars Kane Hodder, the BEST JASON EVER, in his last role as the lumbering killing machine. How he can make Jason smirk behind a mask is bizarre. This movie is silly, campy, cheesy, ridiculous, absurd, it defies physics and logic, and it has nano-technological advancements.
6. Sleepaway Camp II: Happy Campers—The first Sleepaway Camp is a cult classic, but it is darkly serious and involves a startling nude scene…ah, I remember my reaction: complete befuddlement (like when a dog looks at something sideways). If you have not seen it, see it, what’ve you got to lose. The sequel, however, is a cult classic for a different reason. Oh, there’s befuddlement, but of a different order: did that person really just drown in a port-o-let? Yes, she did. The perky cuteness of the killer is endearing, and the one liners are phenomenal.
7. Leprechaun in the Hood—I am not as big of a fan of “Lep in tha Hood” as Roy is, but it does have it’s moments. I like Warwick Davis. The rhyming is funny. There are hos.
8. There’s Nothing Out There—This movie should suck, but it embraces it’s suckatude. It toys with nearly every horror movie stereotype and despite it’s low budget, bad acting and meta-horrific moments (at one point a character uses the boom mike as a prop) it winds up being pretty funny without being a strict parody along the lines of Reposessed, Shriek, If You Know What You Did Last Friday the Thirteenth, or the Scary Movie franchise (I haven’t even bothered watching part 4).
9. Texas Chainsaw Massacre IV: A New Beginning—This is wonderful. It is almost a parody of itself. Every character in this film is over the top, and yet it still manages some decent scares. One thing the directors remaking this series have ignored is the sometimes ridiculously sadistic humor of the characters in these films: the 2nd and 3rd featured my future husband (don’t tell him) Bill Mosely as a burnt out vet with a taste for torturing his meals. So the humor in this one shouldn’t be unexpected. Don’t look for strict adherence to the TCM plots and histories, this is a NEW story. OR maybe it’s that I like watching Renee Zellweger being tortured (it is her first starring role).
10. Evil Dead II—I love the meta-fiction of Evil Dead II, Roy is right…the character retells the story to make himself seem cooler than he actually is. But still, the sheer number of bookshelves that fall on the head of our swaggering, undead-destroying hero is side-splitting. And what other film features an attack by taxidermied deer? Despite the hilarity, though, this film is scary. There are some intense scenes, especially in the basement. The moral of the Evil Dead series: don’t read things aloud.
11. Slither— This film makes me so happy. Thank you to everyone who made this film happen. The finest horror-comedy in recent years. (If you have a weak stomach do NOT watch this film, it is purposefully disgusting. We call that “contempt for the audience.”)
12. Prom Night III— Make sure you listen to the PA announcements in the school. This movie was released to DVD as a combination pack with Prom Night IV (a movie which not only has NOTHING to do with the first three movies, but also has NOTHING to do with a prom) the contrast between these two films could not be more pronounced. One is a fun, gore-filled teen romp. The other is a seriously bad film about a possessed priest kept in a basement. Part III is worth the purchase of the DVD…just don’t watch the other one.
13. Friday the 13th IX: Jason Goes to Hell— Like Shaun of the Dead, this film is filled with references to other films…a fan’s seek and find. The film combines the scary and silly quite well, matching moments of levity with serious threat and graphic gross-outs.
14. Idle Hands—Funny, but not super funny. Very silly. Idle hands are the devil’s playthings. The idea that the devil possesses the hand of the laziest person on earth is an interesting premise, and I do love Seth Green (a zombie who is too lazy to go into the light), but parts of this are trying to be too serious.
15. Basket Case III— I don’t like this film as much as Roy does. It is funny, but it’s also really, really bizarre (and not at all frightening). Nevertheless, it is worth a peek.
16. MY BONUS: I’m going to add the ENTIRE Nightmare on Elm Street series, minus the second one…which never happened (IT NEVER HAPPENED!), and the 6th (A New Nightmare), because it’s just way too different to include. There are very few horror movie villains with the wit, charm and viciousness of Freddy Kreuger. If you think about it most of the contemporary greats (and even the classical greats) are virtually mute: Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolfman. Killers are usually lumbering or animalistic…they are not usually given the human capacity for wit and/or humor. Of the list above, Dracula may be the one exception to the lumbering and/or animalistic, but he is rarely depicted as less than extremely serious or formal (except in a spoof), and he does, quite literally, take the form of animals. Humor implies good cheer, humanity, and interaction. We do not want our killers to be joyful in their tasks; we want them morose and inhuman. Our heroes can face the world with a joke in their mouth and hope in their hearts, but that joy is in survival, not death. Freddy Kruger is a unique character, the first to really toy with a victim, to be of the world (lots of pop culture references in his banter) we know rather than the eerie otherworld, does it make him more frightening? I don’t know; it might make us more frightening in the way we are attracted to his character. Remember, this is a child-murderer, a torturer of the innocent…and he’s imbued with a vindictive charm which is simultaneously disarming and disturbing. Perhaps this edges again towards the connection between horror and humor: should we be disturbed by the closeness of the two in films like those listed above. Is death funny? No. Most decidedly it is not funny. But the graphic, outlandish, splatter-filled, on-screen deaths might serve some vital psychological need we have to see the humor in the inevitable? This is bigger question than this list can ask. (To Be Continued…)
1. Jack Frost—I think I’ve seen this film about 167 times and it keeps getting funnier every single time I see it. The gore of it coupled with elaborate death scenes and cheesy one-liners is better on repeat. I distinctly recall watching a beheading over and over on rewind. This film is not scary, but it does take what should be a joyful image (magically alive snowman in a holiday film) and twist it into a phenomenally bad and delightfully ridiculous film.
2. Shaun of the Dead— I very nearly choked on snacks the first time I watched this. This is the brainchild of true horror fans, and the subtle references to the genre greats (and not so greats) sprinkled throughout the film alone make this worth the watch. It takes a true fan to bend and tweak the standard tropes of the zombie film into something funny, new and freaking smart!
3. Dead Alive—A total gore-o-rama from the director of Lord of the Rings…before he was plus-sized, high-budgeted and hobbity. If you’ve seen the LOTR you know what this man can do with money, but this very low-budget film is pure genius and invention. I have a sneaking suspicion that most of the money was spent on food coloring and karo syrup. (Deep down this is an insightful bildungsroman about a timid boy looking for true love and a means to assert his independence over a domineering mother…who is zombified.)
4. Freddy vs. Jason—I agree with Roy that no one with common sense should have expected anything really frightening from this film. It is what it is, a fan-tastic (fan!! Heh!) slaughter-fest. What’s interesting about this film is it’s real tensions between each killer. On one hand you have an abused child turned puritanical executioner working with (and then against) a child abuser turned malevolent dream spirit: this is an analytical goldmine! Unlike Roy, though, I was rooting for Freddy. A side note: we saw this twice in the theater, both times it seems we were the only patrons laughing. I couldn’t decide if this meant we were weird, or if they were weird. The only drawback: no Kane Hodder as Jason. The new actor playing Jason Voorhees didn’t have the eerie bodily charm of Hodder, and despite the fact that every Jason is in mask and make-up it was evident from the first 10 minutes of the film that Hodder was gone.
5. Jason X—Jason on the Holodeck! This movie is hilarious…ly bad. One of those lovely charmers that’s so bad it’s good. The campiness potential of all the previous films is maximized (space-style) and the earlier films are spoofed in fantastic ways. There are several great death scenes and it stars Kane Hodder, the BEST JASON EVER, in his last role as the lumbering killing machine. How he can make Jason smirk behind a mask is bizarre. This movie is silly, campy, cheesy, ridiculous, absurd, it defies physics and logic, and it has nano-technological advancements.
6. Sleepaway Camp II: Happy Campers—The first Sleepaway Camp is a cult classic, but it is darkly serious and involves a startling nude scene…ah, I remember my reaction: complete befuddlement (like when a dog looks at something sideways). If you have not seen it, see it, what’ve you got to lose. The sequel, however, is a cult classic for a different reason. Oh, there’s befuddlement, but of a different order: did that person really just drown in a port-o-let? Yes, she did. The perky cuteness of the killer is endearing, and the one liners are phenomenal.
7. Leprechaun in the Hood—I am not as big of a fan of “Lep in tha Hood” as Roy is, but it does have it’s moments. I like Warwick Davis. The rhyming is funny. There are hos.
8. There’s Nothing Out There—This movie should suck, but it embraces it’s suckatude. It toys with nearly every horror movie stereotype and despite it’s low budget, bad acting and meta-horrific moments (at one point a character uses the boom mike as a prop) it winds up being pretty funny without being a strict parody along the lines of Reposessed, Shriek, If You Know What You Did Last Friday the Thirteenth, or the Scary Movie franchise (I haven’t even bothered watching part 4).
9. Texas Chainsaw Massacre IV: A New Beginning—This is wonderful. It is almost a parody of itself. Every character in this film is over the top, and yet it still manages some decent scares. One thing the directors remaking this series have ignored is the sometimes ridiculously sadistic humor of the characters in these films: the 2nd and 3rd featured my future husband (don’t tell him) Bill Mosely as a burnt out vet with a taste for torturing his meals. So the humor in this one shouldn’t be unexpected. Don’t look for strict adherence to the TCM plots and histories, this is a NEW story. OR maybe it’s that I like watching Renee Zellweger being tortured (it is her first starring role).
10. Evil Dead II—I love the meta-fiction of Evil Dead II, Roy is right…the character retells the story to make himself seem cooler than he actually is. But still, the sheer number of bookshelves that fall on the head of our swaggering, undead-destroying hero is side-splitting. And what other film features an attack by taxidermied deer? Despite the hilarity, though, this film is scary. There are some intense scenes, especially in the basement. The moral of the Evil Dead series: don’t read things aloud.
11. Slither— This film makes me so happy. Thank you to everyone who made this film happen. The finest horror-comedy in recent years. (If you have a weak stomach do NOT watch this film, it is purposefully disgusting. We call that “contempt for the audience.”)
12. Prom Night III— Make sure you listen to the PA announcements in the school. This movie was released to DVD as a combination pack with Prom Night IV (a movie which not only has NOTHING to do with the first three movies, but also has NOTHING to do with a prom) the contrast between these two films could not be more pronounced. One is a fun, gore-filled teen romp. The other is a seriously bad film about a possessed priest kept in a basement. Part III is worth the purchase of the DVD…just don’t watch the other one.
13. Friday the 13th IX: Jason Goes to Hell— Like Shaun of the Dead, this film is filled with references to other films…a fan’s seek and find. The film combines the scary and silly quite well, matching moments of levity with serious threat and graphic gross-outs.
14. Idle Hands—Funny, but not super funny. Very silly. Idle hands are the devil’s playthings. The idea that the devil possesses the hand of the laziest person on earth is an interesting premise, and I do love Seth Green (a zombie who is too lazy to go into the light), but parts of this are trying to be too serious.
15. Basket Case III— I don’t like this film as much as Roy does. It is funny, but it’s also really, really bizarre (and not at all frightening). Nevertheless, it is worth a peek.
16. MY BONUS: I’m going to add the ENTIRE Nightmare on Elm Street series, minus the second one…which never happened (IT NEVER HAPPENED!), and the 6th (A New Nightmare), because it’s just way too different to include. There are very few horror movie villains with the wit, charm and viciousness of Freddy Kreuger. If you think about it most of the contemporary greats (and even the classical greats) are virtually mute: Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolfman. Killers are usually lumbering or animalistic…they are not usually given the human capacity for wit and/or humor. Of the list above, Dracula may be the one exception to the lumbering and/or animalistic, but he is rarely depicted as less than extremely serious or formal (except in a spoof), and he does, quite literally, take the form of animals. Humor implies good cheer, humanity, and interaction. We do not want our killers to be joyful in their tasks; we want them morose and inhuman. Our heroes can face the world with a joke in their mouth and hope in their hearts, but that joy is in survival, not death. Freddy Kruger is a unique character, the first to really toy with a victim, to be of the world (lots of pop culture references in his banter) we know rather than the eerie otherworld, does it make him more frightening? I don’t know; it might make us more frightening in the way we are attracted to his character. Remember, this is a child-murderer, a torturer of the innocent…and he’s imbued with a vindictive charm which is simultaneously disarming and disturbing. Perhaps this edges again towards the connection between horror and humor: should we be disturbed by the closeness of the two in films like those listed above. Is death funny? No. Most decidedly it is not funny. But the graphic, outlandish, splatter-filled, on-screen deaths might serve some vital psychological need we have to see the humor in the inevitable? This is bigger question than this list can ask. (To Be Continued…)
Roy’s 15 Favorite Funny Horror Movies
(in no particular order)
1. Jack Frost—Child’s head in a bag; “Look ma, I’m a Picasso!” Read my review.
2. Shaun of the Dead—Already a classic that draws attention to the fact that, once things with the walking dead settle, not all that much changes (especially slacker relationships.)
3. Dead Alive—Peter Jackson can make a lot of gore on a shoestring budget. This is his second film and just has so so many good lines—“your mother ate my dog,” “I kick ass for the lord…”you’ll find yourself trying to use them in everyday conversation. Rated Z for scenes involving zombie love (Not for those with a weak stomach).
4. Freddy vs. Jason—It seems that a lot of people expected this one to be scary. I mean, C’mon. Neither series had been scary since their first installment. Several funny lines—“That’s one pissed off goalie”—and an introduction that gives a bit of interesting background motivation for Jason Vorhees, who becomes the unlikely hero (along with the obligatory blonde virgin). Best death by drugs scene ever!!
5. Jason X—Once you suspend your disbelief, which is surprisingly easy, this is just a damn fun movie—funny and surprising. The director also understands the scope of the series and plays to its campy strengths. Best in space sequel ever!
6. Sleepaway Camp II: Happy Campers—Everyone’s favorite transgendered killer is back, devising creative and amusing ways to kill all the teenagers with the budding libidos. Death by outhouse, BarB Q Stoner—and no real attempt to be serious like the original.
7. Leprechaun in the Hood—Setting affirmative action back ten years—all the stereotypes (the chronic laced with a four-leafed clover, young aspiring rappers, a magic flute, and hos hos hos). Ice-T pulls a baseball bat out of his Afro for Christ Sake. Note: stay away from Leprechaun in the Hood II; it does not recapture the magic of the original.
8. There’s Nothing Out There—The hero is a whiney video store employee who has seen every horror movie ever. The villain is a puddle-like alien who (like everyone) hates having a mouthful of shaving cream (see the movie).
9. Texas Chainsaw Massacre IV: A New Beginning—Matthew McConaughey as a psycho-tow truck operator with a remote control mechanical leg.
10. Evil Dead II—I pick this one instead of Army of Darkness, because Army of Darkness, although hilarious and gory, is no more a horror movie than Conan the Barbarian. Evil Dead II has Bruce Campbell basically retell the first installment of the series, making himself seem more bad-ass than he was in Evil Dead I.
11. Slither— This one really stands out as a good, entertaining, gory, hilarious throwback to the creature features of the 50’s. A new classic. Trust me. Gross.
12. Prom Night III— Mary Lou (From Prom Night II) escapes from jazzercise hell with a nail file, returns to her alma matter, and helps a confused teenage boy the only ways she knows how (with sex and slaughter),
13. Friday the 13th IX: Jason Goes to Hell— This one nods to so many different horror movies that it seems like they got half of their props at studio garage sales. See how many allusions you can find. This installment shows the series transforming from ridiculous to hilarious. It ties up the whole series quite nicely once you buy into the premise that once Jason’s body is in pieces, his essence can enter other bodies.
14. Idle Hands— Devon Sawa is a stoner who has his slacker hand possessed by the devil. Also stars Seth Green and Jessica Alba. Silly morbid stoner humor. For some reason, though, it wasn’t nearly as funny the second time I watched it.
15. Basket Case III— The premise—a homicidal deformed conjoined twin who was separated from his brother finds a special lady, knocks her up, and goes on a bus of Muppet-esque freaks. His brother gets crazy jealous but then discovers the meaning of family. Truly absurd 80’s special effects.
There are a lot of movies not here—you may be saying “I am outraged. How could this…this…guy forget the Scream series, or the Nightmare on Elmstreet series, or whatever. I’ve got two things to say: 1) Scream is a hybrid that is both funny and truly scary (and Meta-Horror) which is not what I’m talking about now and; 2) tell me what I’m missing— I have not yet watch every horror movie ever so tell me what else is out there so I can stop watching all these disappointing remakes.
1. Jack Frost—Child’s head in a bag; “Look ma, I’m a Picasso!” Read my review.
2. Shaun of the Dead—Already a classic that draws attention to the fact that, once things with the walking dead settle, not all that much changes (especially slacker relationships.)
3. Dead Alive—Peter Jackson can make a lot of gore on a shoestring budget. This is his second film and just has so so many good lines—“your mother ate my dog,” “I kick ass for the lord…”you’ll find yourself trying to use them in everyday conversation. Rated Z for scenes involving zombie love (Not for those with a weak stomach).
4. Freddy vs. Jason—It seems that a lot of people expected this one to be scary. I mean, C’mon. Neither series had been scary since their first installment. Several funny lines—“That’s one pissed off goalie”—and an introduction that gives a bit of interesting background motivation for Jason Vorhees, who becomes the unlikely hero (along with the obligatory blonde virgin). Best death by drugs scene ever!!
5. Jason X—Once you suspend your disbelief, which is surprisingly easy, this is just a damn fun movie—funny and surprising. The director also understands the scope of the series and plays to its campy strengths. Best in space sequel ever!
6. Sleepaway Camp II: Happy Campers—Everyone’s favorite transgendered killer is back, devising creative and amusing ways to kill all the teenagers with the budding libidos. Death by outhouse, BarB Q Stoner—and no real attempt to be serious like the original.
7. Leprechaun in the Hood—Setting affirmative action back ten years—all the stereotypes (the chronic laced with a four-leafed clover, young aspiring rappers, a magic flute, and hos hos hos). Ice-T pulls a baseball bat out of his Afro for Christ Sake. Note: stay away from Leprechaun in the Hood II; it does not recapture the magic of the original.
8. There’s Nothing Out There—The hero is a whiney video store employee who has seen every horror movie ever. The villain is a puddle-like alien who (like everyone) hates having a mouthful of shaving cream (see the movie).
9. Texas Chainsaw Massacre IV: A New Beginning—Matthew McConaughey as a psycho-tow truck operator with a remote control mechanical leg.
10. Evil Dead II—I pick this one instead of Army of Darkness, because Army of Darkness, although hilarious and gory, is no more a horror movie than Conan the Barbarian. Evil Dead II has Bruce Campbell basically retell the first installment of the series, making himself seem more bad-ass than he was in Evil Dead I.
11. Slither— This one really stands out as a good, entertaining, gory, hilarious throwback to the creature features of the 50’s. A new classic. Trust me. Gross.
12. Prom Night III— Mary Lou (From Prom Night II) escapes from jazzercise hell with a nail file, returns to her alma matter, and helps a confused teenage boy the only ways she knows how (with sex and slaughter),
13. Friday the 13th IX: Jason Goes to Hell— This one nods to so many different horror movies that it seems like they got half of their props at studio garage sales. See how many allusions you can find. This installment shows the series transforming from ridiculous to hilarious. It ties up the whole series quite nicely once you buy into the premise that once Jason’s body is in pieces, his essence can enter other bodies.
14. Idle Hands— Devon Sawa is a stoner who has his slacker hand possessed by the devil. Also stars Seth Green and Jessica Alba. Silly morbid stoner humor. For some reason, though, it wasn’t nearly as funny the second time I watched it.
15. Basket Case III— The premise—a homicidal deformed conjoined twin who was separated from his brother finds a special lady, knocks her up, and goes on a bus of Muppet-esque freaks. His brother gets crazy jealous but then discovers the meaning of family. Truly absurd 80’s special effects.
There are a lot of movies not here—you may be saying “I am outraged. How could this…this…guy forget the Scream series, or the Nightmare on Elmstreet series, or whatever. I’ve got two things to say: 1) Scream is a hybrid that is both funny and truly scary (and Meta-Horror) which is not what I’m talking about now and; 2) tell me what I’m missing— I have not yet watch every horror movie ever so tell me what else is out there so I can stop watching all these disappointing remakes.
Jack Frost (1996)
Jack Frost (1996)
Director: Michael Cooney
Staring: Chris Allport, Shannon Elizabeth
by Roy Seeger
Jack Frost should not be a good horror movie. I suspect it may, in fact, be quite bad, but it is still one of my absolute favorites. Granted, there isn’t one truly scary moment in the film and the plot is so lame that you’d think it ripe for a Mystery Science Theatre-esque voice over, but for the fact that it is so damn funny on its own. With the title and opening credits, Jack Frost begins in the vein of a surreal Christmas special (I giggle at the thought of folks mistaking this for the Michael Keaton movie of the same title). This is the story of Jack Frost, a serial killer who vowed revenge against the small-town cop who arrested him. On the drive to his execution, Jack gets doused in toxic waste and turns into a snowman, with the ability to melt, shoot icicles, etc. Hi-jinks ensue.
So how could a movie like this be so good? Its self-awareness—this movie may not have social issues on its mind, but its twisted humor, its ability to parody both Christmas and Horror movie formulas make Jack Frost an under-recognized classic. The plot devices are sudden and convenient, and the special effects succeed through jarring close-ups, camera angles, and clever use of foam. I’m not saying there isn’t a little bit of pain for the viewer: the acting isn’t good, and the characters are mostly flat, but just about the time you begin rethinking this movie’s innate greatness, there comes another death scene, which will be a strange, wrong, hilarious thing…but then the greatness of this film is in the small details: a child’s head in a bag, an implied snowman rape scene (where did that carrot go?). I don’t know what it says about me that I find these scenes funny, but you try not laughing and then judge.
***
On the sub-genre of Horror-comedy: I think it is important to understand the differences between true Horror, where the director is trying their best to make the viewers crap their pants, and Horror-Comedy (Homedy?) which not only parodies the traditions of serious Horror, but also finds humor in death itself. Audiences cheer the high body count and take a drink with each stabbing. The killers tend to be clever and could almost kill with the sharpness of their one-liners. How can we take any of this violence seriously? The obvious answer is “we can’t,” but what interests me more is the reason why, and the possible psychological effects of making violence laughable.
Understand, to talk generally about anything is to invite argument (argue, please), and I would hate to give artistic credit to all the creators of Horror-comedies (even some of the ones I love), but there seems something inherently interesting in the concept that death is funny, especially violent creative death. Of course there is the ridiculous concern that watching violence directly makes us more violent, and the more rational one that watching death after fictional death makes the real thing, when we hear it on the news, not quite so horrible. We may imagine that we know something of the real thing. This might even be a valid concern in Horror-comedies if it were not for the ridiculous premises of these movies. Take for instance Jack Frost. The deaths don’t become truly funny until the killer turns into a living snowman and uses his new-found ice powers in a variety of homicidal ways. There is a minimal connection with the real world, and therefore the violence takes on an absurd quality it is hard to find threatening. There is much more danger in watching Cop Dramas or War Flicks which usually occur in a realistic setting when they aren’t based on real events.
In the best Horror-Comedies this absurdity is able (whether intentional or not) to draw attention to the tropes of serious Horror (by serious I mean Horror that takes ITSELF seriously), and show how far these tropes are from the real world. The killers still tend to be extensions of American Puritanical values—loners die as do people who fornicate, swear, smoke, or drink alcohol—but in such a way that it shows our puritanical beliefs as ridiculous. By the rules of horror movies Shannon Elisabeth has it coming when she sneaks into a neighbors house to take a bath and have sex right after learning of a death in the family. We even laugh at the death scene where Jack Frost embraces and kills her naked form (implying much more). Of course it is mortifying, even as we laugh at the absurdity. It also draws attention to the truth of the matter that no matter her deviant behavior, she did not “have it coming.”
Horror-comedy plays with the rules and viewers expectations, and is also able to comment on the genre they parody (I am NOT talking about the Scary Movie franchise). At their best they point out the ridiculous contradictory values that creep into many horror movies (the viewer thinks they know the secret to survival, while just the act of watching a horror movie is enough justification to die). It’s not the actual deaths in horror movies that are problematic, but that each death, in the context of the film, is justified. This is fine as long as it remains a fantasy. The problem is when viewers apply this fictional context to the real world. This is all but impossible to do when the villain is a Rat-Monkey (rats that came off a boat and raped the indigenous monkeys), or a radioactive snowman, or a clumsy alien blob. And in the light this revelation, we might begin to understand the ludicrous nature and the formula too many horror movies fall into.
Director: Michael Cooney
Staring: Chris Allport, Shannon Elizabeth
by Roy Seeger
Jack Frost should not be a good horror movie. I suspect it may, in fact, be quite bad, but it is still one of my absolute favorites. Granted, there isn’t one truly scary moment in the film and the plot is so lame that you’d think it ripe for a Mystery Science Theatre-esque voice over, but for the fact that it is so damn funny on its own. With the title and opening credits, Jack Frost begins in the vein of a surreal Christmas special (I giggle at the thought of folks mistaking this for the Michael Keaton movie of the same title). This is the story of Jack Frost, a serial killer who vowed revenge against the small-town cop who arrested him. On the drive to his execution, Jack gets doused in toxic waste and turns into a snowman, with the ability to melt, shoot icicles, etc. Hi-jinks ensue.
So how could a movie like this be so good? Its self-awareness—this movie may not have social issues on its mind, but its twisted humor, its ability to parody both Christmas and Horror movie formulas make Jack Frost an under-recognized classic. The plot devices are sudden and convenient, and the special effects succeed through jarring close-ups, camera angles, and clever use of foam. I’m not saying there isn’t a little bit of pain for the viewer: the acting isn’t good, and the characters are mostly flat, but just about the time you begin rethinking this movie’s innate greatness, there comes another death scene, which will be a strange, wrong, hilarious thing…but then the greatness of this film is in the small details: a child’s head in a bag, an implied snowman rape scene (where did that carrot go?). I don’t know what it says about me that I find these scenes funny, but you try not laughing and then judge.
***
On the sub-genre of Horror-comedy: I think it is important to understand the differences between true Horror, where the director is trying their best to make the viewers crap their pants, and Horror-Comedy (Homedy?) which not only parodies the traditions of serious Horror, but also finds humor in death itself. Audiences cheer the high body count and take a drink with each stabbing. The killers tend to be clever and could almost kill with the sharpness of their one-liners. How can we take any of this violence seriously? The obvious answer is “we can’t,” but what interests me more is the reason why, and the possible psychological effects of making violence laughable.
Understand, to talk generally about anything is to invite argument (argue, please), and I would hate to give artistic credit to all the creators of Horror-comedies (even some of the ones I love), but there seems something inherently interesting in the concept that death is funny, especially violent creative death. Of course there is the ridiculous concern that watching violence directly makes us more violent, and the more rational one that watching death after fictional death makes the real thing, when we hear it on the news, not quite so horrible. We may imagine that we know something of the real thing. This might even be a valid concern in Horror-comedies if it were not for the ridiculous premises of these movies. Take for instance Jack Frost. The deaths don’t become truly funny until the killer turns into a living snowman and uses his new-found ice powers in a variety of homicidal ways. There is a minimal connection with the real world, and therefore the violence takes on an absurd quality it is hard to find threatening. There is much more danger in watching Cop Dramas or War Flicks which usually occur in a realistic setting when they aren’t based on real events.
In the best Horror-Comedies this absurdity is able (whether intentional or not) to draw attention to the tropes of serious Horror (by serious I mean Horror that takes ITSELF seriously), and show how far these tropes are from the real world. The killers still tend to be extensions of American Puritanical values—loners die as do people who fornicate, swear, smoke, or drink alcohol—but in such a way that it shows our puritanical beliefs as ridiculous. By the rules of horror movies Shannon Elisabeth has it coming when she sneaks into a neighbors house to take a bath and have sex right after learning of a death in the family. We even laugh at the death scene where Jack Frost embraces and kills her naked form (implying much more). Of course it is mortifying, even as we laugh at the absurdity. It also draws attention to the truth of the matter that no matter her deviant behavior, she did not “have it coming.”
Horror-comedy plays with the rules and viewers expectations, and is also able to comment on the genre they parody (I am NOT talking about the Scary Movie franchise). At their best they point out the ridiculous contradictory values that creep into many horror movies (the viewer thinks they know the secret to survival, while just the act of watching a horror movie is enough justification to die). It’s not the actual deaths in horror movies that are problematic, but that each death, in the context of the film, is justified. This is fine as long as it remains a fantasy. The problem is when viewers apply this fictional context to the real world. This is all but impossible to do when the villain is a Rat-Monkey (rats that came off a boat and raped the indigenous monkeys), or a radioactive snowman, or a clumsy alien blob. And in the light this revelation, we might begin to understand the ludicrous nature and the formula too many horror movies fall into.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Most Memorable Horror Movie Lines
This, friends, is a Roy and Amander compilation list. It is in no particular order. I should add that these are not only memorable lines from horror movies, but lines that have seeped their way into our day to day interactions with one another. (Does this horrify? Perhaps. People in creepy relationships shouldn't throw bones?)
MOST MEMORABLE HORROR MOVIE LINES
What is most interesting to me about this list is that many of these lines are funny. They reflect on the humorous moments in an otherwise frightening situation. This raises a few interesting issues for me. Is it the contrast between humor and fear which makes those moments of levity so memorable? Is there something inheirently funny about death and brutality that we, in our logical brains, deny, but which, somehow, releases itself on a more subconsious level in moments of fear? Do we secretly enjoy it? Is it the pagentry of death and violence (real violence of any sort, and to an extent, even filmed violence in dramatic situations, war movies for example, horrifies and nauseates me, but I will laugh at a quick beheading.) I know many people who laugh when they are scared or nervous, this makes me think that somehow there is a connection between these emotions and responses. Scary? Funny? I don't know...it is interesting.
As a bonus: Roy will be posting a list of his top 10 picks for Funniest Horror Films shortly. Perhaps he can add to the conversation.
Please, friends, feel free to comment and add to this list. I'm sure there are a hundred lines I am forgetting.
MOST MEMORABLE HORROR MOVIE LINES
- "The saw is family." -Texas Chainsaw Massacre II
- "I kick ass for the Lord." -Dead Alive
- "I'll tear your soul apart." -"Pinhead," Hellraiser
- "I think we're gonna need a bigger boat." -Jaws
- "They're/we're coming to get you, Barbara." -Night of the Living Dead/Shawn of the Dead
- "That's one pissed off goalie." -Freddy Vs. Jason
- "Liver alone." - Scream
- "Your mother ate my dog." -Dead Alive
- "Look Ma, I'm a Picasso." -Jack Frost (Killer Mutant Snowman)
- "Welcome to Prime Time, Bitch." -Nightmare on Elm Street III
- "Now you're playing with power." -Nightmare on Elm Street V
- "It's okay, he just wants his machete back." - Jason X
- "(Jason Voorhees) makes me think of a little girl in a pink dress sticking a hot dog through a doughnut." -Jason Goes to Hell (Friday the 13th Part 9)
- "Zombies, man, I never could stand them." -Land of the Dead
- "Babies, fat juicy babies." -The Hills have Eyes
- "I don't drink...wine." -Dracula (a few versions)
- "I liked you before you started eating people."-Return of the Living Dead III
- "There's a very simple formula, everybody's a suspect." -Scream
- "It's alive." -Frankenstein
- "(#) more days to halloween." -The Halloween song from, Halloween III (Season of the Witch)
- "They mostly come out at night, mostly." -Aliens (my suggestion of this quote started a long debate over the inclusion of Aliens in any horror film list. Roy contends that it is purely sci-fi. I say it is both science fiction and horror. We, oddly, agree that the first Jaws is horror, but all subsequent Jaws movies are action-adventure or drama...with a shark. The Aliens debate shall be elaborated upon at a future date. For now, it is included because I have the means to post and Roy does not.)
- "Who is smoking?" -Love at First Bite
- "One of us, one of us, gooble-gobble, gooble-gobble." -Freaks
- "He wants you too, Malachi." -Children of the Corn
- "This is for you, Damian, this is all for you." -The Omen
- "One, two: Freddy's coming for you. Three, four: better lock your doors. Five, six: grab a crucifix. Seven, eight: better stay up late. Nine, ten: never sleep again." -Nightmare on Elm Street
What is most interesting to me about this list is that many of these lines are funny. They reflect on the humorous moments in an otherwise frightening situation. This raises a few interesting issues for me. Is it the contrast between humor and fear which makes those moments of levity so memorable? Is there something inheirently funny about death and brutality that we, in our logical brains, deny, but which, somehow, releases itself on a more subconsious level in moments of fear? Do we secretly enjoy it? Is it the pagentry of death and violence (real violence of any sort, and to an extent, even filmed violence in dramatic situations, war movies for example, horrifies and nauseates me, but I will laugh at a quick beheading.) I know many people who laugh when they are scared or nervous, this makes me think that somehow there is a connection between these emotions and responses. Scary? Funny? I don't know...it is interesting.
As a bonus: Roy will be posting a list of his top 10 picks for Funniest Horror Films shortly. Perhaps he can add to the conversation.
Please, friends, feel free to comment and add to this list. I'm sure there are a hundred lines I am forgetting.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning(2006)
Director: Johnathan Liebesman
Starring: Jordana Brewster, Diora Baird
Review of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning. (Directed by Jonathan Liebesman. Staring Jordana Brewster, Diora Baird.
by Roy Seeger
I don’t want to be the type of reviewer to lament that the remake is never as good as the original. That is too easy. Besides, to compare The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning to the original 74’ version is unfair. But even when we compare it to the remake of a couple years ago, it is lacking in originality and character development. Instead, what The Beginning focuses on is atmosphere, gore, and beautiful victims. Granted, the atmosphere is lush and gritty: big budget gritty, a bunch of beautiful mutilated ladies and men in carefully applied dirt and blood. There are some truly nice scenes where special effects create a genuinely creepy moment, however, these moments are mostly undercut by the fact that they are barrowed from previous versions of the franchise. Occasionally, however, director Liebesmen tries too hard to impress us with his special effects which then come off as comical instead of disturbing. This movie would most appeal to the Fear Factor crowd who hasn’t seen the first remake, or for people who want to see trivial connections with the original remake. (I didn’t care.)
The plot formula is not surprising anymore, and in places is embarrassingly predictable (he’s in the back seat?). Any changes are superficial: two brothers with their special ladies go to register for the Vietnam War (except one brother is secretly going to run to Mexico). The attempt at political commentary is embarrassing and, like most of this movie, superficial.
What so bugs me about this prequel to a remake is that it could have been so good. The idea of developing the circumstances around this family, to in a sense make these characters more sympathetic, greatly intrigued me. Leatherface is one of the great slasher villains because he is a misguided, mistreated child. The premise of showing Leatherface growing up working in the slaughter house and being ridiculed was exhausted in the first five minutes, which are by far the most interesting part of the movie which should have ended where it began, with the death of the slaughter house owner.
***
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is fairly typical of a new type of American Horror movie that I have begun noticing. I mentioned the phrase Fear Factor crowd. In the last five or so years, there have been a slew of movies where the major focus is gore, and very beautiful people. Take Cabin Fever. The Original Remake to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Wrong Turn (a similar plot to Chainsaw but this family is in the trees). And so on. These elements are not of themselves bad things, but they seem to all too often replace character development and an interesting storyline. I won’t even get into the fact that almost every American horror movie today seems to be a remake of an old or foreign movie (save that for another rant), but just in comparing the two Chainsaw franchises, we can see a lot of the problems with this current sub-genre: they tend to completely miss the point of the original and they assume that gore is scary. Aside from the general lack of political commentary in the remake (which, in the original, gave the family a social context and made them a tinge more sympathetic) the characters are flat. I never really noticed the extent of this flatness until I recently, after watching The Beginning, caught the opening of the original. It is the part where a group of travelers pick up a hitchhiker (just like in the remake.) Except in the original it is a scrawny guy who is obviously a local. He seems happy and eager to please his new friends. So much so that he barrows a knife from one and uses it to make a deep cut in the palm of his hand. His smile betrays his obvious glee. That one scene is more terrifying and disturbing than all the crazy camera angles and clean dirt of both remakes.
Director: Johnathan Liebesman
Starring: Jordana Brewster, Diora Baird
Review of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning. (Directed by Jonathan Liebesman. Staring Jordana Brewster, Diora Baird.
by Roy Seeger
I don’t want to be the type of reviewer to lament that the remake is never as good as the original. That is too easy. Besides, to compare The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning to the original 74’ version is unfair. But even when we compare it to the remake of a couple years ago, it is lacking in originality and character development. Instead, what The Beginning focuses on is atmosphere, gore, and beautiful victims. Granted, the atmosphere is lush and gritty: big budget gritty, a bunch of beautiful mutilated ladies and men in carefully applied dirt and blood. There are some truly nice scenes where special effects create a genuinely creepy moment, however, these moments are mostly undercut by the fact that they are barrowed from previous versions of the franchise. Occasionally, however, director Liebesmen tries too hard to impress us with his special effects which then come off as comical instead of disturbing. This movie would most appeal to the Fear Factor crowd who hasn’t seen the first remake, or for people who want to see trivial connections with the original remake. (I didn’t care.)
The plot formula is not surprising anymore, and in places is embarrassingly predictable (he’s in the back seat?). Any changes are superficial: two brothers with their special ladies go to register for the Vietnam War (except one brother is secretly going to run to Mexico). The attempt at political commentary is embarrassing and, like most of this movie, superficial.
What so bugs me about this prequel to a remake is that it could have been so good. The idea of developing the circumstances around this family, to in a sense make these characters more sympathetic, greatly intrigued me. Leatherface is one of the great slasher villains because he is a misguided, mistreated child. The premise of showing Leatherface growing up working in the slaughter house and being ridiculed was exhausted in the first five minutes, which are by far the most interesting part of the movie which should have ended where it began, with the death of the slaughter house owner.
***
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning is fairly typical of a new type of American Horror movie that I have begun noticing. I mentioned the phrase Fear Factor crowd. In the last five or so years, there have been a slew of movies where the major focus is gore, and very beautiful people. Take Cabin Fever. The Original Remake to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Wrong Turn (a similar plot to Chainsaw but this family is in the trees). And so on. These elements are not of themselves bad things, but they seem to all too often replace character development and an interesting storyline. I won’t even get into the fact that almost every American horror movie today seems to be a remake of an old or foreign movie (save that for another rant), but just in comparing the two Chainsaw franchises, we can see a lot of the problems with this current sub-genre: they tend to completely miss the point of the original and they assume that gore is scary. Aside from the general lack of political commentary in the remake (which, in the original, gave the family a social context and made them a tinge more sympathetic) the characters are flat. I never really noticed the extent of this flatness until I recently, after watching The Beginning, caught the opening of the original. It is the part where a group of travelers pick up a hitchhiker (just like in the remake.) Except in the original it is a scrawny guy who is obviously a local. He seems happy and eager to please his new friends. So much so that he barrows a knife from one and uses it to make a deep cut in the palm of his hand. His smile betrays his obvious glee. That one scene is more terrifying and disturbing than all the crazy camera angles and clean dirt of both remakes.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
On Love and Sex and Death (oh my)
"Flesh is the fundamental problem into which we are born . It's the first paradox we are aware of, long before we know what the word paradox means. The very same nerve endings that present us with pleasure if stroked the right way are the same that give us pain…We're paradox real early…We also learn at a young age that certain pleasures we can induce for ourselves are forbidden, secret, taboo. One of the reasons horror fiction falls shy of being considered serious writing is that there's a general belief these kinds of stories have sexuality as their subtext, and by bringing that subtext into the more prominent position of text, you somehow call the bluff of the machine that made the thing work in the first place. You've pulled the hood off, so to speak, and people feared that in showing the workings, the magic wouldn't work any longer. I don't think that's true at all - it doesn't stop me, certainly. Any genre that requires the willful disregard of certain facts that we all know to make it work is moribund by definition." Barker's Searching For A Higher Plane By Bob Strauss, The Fresno Bee, 25 October 1987
Monday, February 12, 2007
Valentine's Day Horror Picks
Darlings, it's almost Valentine's day and what better way to spend it then the way I spend it every year: huddled beneath covers, avoiding the February chill, and watching horror films with my sugar booger. What follows are my picks for best Valentine's day horror films and, tommorrow, a few words regarding the horror film as aphrodisiac. Happy V-day!
LOVE,
Amanda
LOVE,
Amanda
- My Bloody Valentine(1981)-- This is an obligatory #1 pick for Valentine's Day. The plot: miners, massacres, bloody hearts in boxes, pick axes, gas masks, dire warnings, 20 year anniversaries, and VALENTINES DAY PARTIES!! Aww. A heart in a box? You shouldn'a have. (No one ever gives me a heart in a box.)
- Valentine (2001)--Starring one, David Boreanaz ("Angel"), this is your standard revenge slaughterfest. Not bad, not surprising, but full of lovely people dying in dramatic fashion. Not a whole sale slaughterfest, but a nice who-done-it reminiscent of older films. Aww. A box of gross maggoty chocolates? You're too much. (And Fellas, David Boreanaz's hotness may get you forgiveness points if you opt for this movie for Valentine's Day.)
- My Boyfriend's Back(1993)--a horror-comedy hybrid, think "Can't Buy Me Love" meets a reanimated road block. A light hearted (hearted...punny) movie, very few scares, but sweet. Not for fans of more explicit, or serious, horror. Why this didn't star a Corey is beyond me.
- Zombie Honeymoon(2004)--Perhaps I am a creepy girl (people have called me this), but I actually think this is a romantic film. I would much rather watch this than any number of cutesy love stories (although this film does have it's cutesy moments). What limits does love have? Is death one of them? What about undeath? This film stirred some very tender discussions in my household. (It's as sweety cute as I get.)
- Candyman(1992)--Not only is it, in my opinion, one of the scariest and most underrated horror films in the past 20 years, it is also a love story (of sorts). This movie is sweetly (no pun intended this time) seductive and damn scary. It is the first film I ever saw that resulted in a popcorn toss moment (a popcorn toss moment is a quick scare that's so sudden and intense that your popcorn goes flying...it is akin to the cat in a closet scare, only it doesn't have to be a cat in the closet). This is the type of film that will make one cling to their loved one. And although the lead actor, Tony Todd, isn't exactly sexy...his voice is. Turn off the lights, turn up the volume and sit close together, couples. Aww. Candy full of razor blades and kisses made of bees? You're so sweet.
Kisses are just bites without the teeth (sometimes).
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Scariest Horror Movie Moments (1-10)
This is a link to the documentary entitled "100 Scariest Movie Moments," if you've been near a TV that subscribes to Bravo around halloween you'll have seen at least part of this doc (while flipping through the channels?). Here is a rundown of the filmmakers picks. Many of the filmmaker's picks (no news regarding how these were selected...a poll? via their own personal preference?) are from standard horror movies, but there are some selections taken from "related" genres (horror's incestuous cousins: Science Fiction and Thrillers). Here are the titles (in order 1-20) of movies containing their selections for scariest movie moments--with my added comments.
Jaws --A damn scary movie, but the scariest? I don't know. Honestly, if you have not seen it for a while, or have ONLY seen it on television (with edits and commercial breaks) do yourself a favor and try watching it anew. It is truely a fear inspiring film. It kept people out of the ocean for years after its release, and it is the ONLY film to ever make me physically ill (I was like 10 years old, and had eaten a lot of junk food...so it's vomit inducing powers are probebly limited). Scary moments...yes, many. Scariest? Well, it does have some arguable moments and some long-lingering effects on the people who have seen it. Plus, it IS a great film, I'm always amazed by just how good it is (after all it is a movie starring a rubber shark).
Alien --This is a movie that straddles the line between sci-fi and real horror. I will agree that the first time I saw this film I was terrified (and 11). My mother and I rented this from the local library and curled up on her bed to watch it one night while the younger kids slept. This is when I discovered that my mother screams and slaps when she gets scared. This is a truely scary film, but not just that--it is also a good film. The acting is wonderful, the tone, the music the mood: all spot on. And the scares...gasp! I'm going to agree that this is one of the scariest films ever, but again, because it is one of those scifi/horror fence films I might bump it down on my list.
Exorcist--To begin with a quote from Beetlejuice, "I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT." I've got to agree, somehow it does...I don't want it to, but I still can't recapture the initial horror of the first viewing at 12 years old (is this a chronological journey through my childhood?). First, no twelve year old has any business watching this film...thanks, mom. (I know, I begged...I know.) This film IS scary, but I just can't figure out which "moment" they might be referring to. The film is scary as a whole, it must accumulate (or marinate?). There are no leaping killers, no lurking creatures, just a dread, a forboding and a big big evil v. innocence theme. I love biblical horror...love it. I can't get enough, and this movie may have begun my love relationship with the genre, a scary film for sure. And it would be in my top 10.
Psycho--YIKES! Again, I add to the chronological journey through my childhood: One grey summer day when I was 15 years old, I was suffering from cramps. I begged my mother for some horror films, and she brought back Psycho. My little brother, who was once a sweet boy, watched Psycho with me, in the basement on a little 13 inch black and white T.V. (it didn't matter did it? I mean it's in black and white.) where we huddled together eating Doritos and drinking gallons of Diet Dr. Pepper. What's my point? Well, midday in the summer and this movie is still scary as hell. It's so misleading...everything is fine, calm, we've got a plot already then...WHAM! Moments the phrase WTF was invented for. Needless to say, this movie is horrifying, fabulous, riviting and NOT (decidedly not) remakable. A brief comment on the Psycho remake: dearest hollywood, don't ever do that again. There are some things that CANNOT be remade and remaking Psycho is like remaking the Wizard of Oz, unless you do something lovely and clever and completely different (thank you, The Wiz), you are just making a mess of things. Classics work because something magical has occurred, a great colliding of forces, and as much as I adore Vince Vaughn, he's just too Vince Vaughn-ish to fill Anthony Perkin's shoes. No matter how those shoes are choreographed. The original Psycho makes my top 10, the sequels and remakes do not. Now, dear Hollywood, stop it!
Texas Chainsaw Massacre Ha, right after my plea to Hollywood regarding Psycho, I get to discuss THE Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Oh, Momma! YES! I will limit my discussion here, for Polyphobia will be inviting a guest to review/analyze ALL of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre Series (remakes and offshoots included). Be ready.
Shining--of course they mean the original Kubrick version (the King directed remake is horrifying in a different way). Another childhood story: at age 14 my family decided to make a griswald-esque trip across the country to Oregon, down the coast to L.A. and back to Ohio. We took a few side trips, one to Mt. Hood. Although most of the film was shot in Estes Park, Colorado, several scenes were filmed at the Lodge on Mt. Hood...the long long long hallways in the big wheel scene are located there. My mother and I, both fans of horror ran at top speed up the hallways, mimicing little Tommy's path...scary! Okay, that story wasn't very interesting, but The Shining IS! This movie is creepy, kooky and spooky. And there are quite a few scary scenes (my favorite scenes are of the creepy new year's eve party...surreal and Kubrick-y). It would be a contender for a top 10 position...but could be easily bumped by something less cerebral and more "holy crap!"
Silence of the Lambs --this is another film that is technically not horror, it is a thriller (more on the distinction/correction/confusion of these two genres in a later post), but it does not make this film any less horrifying. There are moments that definately blurr the boundary between crime drama and straight forward horror. I personally find the scene with the night vision goggles absolutely terror-filled. Scary movie, yes...scariest moments, maybe...horror movie, no. This movie, and others like it (serial killer films) can be catagorized as a type, a type made popular post-cold war and pre-digital era: human-threat based horror films. It is easy to track the fears of a society through it's horror films; post-cold war and pre-digital America no longer feared the threat of nuclear attacks or radiation (bye bye giant monsters and mutants), it no longer feared the supernatural (it was a time virtually devoid of techno-fears) because science and technology explained everything...what it feared was itself in the form of other humans. Most of these human threat films are not psychological, but psychotic...the good ones recognize the fear of others (xenophobia) inherient in American culture, the bad ones are just wholesale slaughterfests by killers bent on personal vendettas. The motivations always varied, but the thematic trend was solid.
Carrie--for god's sake, I mean the original. The remake of this film was interesting in it's attempt to do something different (it was not choreographed like Psycho) with the story, and it adhered more readily to Stephen King's novel (not that that's a boon...see "The Shining"), but it lost all the focus and, well I don't want to say it but, charm of the original. The character of Carrie is fascinating: we not only understand and pity the killer, but root for her in the end. It has powerful moments for analysis as well: look at the themes of sexuality and religion that underscore every moment of this movie. I might place this film in the top 20 horror movies of all time, it is brilliant...however as far as moments go: the scares in this film are collective not individual, so, there are no real "moments." It does, in the mother role (played by Piper Laurie), have one of the scariest characters in a horror film...so scary!
Night of the Living Dead --One of the, if not THE, best horror movies ever. Originally done for 3,000 bucks...3,000 bucks!! More money was spent on the filming of Coven (That's pronounced: CO-ven). This is a fascinating film, one which can be analyzed virtually ad infinitum. It is sheer brilliance, and scarier than nearly all of the films on this list. As far as moments go, my favorite (if one could say that...it is not a pleasant response) "scary" moment of the film occurs during the closing credits. I shall spoil nothing, but say...the heartbreak and terror and disgust one feels during the closing credits of this movie is very powerful both emotionally and as a commentary on American society. I have seen this movie more times than I care to admit, and I still almost tear up when the credits roll. Nothing, however, will equal that first viewing: I spent most of the film, from "They're coming to get you, Barbara" until the last scrolling name, with my hand clasped firmly over my mouth in awe and fear and finally sorrow. Nothing holds up to the sheer force of this film. Terrible. You must see it. The one horror movie to make it's viewers weep...that, in itself, is terribly impressive.
Wait Until Dark--Whoa. If you have not seen this film, you are missing out on something phenomenal. Although, again, this is technically not horror, but a thriller or even a drama at points...this movie is truely frightening. The acting is supurb and it does contain one of the scariest movie moments I can think of, when we the audience are struck blind...the scariest minute of black screen in the history of cinema.
I know, I know...that's 10. The top 10. I have listed the next 10 on the list without commentary...knowing that most of these films will (hopefully) be discussed in time. I already have plans for a review/analysis of Audition--a film I believe is one of the scariest ever made. And how could I not comment on such genre staples as Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Hellraiser. I count 21 movies in these franchises alone...wait until I add all the TCSMs and Friday the 13ths? It makes me wonder if this project is too ambitious. Be patient friends, I will try to speed up my posts. If you are interested in a particular review, or want to suggest a post, please contact me. I'm all yours.
Numbers 11-20 on Scariest Movie Moments:
Audition
Misery
Scream
Halloween
Freaks
The Omen
A Nightmare on Elm Street
The Haunting (obviously the original, with Vincent Price)
Hellraiser
The Ring
Jaws --A damn scary movie, but the scariest? I don't know. Honestly, if you have not seen it for a while, or have ONLY seen it on television (with edits and commercial breaks) do yourself a favor and try watching it anew. It is truely a fear inspiring film. It kept people out of the ocean for years after its release, and it is the ONLY film to ever make me physically ill (I was like 10 years old, and had eaten a lot of junk food...so it's vomit inducing powers are probebly limited). Scary moments...yes, many. Scariest? Well, it does have some arguable moments and some long-lingering effects on the people who have seen it. Plus, it IS a great film, I'm always amazed by just how good it is (after all it is a movie starring a rubber shark).
Alien --This is a movie that straddles the line between sci-fi and real horror. I will agree that the first time I saw this film I was terrified (and 11). My mother and I rented this from the local library and curled up on her bed to watch it one night while the younger kids slept. This is when I discovered that my mother screams and slaps when she gets scared. This is a truely scary film, but not just that--it is also a good film. The acting is wonderful, the tone, the music the mood: all spot on. And the scares...gasp! I'm going to agree that this is one of the scariest films ever, but again, because it is one of those scifi/horror fence films I might bump it down on my list.
Exorcist--To begin with a quote from Beetlejuice, "I've seen the EXORCIST ABOUT A HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SEVEN TIMES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING FUNNIER EVERY SINGLE TIME I SEE IT." I've got to agree, somehow it does...I don't want it to, but I still can't recapture the initial horror of the first viewing at 12 years old (is this a chronological journey through my childhood?). First, no twelve year old has any business watching this film...thanks, mom. (I know, I begged...I know.) This film IS scary, but I just can't figure out which "moment" they might be referring to. The film is scary as a whole, it must accumulate (or marinate?). There are no leaping killers, no lurking creatures, just a dread, a forboding and a big big evil v. innocence theme. I love biblical horror...love it. I can't get enough, and this movie may have begun my love relationship with the genre, a scary film for sure. And it would be in my top 10.
Psycho--YIKES! Again, I add to the chronological journey through my childhood: One grey summer day when I was 15 years old, I was suffering from cramps. I begged my mother for some horror films, and she brought back Psycho. My little brother, who was once a sweet boy, watched Psycho with me, in the basement on a little 13 inch black and white T.V. (it didn't matter did it? I mean it's in black and white.) where we huddled together eating Doritos and drinking gallons of Diet Dr. Pepper. What's my point? Well, midday in the summer and this movie is still scary as hell. It's so misleading...everything is fine, calm, we've got a plot already then...WHAM! Moments the phrase WTF was invented for. Needless to say, this movie is horrifying, fabulous, riviting and NOT (decidedly not) remakable. A brief comment on the Psycho remake: dearest hollywood, don't ever do that again. There are some things that CANNOT be remade and remaking Psycho is like remaking the Wizard of Oz, unless you do something lovely and clever and completely different (thank you, The Wiz), you are just making a mess of things. Classics work because something magical has occurred, a great colliding of forces, and as much as I adore Vince Vaughn, he's just too Vince Vaughn-ish to fill Anthony Perkin's shoes. No matter how those shoes are choreographed. The original Psycho makes my top 10, the sequels and remakes do not. Now, dear Hollywood, stop it!
Texas Chainsaw Massacre Ha, right after my plea to Hollywood regarding Psycho, I get to discuss THE Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Oh, Momma! YES! I will limit my discussion here, for Polyphobia will be inviting a guest to review/analyze ALL of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre Series (remakes and offshoots included). Be ready.
Shining--of course they mean the original Kubrick version (the King directed remake is horrifying in a different way). Another childhood story: at age 14 my family decided to make a griswald-esque trip across the country to Oregon, down the coast to L.A. and back to Ohio. We took a few side trips, one to Mt. Hood. Although most of the film was shot in Estes Park, Colorado, several scenes were filmed at the Lodge on Mt. Hood...the long long long hallways in the big wheel scene are located there. My mother and I, both fans of horror ran at top speed up the hallways, mimicing little Tommy's path...scary! Okay, that story wasn't very interesting, but The Shining IS! This movie is creepy, kooky and spooky. And there are quite a few scary scenes (my favorite scenes are of the creepy new year's eve party...surreal and Kubrick-y). It would be a contender for a top 10 position...but could be easily bumped by something less cerebral and more "holy crap!"
Silence of the Lambs --this is another film that is technically not horror, it is a thriller (more on the distinction/correction/confusion of these two genres in a later post), but it does not make this film any less horrifying. There are moments that definately blurr the boundary between crime drama and straight forward horror. I personally find the scene with the night vision goggles absolutely terror-filled. Scary movie, yes...scariest moments, maybe...horror movie, no. This movie, and others like it (serial killer films) can be catagorized as a type, a type made popular post-cold war and pre-digital era: human-threat based horror films. It is easy to track the fears of a society through it's horror films; post-cold war and pre-digital America no longer feared the threat of nuclear attacks or radiation (bye bye giant monsters and mutants), it no longer feared the supernatural (it was a time virtually devoid of techno-fears) because science and technology explained everything...what it feared was itself in the form of other humans. Most of these human threat films are not psychological, but psychotic...the good ones recognize the fear of others (xenophobia) inherient in American culture, the bad ones are just wholesale slaughterfests by killers bent on personal vendettas. The motivations always varied, but the thematic trend was solid.
Carrie--for god's sake, I mean the original. The remake of this film was interesting in it's attempt to do something different (it was not choreographed like Psycho) with the story, and it adhered more readily to Stephen King's novel (not that that's a boon...see "The Shining"), but it lost all the focus and, well I don't want to say it but, charm of the original. The character of Carrie is fascinating: we not only understand and pity the killer, but root for her in the end. It has powerful moments for analysis as well: look at the themes of sexuality and religion that underscore every moment of this movie. I might place this film in the top 20 horror movies of all time, it is brilliant...however as far as moments go: the scares in this film are collective not individual, so, there are no real "moments." It does, in the mother role (played by Piper Laurie), have one of the scariest characters in a horror film...so scary!
Night of the Living Dead --One of the, if not THE, best horror movies ever. Originally done for 3,000 bucks...3,000 bucks!! More money was spent on the filming of Coven (That's pronounced: CO-ven). This is a fascinating film, one which can be analyzed virtually ad infinitum. It is sheer brilliance, and scarier than nearly all of the films on this list. As far as moments go, my favorite (if one could say that...it is not a pleasant response) "scary" moment of the film occurs during the closing credits. I shall spoil nothing, but say...the heartbreak and terror and disgust one feels during the closing credits of this movie is very powerful both emotionally and as a commentary on American society. I have seen this movie more times than I care to admit, and I still almost tear up when the credits roll. Nothing, however, will equal that first viewing: I spent most of the film, from "They're coming to get you, Barbara" until the last scrolling name, with my hand clasped firmly over my mouth in awe and fear and finally sorrow. Nothing holds up to the sheer force of this film. Terrible. You must see it. The one horror movie to make it's viewers weep...that, in itself, is terribly impressive.
Wait Until Dark--Whoa. If you have not seen this film, you are missing out on something phenomenal. Although, again, this is technically not horror, but a thriller or even a drama at points...this movie is truely frightening. The acting is supurb and it does contain one of the scariest movie moments I can think of, when we the audience are struck blind...the scariest minute of black screen in the history of cinema.
I know, I know...that's 10. The top 10. I have listed the next 10 on the list without commentary...knowing that most of these films will (hopefully) be discussed in time. I already have plans for a review/analysis of Audition--a film I believe is one of the scariest ever made. And how could I not comment on such genre staples as Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Hellraiser. I count 21 movies in these franchises alone...wait until I add all the TCSMs and Friday the 13ths? It makes me wonder if this project is too ambitious. Be patient friends, I will try to speed up my posts. If you are interested in a particular review, or want to suggest a post, please contact me. I'm all yours.
Numbers 11-20 on Scariest Movie Moments:
Audition
Misery
Scream
Halloween
Freaks
The Omen
A Nightmare on Elm Street
The Haunting (obviously the original, with Vincent Price)
Hellraiser
The Ring
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Rest Stop (2006)
Rest Stop (2006)
Director: John Shiban
Starring: Jamie Alexander
Screenplay by: John Shiban
This movie sucks. Sucks. I give it a holy crap this movie sucks. Because I am rendered partially speechless by the utter suckitude of this film I shall repost my netflix review of said film in its entirety below. :
"I am a huge fan of random slaughterfests of this sort, and the concept of this movie is extremely interesting (and has the potential for real scares). A lonely rest stop miles from nowhere, an inhumanly cruel, faceless threat: it sounds like the basis for an interesting film. OH, HOWEVER...this has to be one of the most "confused" horror movies I've seen. I'm not sure exactly where it all went wrong: the writer? the director? the actors? the HUGE AND GAPING PLOT HOLES? The answer is probebly a little bit of everything. Despite having "borrowed" ideas from three or four better horror films, this film is filled with the kind of ridiculous actions / reactions / premises that are usually only reserved for low budget horror movies made in someone's back yard. I suspect that the writer and/or directer felt they were being somehow mysterious or clever at key points, but really there is nothing mysterious or clever in this film; there are only ridiculously unlikeable characters, enormous plot holes, pointless scenes, unconnected characters and events and zero explanation. A side note, if there was any truth in advertisitng the alternate endings described as "each one scarier than the next" would need to be changed to "each one more puzzlingly stupid than the next." "
I first have to say, that the review above is a rarity, I seldom, if ever, bother with reviews on netflix (or at all if you notice the frequency, or lack thereof, with which I'm placing reviews on this page). I just couldn't stop myself this time though. I thought, if I could just get one person to delete this movie from their queue then I will have done a very good deed. I hate movies that seem SLICK and turn out worse than most low-budget, backwoods, dentist-directed ex-genius crapfests (I'll give three dollars to anyone who can figure out what movie I just referenced). Now, some movies have low budget sillyness I can get behind; movies like, "There's nothing out there" (a self-aware goof fest)and even "Manos, Hands of Fate" (whose only charm is its successful MST3K-ification). But I hate movies that are oblivious to their own failure. I am positive that the filmmaker, director, whatever: John Shiban thought this was a tour-de-force, I mean after all JOEY LAWRENCE IS IN IT! (And in the only accidentally funny scene in the movie...I laughed for like 10 minutes, I'm stifling a giggle now as I shake my head over the shame of it). And there is where it all went wrong. Why set out to make a "type of movie?" Make a good movie, tell a good story, make me scared. This film was sadly all candy coating with no center. (I would swear they spent the majority of the filming budget on corn syrup and the editing for the trailer.)
So, now I'm at an impasse, I can't think of a way to talk about horror theory in relation to this movie. Maybe I'll just say this: sometimes what scares us doesn't need to be made so obvious. I'm thinking of movies like "Last Broadcast" (almost perfect...if it wasn't for those last four minutes), or even the love-it/hate-it "Blair Witch Project" where the thing that frightens us isn't shown, it is imagined. Isn't the fear in the imagining of the horror? The anticipation of it? This film had all the makings of something interesting...if it just hadn't tried to explain anything at all, for when it tried it failed quickly and left more holes than ideas. Nothing came together, but not in an interesting Gestalt kind of way...just in a "dammit, I want my two hours back" way. Stupid movie.
Side notes:
The main character is probebly the most dislikable character I have ever experienced in a horror movie. This was a very strange direction for the film to take: usually we like the main character, it is important to like them, for we want them to live. Taking the unconventional approach in this movie, making the main character a whiney, unlikable, useless dingbat really backfired (unless that was the point, but I just can't fathom what the point of doing this ON PURPOSE would be), I think? Oh, who can tell.
Director: John Shiban
Starring: Jamie Alexander
Screenplay by: John Shiban
This movie sucks. Sucks. I give it a holy crap this movie sucks. Because I am rendered partially speechless by the utter suckitude of this film I shall repost my netflix review of said film in its entirety below. :
"I am a huge fan of random slaughterfests of this sort, and the concept of this movie is extremely interesting (and has the potential for real scares). A lonely rest stop miles from nowhere, an inhumanly cruel, faceless threat: it sounds like the basis for an interesting film. OH, HOWEVER...this has to be one of the most "confused" horror movies I've seen. I'm not sure exactly where it all went wrong: the writer? the director? the actors? the HUGE AND GAPING PLOT HOLES? The answer is probebly a little bit of everything. Despite having "borrowed" ideas from three or four better horror films, this film is filled with the kind of ridiculous actions / reactions / premises that are usually only reserved for low budget horror movies made in someone's back yard. I suspect that the writer and/or directer felt they were being somehow mysterious or clever at key points, but really there is nothing mysterious or clever in this film; there are only ridiculously unlikeable characters, enormous plot holes, pointless scenes, unconnected characters and events and zero explanation. A side note, if there was any truth in advertisitng the alternate endings described as "each one scarier than the next" would need to be changed to "each one more puzzlingly stupid than the next." "
I first have to say, that the review above is a rarity, I seldom, if ever, bother with reviews on netflix (or at all if you notice the frequency, or lack thereof, with which I'm placing reviews on this page). I just couldn't stop myself this time though. I thought, if I could just get one person to delete this movie from their queue then I will have done a very good deed. I hate movies that seem SLICK and turn out worse than most low-budget, backwoods, dentist-directed ex-genius crapfests (I'll give three dollars to anyone who can figure out what movie I just referenced). Now, some movies have low budget sillyness I can get behind; movies like, "There's nothing out there" (a self-aware goof fest)and even "Manos, Hands of Fate" (whose only charm is its successful MST3K-ification). But I hate movies that are oblivious to their own failure. I am positive that the filmmaker, director, whatever: John Shiban thought this was a tour-de-force, I mean after all JOEY LAWRENCE IS IN IT! (And in the only accidentally funny scene in the movie...I laughed for like 10 minutes, I'm stifling a giggle now as I shake my head over the shame of it). And there is where it all went wrong. Why set out to make a "type of movie?" Make a good movie, tell a good story, make me scared. This film was sadly all candy coating with no center. (I would swear they spent the majority of the filming budget on corn syrup and the editing for the trailer.)
So, now I'm at an impasse, I can't think of a way to talk about horror theory in relation to this movie. Maybe I'll just say this: sometimes what scares us doesn't need to be made so obvious. I'm thinking of movies like "Last Broadcast" (almost perfect...if it wasn't for those last four minutes), or even the love-it/hate-it "Blair Witch Project" where the thing that frightens us isn't shown, it is imagined. Isn't the fear in the imagining of the horror? The anticipation of it? This film had all the makings of something interesting...if it just hadn't tried to explain anything at all, for when it tried it failed quickly and left more holes than ideas. Nothing came together, but not in an interesting Gestalt kind of way...just in a "dammit, I want my two hours back" way. Stupid movie.
Side notes:
The main character is probebly the most dislikable character I have ever experienced in a horror movie. This was a very strange direction for the film to take: usually we like the main character, it is important to like them, for we want them to live. Taking the unconventional approach in this movie, making the main character a whiney, unlikable, useless dingbat really backfired (unless that was the point, but I just can't fathom what the point of doing this ON PURPOSE would be), I think? Oh, who can tell.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Elements of Horror
Elements of Horror a short pdf borrowing heavily from Noel Carroll's famous "Philosophy of Horror" something I have used frequently when teaching horror theory.
A Synopsis of Carroll's Work.
I'm posting this now because I'll be referring back to it kiddies. Pay attention. This is important. Later on when I mention horrific metonymy or massification you'll want to be clear as to what I mean.
A Synopsis of Carroll's Work.
I'm posting this now because I'll be referring back to it kiddies. Pay attention. This is important. Later on when I mention horrific metonymy or massification you'll want to be clear as to what I mean.
Psychoanalysis and Horror Films
Psychoanalysis in/and/of the Horror Film by Stephen Jay Schneider, an excerpt from the introduction to Freud's Worst Nightmares.
This isn't a collection of psychoanalytic criticism of particular genres, trends or films, but is a collection of essays analyzing the psychoanalytic criticism that has been applied to horror. Stephen Jay Schneider insists on a meta-theoretical approach in this collection that looks at why and how psychoanalysis has been applied to horror films and what assumptions and conclusions have been made about horror as a result of those analyses.
Although I'm not a huge fan of psychoanalysis in most forms (and a vehement Freud-hater), I do think it's a worthwhile pursuit. And it can be fascinating when applied to horror films, but often the results of these analysis seem at odds with one another. Are horror movies dependant on oedipal desires? Are they the result of castration fear? penis envy? Since they are based on fears, according to standard psychoanalytical theory, they must also contain a desire. What are those desires? This can be a fun exercise, AND it can serve to point out pervasive societial fears/desires...or it can be a self-serving waste of time.
One of my favorite genres to "analyze:" werewolf films. They lend themselves beautifully to psychoanalytical theory, and the best films realize the connection and exploit or contort the tradition to expose something new and interesting about the furry insides of humanity. Some good werewolf (with great psychoanalytical possibilities) films to see: "Ginger Snaps," "Ginger Snaps II," "Ginger Snaps Back," "In the Company of Wolves," "The Howling II/III" and "Brotherhood of the Wolf." Or wait for the new release of "Blood and Chocolate". I hope they've at least thought about the tradition of werewolf films and metaphors...it seems they may have considering the title. (Oh, it's about women...they like chocolate...hurk hurk. Sometimes I hate how clever hollywood thinks it is. If it were half as clever as all that, there would never be a bad big budget horror flick.)
I do think it is an interesting project to analyze analyses. I've done this myself with several critical theories and rhetorical strategies. It can be quite telling about the nature of critical thought.
This isn't a collection of psychoanalytic criticism of particular genres, trends or films, but is a collection of essays analyzing the psychoanalytic criticism that has been applied to horror. Stephen Jay Schneider insists on a meta-theoretical approach in this collection that looks at why and how psychoanalysis has been applied to horror films and what assumptions and conclusions have been made about horror as a result of those analyses.
Although I'm not a huge fan of psychoanalysis in most forms (and a vehement Freud-hater), I do think it's a worthwhile pursuit. And it can be fascinating when applied to horror films, but often the results of these analysis seem at odds with one another. Are horror movies dependant on oedipal desires? Are they the result of castration fear? penis envy? Since they are based on fears, according to standard psychoanalytical theory, they must also contain a desire. What are those desires? This can be a fun exercise, AND it can serve to point out pervasive societial fears/desires...or it can be a self-serving waste of time.
One of my favorite genres to "analyze:" werewolf films. They lend themselves beautifully to psychoanalytical theory, and the best films realize the connection and exploit or contort the tradition to expose something new and interesting about the furry insides of humanity. Some good werewolf (with great psychoanalytical possibilities) films to see: "Ginger Snaps," "Ginger Snaps II," "Ginger Snaps Back," "In the Company of Wolves," "The Howling II/III" and "Brotherhood of the Wolf." Or wait for the new release of "Blood and Chocolate". I hope they've at least thought about the tradition of werewolf films and metaphors...it seems they may have considering the title. (Oh, it's about women...they like chocolate...hurk hurk. Sometimes I hate how clever hollywood thinks it is. If it were half as clever as all that, there would never be a bad big budget horror flick.)
I do think it is an interesting project to analyze analyses. I've done this myself with several critical theories and rhetorical strategies. It can be quite telling about the nature of critical thought.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Review: Pulse (US version 2006)
PULSE
Director: Jim Sonzero
Starring: Kristen Bell, Ian Sommerhalder
Screenplay by: Wes Craven
Pulse (2006) is an American remake of a Japanese 2005 Kiyoshi Kurosawa horror film of the same name. The basic premise of the movie is the same as the Japanese version: a computer virus releases paranormal presences on a previously undetected frequency. The differences that exist between the two versions seem to exist for the sake of clarifying things for American audiences.
An interesting premise: that the dead come through on a particular frequency, this is taking EVP (electronic voice phenomenon) to the next level. Not only can the dead be heard on specific frequencies, but now they can act and interact. I get the feeling that if I had not seen the Japanese version first I would have been more interested, as it stands though this movie is slow paced and (interesting side note...at least to me) takes place in a "Columbus, Ohio" that is NOT "Columbus, Ohio." Bad move on the film's part...I kept looking for landmarks only to decide by the end of the movie that the location seemed to be picked at random (I can imagine that brainstorming session: "let's call it anywhere USA." "No, it has to be a city." "A city in the midwest? Chicago?" "Too big, we want Mr. and Ms. Joe Shmo America to feel for these characters." "Um, okay then Columbus, Ohio it is!"). At least they are adhering to the strong tradition of Ohio towns/places as settings for horror films. Somehow it seemed to work better in Tokyo though.
Some things worth noting:
1. Cat in a closet does not jump out...it is mostly dead. Is this a clever nod to a horror cliche'? You decide. Personally, I think it tried to be clever, but wound up being as pointless a scare as a live cat in a closet. Who keeps cats in closets? I have never understood the need for a pointless scare. The cat in a closet is somehow become, unfortunately, a horror film obligation of sorts. It's a cheap gag. The worst incident of "Cat in a Closet" occured in the strange mocu-docu-horror film "The St. Francesville Experiment." I single this out as the WORST cat in a closet incident in the history of horror films because not because of its ridiculousness (and it is ridiculous), but because it signals a huge error in the film. At this point it is all downhill. The mocumentary style has been compromised and the film itself NEVER recovers, it only digs itself deeper into a hole it can't crawl out of (not even with detatched zombie arms).
2. Hopelessness is the name of the game and I love a hopeless horror film. I don't need to feel good at the end of the film. Sometimes those "feel good" endings are so counterintuitive that they destroy a movie. I like a sense of hopelessness and foreboding, that's real. That's life. (And it's a type of horror film move that the Japanese have Schooled us in).
3. What exactly did Wes Craven do in this? It doesn't really feel like a Wes Craven film. Maybe they just needed a name? It's true I'm more prone to watch a film if my favorite names are attached to the title, regardless of how minute their input in the final product.
4. This is a classic fear of technology film. Many of these DO come out of Japan, but the US has a strong tradition of fearing the future: think about films like "Lawnmower Man," or even the dozens of pre-cold war magnification (atomically enlarged insects, lizards, people, etc) horror films...and every horror film that takes place in outer space from "Leprechaun in Space" to "Aliens" is essentially a version of the classic fear of technology. What does this say about American culture as a whole? I suspect that it says we have shifted our very human fear of the unknown from a purely psychological and/or paranormal(spiritual, supernatural) focus to a fear of technological and scientific advancements COMBINED with paranormal elements. I'm not proposing this is a new fear, consider the biological and social advancements that lead to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; those fears are no different than the fears expressed in this film the supernatural and the scientific are not at odds, but in cahoots (this time to destroy mankind).
Director: Jim Sonzero
Starring: Kristen Bell, Ian Sommerhalder
Screenplay by: Wes Craven
Pulse (2006) is an American remake of a Japanese 2005 Kiyoshi Kurosawa horror film of the same name. The basic premise of the movie is the same as the Japanese version: a computer virus releases paranormal presences on a previously undetected frequency. The differences that exist between the two versions seem to exist for the sake of clarifying things for American audiences.
An interesting premise: that the dead come through on a particular frequency, this is taking EVP (electronic voice phenomenon) to the next level. Not only can the dead be heard on specific frequencies, but now they can act and interact. I get the feeling that if I had not seen the Japanese version first I would have been more interested, as it stands though this movie is slow paced and (interesting side note...at least to me) takes place in a "Columbus, Ohio" that is NOT "Columbus, Ohio." Bad move on the film's part...I kept looking for landmarks only to decide by the end of the movie that the location seemed to be picked at random (I can imagine that brainstorming session: "let's call it anywhere USA." "No, it has to be a city." "A city in the midwest? Chicago?" "Too big, we want Mr. and Ms. Joe Shmo America to feel for these characters." "Um, okay then Columbus, Ohio it is!"). At least they are adhering to the strong tradition of Ohio towns/places as settings for horror films. Somehow it seemed to work better in Tokyo though.
Some things worth noting:
1. Cat in a closet does not jump out...it is mostly dead. Is this a clever nod to a horror cliche'? You decide. Personally, I think it tried to be clever, but wound up being as pointless a scare as a live cat in a closet. Who keeps cats in closets? I have never understood the need for a pointless scare. The cat in a closet is somehow become, unfortunately, a horror film obligation of sorts. It's a cheap gag. The worst incident of "Cat in a Closet" occured in the strange mocu-docu-horror film "The St. Francesville Experiment." I single this out as the WORST cat in a closet incident in the history of horror films because not because of its ridiculousness (and it is ridiculous), but because it signals a huge error in the film. At this point it is all downhill. The mocumentary style has been compromised and the film itself NEVER recovers, it only digs itself deeper into a hole it can't crawl out of (not even with detatched zombie arms).
2. Hopelessness is the name of the game and I love a hopeless horror film. I don't need to feel good at the end of the film. Sometimes those "feel good" endings are so counterintuitive that they destroy a movie. I like a sense of hopelessness and foreboding, that's real. That's life. (And it's a type of horror film move that the Japanese have Schooled us in).
3. What exactly did Wes Craven do in this? It doesn't really feel like a Wes Craven film. Maybe they just needed a name? It's true I'm more prone to watch a film if my favorite names are attached to the title, regardless of how minute their input in the final product.
4. This is a classic fear of technology film. Many of these DO come out of Japan, but the US has a strong tradition of fearing the future: think about films like "Lawnmower Man," or even the dozens of pre-cold war magnification (atomically enlarged insects, lizards, people, etc) horror films...and every horror film that takes place in outer space from "Leprechaun in Space" to "Aliens" is essentially a version of the classic fear of technology. What does this say about American culture as a whole? I suspect that it says we have shifted our very human fear of the unknown from a purely psychological and/or paranormal(spiritual, supernatural) focus to a fear of technological and scientific advancements COMBINED with paranormal elements. I'm not proposing this is a new fear, consider the biological and social advancements that lead to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; those fears are no different than the fears expressed in this film the supernatural and the scientific are not at odds, but in cahoots (this time to destroy mankind).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
