I Am Everyone's No One

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/10 - The Wolf Man

2012-01-04T16:05:00.012-05:00

The Wolf Man (1941)

There are a few commonly noted legacies that the The Wolf Man has been granted by filmdom. One is that the film is sometimes credited as the final installment of Hollywood's Golden Age of horror, which established the horror film as a successful financial venture in modern cinema. Another legacy is that Lon Chaney Jr.'s portrayal of a man cursed to become a werewolf by night is one of the last additions to the classic pantheon of Universal Monsters (depending on your opinion, the monster from Creature from the Black Lagoon could be considered the last one). Additionally, a commonly misconstrued legacy attributed to The Wolf Man is that it is also the first official werewolf film to grace the silver screen; this legacy is inaccurate one, though, since the lesser known but mildly successful (in its time) Werewolf of London came out six years prior to it. These things, and others, are often amongst the first referenced things about The Wolf Man, but I have come to think of the film a bit differently upon my own first thoughts. For me, The Wolf Man stands out a bit more since I've come to believe that the film is essentially a Greek tragedy wrapped in the guise of an early modern horror film. The tragedy aspect of the film is even directly addressed by the film itself when a man, who is competing against main character Larry Talbot for the attentions of a love interest, still sympathetically says of Talbot, "There's something very tragic about that man.”

What fuels this film's seeming Greek tragedy gravitas is its acting, which is extremely well executed by the whole cast but is especially noteworthy by Lon Chaney Jr himself. Chaney Jr.'s performance as Larry Talbot, a character who seems to walk around with the proverbial storm cloud above his head, is the engine that powers the film. Lon Chaney Jr. is famous for his role in The Wolf Man, but he essentially got type-cast into the horror films as a result of it which is really an unfair turn of events. The only other role with which he is seriously remembered for is his portrayal of Lennie in the first version of Of Mice and Men ever made, which he made previous to The Wolf Man, and both of his famous roles show that Chaney had real acting chops. The reason this is noteworthy relating to The Wolf Man is that his performance as Larry Talbot is a very understated but strong performance. And it is a performance that Chaney doesn't, and never will, get the attention he deserves for. Horror films are not the most fertile ground for highly praised (or, to be fair, well executed) acting performances but I believe that Chaney's performance in The Wolf Man is worthy of accolades. If nothing else, Chaney makes this film as successful as it is. Yes, the werewolf makeup is legendary and the story is strong, but without the excellent acting by not only Chaney but also his cast mates (which also includes Claude Rains, an extremely short cameo by Bela Lugosi, and an incredibly young Ralph Belamy) then this film would be lost in the abyss of "also ran" horror.

And make no mistake, The Wolf Man is incredibly successful. I could sentimentally try to convince you that the film is a modern story on the level of Hamlet (which it isn't in the complexity sense, but it is in the sense of tragedy), but where this film proves to be successful across all perspectives and spectrum's is as a horror film. Again, The Wolf Man plays the part of a horror film perfectly, and it's not only because of its storyline but also its imagery that makes it work so well. The foggy backwoods with Larry Talbot wandering listlessly as either a man or wolf is iconic, to say the least. It's also a moody film which doesn't simply play to its supernatural leanings ala something like Silk, but it doesn't render them moot like the original The Haunting seems to, either. It's also rare that a supernatural movie like The Wolf Man tries to honestly disprove itself by logical conclusions, like this movie does. However, that is just what Larry Talbot's father attempts to do (played by the aforementioned Claude Rains) by going to extremes to disprove the werewolf myth surrounding his son.

What allows the continued attempts of disproof to still fit within the storyline is the logical idea of murder. A reasonable assupmtion is to assume the deaths that were caused by werewolf killings where murders, which is where Ralph Bellamy's character comes in. It is that very misdirection which helps flesh out the very core of the werewolf story: what do we really have inside us? The doubt that maybe Talbot is the murderer also highlights an interesting association between the idea of the werewolf and the idea behind Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Is Talbot turning into a beast, or does he maybe just have a little Hyde in him? Maybe we all do? Essentially, these are the questions which deal with one of the core principles of a huge percentage of every horror story and film: the fact is that the monsters are very real, and they are everywhere, because they are truly in all of us. This kind of theme permeates every era of horror; from the very first Frankenstein film to something more recent like Shutter or From Within.

There is certainly a great deal of similarities between the Jekyll/Hyde story and werewolf mythology. Each story deals with the battle within each of us between our humanity and our urges and desires; in essence both stories seek to put the idea of the "civilized man" under more scrutiny. There are two differences, however, between the stories that do keep them separate. The first is that werewolf mythology is a broad easel with which any number of stories could be drawn upon, from the more standard The Wolf Man and An American Werewolf in London tragedy plot to the more battle like Dog soldiers and Underworld plot lines. The Jekyll/Hyde story is more limited; it isn't built out of old mythology but is instead a contemporary story which can be retooled and reinterpreted, but still is dependent upon the same premise.

The second difference between the werewolf myth and the Jekyll/Hyde story is their use of themes and plot devices. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a story that, like Frankenstein before it, deals with the pursuit of science forcing man to confront its own humanity. It is the mismanagement of science that pushes Dr. Jekyll to lose control of urges and desires and become more animalistic than humanistic. In the werewolf myth, it isn't man losing control of his own science that forces the conflict, but rather it is nature establishing itself as the superior force on man which pushes him away from being "civilized" and back into survival mode. So in essence, the Jekyll/Hyde story is more like the Fukushima incident, and werewolf mythology is akin to the Katrina disaster. This kind of analogy can be further supported by the heavy use of gypsies in The Wolf Man, who are portrayed as rustic and nomadic people who deal much in the occult. These kinds of stereotypes typically imbue their holders with a relationship more closer to nature, and thus relating to more of the werewolf mythology's natural leanings.

It is portrayals such as this in The Wolf Man which really established the standard mythology which Hollywood used for most of its werewolf films from then on. This further establishes The Wolf Man as not only an iconic and entertaining film, but also essentially an epoch starter for the sub-genre of werewolf films in cinema. Obviously the films reputation as a classic precedes itself, so it's unlikely that I need to explain that it is a highly recommended film to see. However, I consider it a fairly well layered film not only historically but also cinematically and that it is a film worth seeing as much for its entertainment value as it is a film of historic value.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/10: The Fog (1980)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
10/3: Frankenstein (1931)
10/4: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
10/5: The Thing From Another World (1951)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
10/10: The Wolf Man (1941)
10/9: Altered States (1980)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/4: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/3: Freaks (1932)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
10/4: Mark of the Vampire (1935)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
10/8: The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

Are You Watching the Annual Syfy Twilight Zone Marathon?

2011-12-31T13:01:00.002-05:00

For me, New Years Eve wouldn't be New Years Eve without Syfy's annual New Years Eve Twilight Zone Marathon. It is my opinion that the yearly Twilight Zone marathon on Syfy is the champion of all TV marathons, with only the Christmas Marathon of A Christmas Story on TBS coming anywhere close to it.

One of these days, I'm going to get around to posting about some of the original Twilight Zone's biggest influences; its early of introductions of actors like William Shatner and Robert Redford and its many story lines that have either inspired or directly initiated full length films. I won't be able to do that, however, until I write my other 30 horror film reviews.....no I haven't forgotten about them or given up on them. They will get done, but they will have to wait at least until after the Twilight Zone Marathon....

Happy New Years to those out there who do, and do not, read my blog. Here's hoping the next 12 months bring the gift of happiness into your life.

An Interpretive Animation

2011-12-18T11:03:00.002-05:00

So I guess this is going to be a thing for me until I get it out of my system or someone makes fun of me for it some time soon.....

I was just browsing Twitter a few days ago, and I saw a "Re-tweet" by Seth MacFarlane (on twitter as SethMacFarlane) of a guy named Mike Scully (on twitter as scullymike). Mike Scully has worked heavily and been very involved as a writer with The Simpsons, and he's writing for the upcoming Napoleon Dynamite animated series. Mike Scully's original tweet (made on December 3rd, a while ago) went as follows: "Beautiful sunrise! Spectacular sunset! Fuck you!!" - Rest-of-day sun.

For whatever reason, it struck me that this mini-quip would make for an easy animation in the style that I've been doing. So I took it upon myself to draw up my interpretation of it, which you see above. If someone can make fun of me about all this as soon as possible, it would be great. Then I can move on to my next useless obsession.

Don't Cut Alfalfa's Hair

2011-12-12T00:03:00.002-05:00

Why was Alfalfa's hair (of The Little Rascals fame) always sticking up? Why didn't someone just cut it off?

I'm not an animator. I know this. You know this. The American people know this (on a side note, why is there NO youtube clips of Norm MacDonald reciting his famous "you know, I know it, and the American people know it" Bob Dole quote?). However, despite the fact that I'm not an animator, I continue to make animations. I have to record said animations on my digital camera off of my computer screen, and sometimes (i.e. all the time) it doesn't make for the best audio or visual experience, but my options are limited by my means and lack of knowledge. So if I want to record my animations for posterity, this is the best I can do.

Everything I make in animations I make on Sketch Star. I was going to officially publish this video on Sketch Star to possibly provide a better looking version than the working version I recorded on my camera, but as I went to post it I got a warning saying if there is excessive blood in the video, it will get deleted by moderators......

So I guess I'm going to keep it as a saved project, not public on Sketch Star. Ha.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/10 - The Fog

2011-12-08T12:09:00.007-05:00

The Fog (1980)

In writing about John Carpenter's original The Fog, I find it exceedingly easy to expound on how the film is effectively drenched in atmosphere. It isn't hard to talk about how the music and imagery combine to make said atmosphere unfurl from the screen in a fog like effect itself. I also most recently became aware of the multiple connections Carpenter placed within The Fog with The Thing From Another World, which is one of Carpenter's favorite films. In addition to that, I can further expound at great length on The Fog's camp-fire ghost story sensibility, which adds to its compelling plot. It is all of these things, and more, which I believe render The Fog as one of the best horror films of all time. What I have difficulty doing, however, is verifying my high praise of the film with other horror fans and movie goers; while I consider The Fog to be one of the best horror films on celluloid, it is not considered a seminal horror classic amongst the masses. It is this divide that gives me fits when I try to sit down and write about the film.

On the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), The Fog regularly maintains a rating just under 7.0 (6.8 at the time of this post). Films of the horror genre, much like in comedy, are not often the most critically acclaimed films out on the market, but if you attempt to pick a generalized "top 10 most critically acclaimed horror films" it might look something like this:

Psycho, IMDB ranking as of this post 8.7
Alien, IMDB Ranking as of this post 8.5
The Shining, IMDB Ranking as of this post 8.5
Aliens, IMDB Ranking as of this post 8.5
The Exorcist, IMDB Ranking as of this post 8.1
Night of the Living Dead, IMDB Ranking as of this post 8.0
Frankenstein, IMDB Ranking as of this post 8.0
Bride of Frankenstein, IMDB Ranking as of this post 8.0
Halloween, IMDB Ranking as of this post 7.9
Repulsion, IMDB Ranking as of this post 7.9

The aforementioned films all receive pretty high marks, regardless of what genre they are categorized in. The lowest rated film in that list owns a 7.9, and I'm convinced that Repulsion should have a much higher rating than that (Halloween, essentially a slasher film -albeit one of the first and the trend setter- should probably be content with its rating). Each of those films on the list are in, or nearly in, the 8.0s whereas The Fog isn't even in the 7.0s. Certainly a movie's IMDB rating is not nearly the last word on a movies perceived quality or standing in the industry, but when you're talking about a one and a half point difference between The Fog's rating and the ratings of films considered "essential" in horror, it's clear that The Fog is not a perceived horror juggernaut.

The Case For The Fog

I'm not naive enough to think or believe that The Fog is a perfect film. Even the best of films aren't perfect. But the best of films usually do at least one thing epically good. In The Fog's case, I am of the belief that it emotes an atmosphere as effectively as any film that's ever been made. It practically immerses its audience in the atmosphere it produces; and in a genre that puts a premium on atmosphere (horror), I would think this alone should elevate The Fog into a special class. The films atmosphere is so effective because Carpenter, fresh off his success with Halloween (another king in atmospheric celluloid excellence), combines teasing his viewers eyes along with their ears with just the right kinds of imagery and sound. The Fog is another film Carpenter himself made the soundtrack for, and in my opinion it's actually a better overall soundtrack than his Halloween synth/piano opus is. The only difference between the two is that the Halloween soundtrack has become an iconic masterpiece (everyone knows Halloween's main theme music). But when I recently went into a specialty store to replace my lost DVD copy of The Fog, one of the clerks told me he had recently been listening to the soundtrack of The Fog in his spare time. People most obviously do that with the Halloween soundtrack when the Fall season comes, as well, but the fact that The Fog is a lesser known, and lesser praised, film whose soundtrack is still listened to as a stand-alone product should tell you a lot about the music.

From an imagery standpoint, there are a lot of things going on with The Fog, too. The landscape of Antonio Bay (filmed mostly in Point Reyes Station, California), features a beautiful coastline which is used perfectly by the keen eye of Carpenter. When combined with the stellar effects (stellar even when compared to the CGI from the epically bad 2005 remake) of the eventual fog and how it curls, crawls, and reaches over the precipices and expanses of Antonia Bay, the coastline landscape makes for a perfect setting. It is interesting to note, which I do mention in the post on The Uninvited, how two of the best ghost stories ever put onto film are both based in coast line cities and landscapes. Additionally, parts of the storytelling begin to intertwine with the imagery Carpenter puts to film, like with the opening prologue of the film which properly sets the scene of a camp-side fire type ghost story with...a camp-side fire ghost story.

A Book On Tape On Film?

And that is another key effect this film has which I have come to highly value in my horror films: the actors story telling abilities within the movie. I've come to identify this trait more after my viewing of The UFO Incident, which I believe is one of the best horror films due solely to its use of the actors telling what happened to them more than the movie showing what happened to them. In The Fog, there are two key scenes which drive both the atmosphere, as well as the viewers understanding of the plot, and for me they are big reasons why I rate the film so highly. In my effort to identify why there is such a divide between why I think The Fog is so good and why most others do not, the issue of storytelling within a movie might finally be the answer I've been looking for. The UFO Incident, a made for TV movie from the 70s, is rated as a 6.7 on IMDB at the time of this posting (similar to The Fog's rating). It seems that people generally do not like films where the actors tell them stories as if they are watching a "book on tape" on film, and this sentiment doesn't really surprise me. You do watch a film to be shown things, not told things.

Having said that, I simply don't agree with the sentiment; I think, in The Fog when Hal Holbrook reads from his ancestor's diary and John Houseman snaps his time-piece to open the films prologue by camp fire, that those scenes are cinematic gems. These are essential scenes within the film and these men don't just recite their parts, they act out those scenes; every word and mannerism adding as much to the scene as if it was being shown to us by action rather than spoken through word. The UFO Incident features even more of such cinema, with James Earl Jones and Estelle Parsons acting out their story telling in such a way that it seemed more compelling seeing them tell it than it might have been seeing them do it. It was their acting and the style of the direction that film took which had me rate it as highly as I did, if a made for TV film had attempted to show what happened instead of the actors acting out what happened to them, that film would have been a disaster (even the small bits that they do show kind of hurts the film). And, to me, this finally identifies the great divide between my opinion on this film and the general opinion by everyone else. I think if you have great actors telling stories on the screen and, in the case of The Fog, you tie in those spoken stories with great additional atmosphere, plot, and imagery, then you can create a classic film. And that is what I believe The Fog to be.

Parting Shots

I'm often reminded of a house mate of mine in college who found nothing in the film frightening, entertaining, or noteworthy. After the film, he kept knocking on doors and walls in the house, berating the films use of the tactic. At the time, I felt like this was indicative in that I was just too sentimental over the film and that perhaps it wasn't as good of a film as I thought it was. That may still be the case, but I feel like I have more than a simple "this film is so awesome!" retort to such an accusation now. Some people seem to complain about the antagonists in The Fog as not being scary, or the fog as a plot device being silly, which again leads me to question my belief in the film. What I've decided is that watching The Fog is not dissimilar to listening to a train by putting your ears to the railroad tracks. If you're not listening for the train closely, then you're not going to hear it, and maybe you'll leave the tracks before the full effect of a train roaring by you can happen.

I could understand an argument against such things though, perhaps it is the job of a film, or the director of a film, to simply force you to become interested. To use my train tracks analogy again, maybe a film shouldn't expect you to put your ears to the tracks; maybe you should be able to hear a faint whistle off in the distance which will keep you around the track more readily. As a viewer, there is a viable argument that you shouldn't have to put too much work into a film to enjoy it, if a film is good it will win you over regardless. I certainly do not agree with that theory, though, as some films require more from its viewers than others and that does not render a film as flawed. To me a good example of this is The Shawshank Redemption, which is pretty widely beloved and praised now, but, when it was first released was scoffed at for being boring and droll. For The Shawshank Redemption to really work for its viewers, I get the feeling that they need to let the music and scenery (its atmosphere) into their minds as they watch. It might be a bit of a stretch, but I kind of think of The Shawshank Redemption as the non-horror film version of The Fog (with added narration, of course).

For The Fog to have its full effect, maybe you need to be watching it at night, and maybe you had better have taken your ADHD medication, or had a glass of wine, or whatever it is that gets you to get your "ears onto the rail road tracks". For some, that might mean that the movie fails in that it shouldn't take gimmicks (or something like that) to get you to enjoy a film. I disagree with such a claim, of course, because I like subtlety in my films and that is what I think The Fog brings to the table. It isn't like the whole film is subtle, but, if the whole film is to have its proper effect then you might need to be on board with its initial subtleties first.

If you're the kind of person who thinks that camp-side ghost story sessions are only any good when someone eventually jumps out from the shadows and scares the crap out of everyone, you may be less likely to enjoy The Fog. If, however, you are the kind of person who was mesmerized by the stories already and was in no need for the jump scare to have made the stories any more effective, then you might be more likely to enjoy the film. Regardless, I think The Fog is one of the top 5 horror films ever made. Maybe this renders me as a kook, but my opinion stands as is to this day. This blog post inevitably turned into a bunch of sentimental hogwash and I didn't even get to talk about Janet Leigh's performance alongside her daughter Jamie Lee Curtis, The Fog's connection with The Thing From Another World (particularly the films final monologue), or how terrible the remake was. It's also taken me a long time to decide whether or not to put The Fog on top of or underneath Alien, but I'll skip that explanation as well; I'm going to quit while I'm behind and post this blog as is.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/10: The Fog (1980)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
10/3: Frankenstein (1931)
10/4: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
10/5: The Thing From Another World (1951)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
10/9: Altered States (1980)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/4: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/3: Freaks (1932)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
10/4: Mark of the Vampire (1935)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
10/8: The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/9 - Altered States

2011-12-07T08:22:00.005-05:00

Altered States (1980)

Altered States is an incredibly intriguing film for a variety of reasons. The most accessible reason for that intrigue seems to be that it set the foundation for a great many ideas used throughout the 80s in many films that followed it, such as An American Werewolf in London and The Fly. Its influence stretched even beyond feature films, influencing a pretty famous 1980s music video: Aha's Take On Me (I listened to that damn song 30 straight times, while writing this blog, after first finding it on Youtube). Considering the seemingly pervasive use of borrowed imagery, story, style, and iconic scenes from Altered States, it's a wonder that it isn't more widely known and credited as being such a trend setter. Instead, the things that borrowed from the film have become far more recognizable not only from the era of the 80s, but also in pop culture as a whole. I certianly didn't know anything about this film until I randomly chose it to watch. Having said all that, the film is relatively well known by hardcore horror fans and it was even homaged by South Park, which I think helps to prove that this is an intriguingly noteworthy film.

As a horror film, it owes its lineage to the long line of mad scientist films in existence. What might set this film apart from the pack, though, is its heavily philosophical direction which tends to give it a more academic feel than most horror films. I guess when I say "academic" one might assume I mean that it is a smart movie, which it is (relatively), but that isn't what I'm trying to imply. There are a lot of visuals throughout the film which come off as smart and intelligently done, but when I say "academic" I'm really referring to the heavy use of religious imagery used in the film which coincides with the ultimate drive of the main character: to learn and understand, at its very core, what it is to be human. That is an important part of the film, and it is very akin to one of the first modern horror films, Frankenstein. Altered States attempts to give Eddie Jessup's (the main character in Altered States) actions a much deeper reach by making it more clear that he doesn't just want to create like god does, but he wants to know like god does. He wants to know the how and why of everything, and his need for that knowledge, just like Dr. Frankenstein's, drives the film.

The smart visuals I already mentioned are exemplified in the visually dramatic introduction of Eddie Jessup (played by a very young William Hurt) at a party accompanied by the music of The Doors. There is a lot of irony in the door being opened to introduce Jessup to the music of The Doors, but there is a lot more going on with this scene than just a cute connection between the music and whats going on in the scene. Specifically, the scene comes off as so dramatic because the apartment door is opened to present Jessup's silhouetted figure upon a bright lit background as if we are witnessing a religious experience ourselves. That insinuated "religious experience" is of course directly related to the film and to Eddie Jessup's own fascination with religious imagery.

It can be hard to isolate which is more interesting to talk about when it comes to Altered States, the ultimate philosophical point of the film, or the scenes in the film which are ultimately "ripped off" in other movies or media. Both would take a lot of time to cover. In an effort to cover both, I'll try to just touch on each topic briefly (which I often fail at). Perhaps the most obvious "rip off" from this film can be seen during its ape man sequence, which is astonishingly similar to certain scenes in An American Werewolf in London which is released only a year after Altered States. Specifically, it is the zoo scenes that come off as appearing as a "rip off" by An American Werewolf in London, which feels like a heavy handed comment because of how much I love An American Werewolf in London. But watch the films yourself and you'll have a tough time ignoring it. Altered States also shares a lot of themes with An American Werewolf in London, but once you start talking about the themes and storyline of Altered States, you have to focus on the extreme similarities between it and The Fly, another 80s classic horror/sci fi film. Both The Fly and Altered States focus on a brilliant scientist who becomes a victim to his own scientific dealings, which ends up not only consuming them mentally, but the "consumption" results in a metamorphosis of both individuals physically as well. I am of the belief that The Fly was heavily inspired by Altered States, but this is not a critique of The Fly as it deviates from the ultimate point of Altered States a great deal and thus is, at its core, an entirely different film.

So what is the ultimate point of Altered States? Well, like everything in life, that mostly depends on the eye of the beholder. For me, there is an incredibly deep point made throughout the film about the differences between men and women. The film seems to highlight an ironic duality when it comes to the battle of the sexes; we both want different things, but we both want them in the same ways. In the case of this film, I believe it is asserted that women want love to the point of destruction, whereas men want to seek truth and ultimate conquest to the point of destruction. When left to our own devices, it is destruction we inevitably receive in our pursuits, but it is the convergence of both our quests upon each other that can and (when we are lucky) does save us from certain destruction. The movie seems to focus more on the man's quest than the womans, but both are featured as they both intertwine. It is often the quest of man, as proven by Frankenstein before this and something like Hollow Man after it, that brings out the real monsters and horror, and Altered States can be considered another example of that. The film is pretty brilliant when you really sit down and think about it after viewing it, although such a realization isn't like to jump out at you during or directly after the first viewing of the movie.

Lastly, probably the most iconic part of Altered States is the dramatic finish to the film, which is where the connection to Aha's "Take On Me" comes into play. I also remember seeing the South Park episode "Tsst" and not knowing the reasoning or inspiration for some of Eric Cartman's behaviors during that show. It was upon actually seeing the climax scenes of Altered States that I finally made the connection, which only further ingrained into my head the belief that South Park was, and continues to be, one of the best shows on Television. The final scenes of Altered States prove that the second half of the film is a pretty special effects laden movie compared to the first half, which is mostly a good thing. Although it is true that the effects are old, mostly they are well done and have aged relatively well. Many scenes might also be compared to 2001: A Space Odyssey in the effects department, and there is mostly likely a deeper and noteworthy connection between the films as well, but I will politely ignore that to keep from making this blog even longer.

Altered States is the kind of film where I have a tendency to get really long-winded in my posts about. Perhaps thats exactly what I've done in this post, I don't know...if I could tell when I do something like that then most of my posts might not be so rambling. However, when it comes to Altered States, it is a film that really warrants a long discussion because of its deep philosophical approach and its surprisingly ingrained connection between so many films, shows, and other forms of media after its release. There are also a lot of connections with this film and others before it, since this film certainly follows in the path of Frankenstein, which would only lengthen that discussion. It is a really interesting film, and it might not even be one you've heard of until you saw this post. So obviously, I strongly encourage people to see this film; it's an interesting movie to watch and it only grows with you after you've seen it.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
10/3: Frankenstein (1931)
10/4: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
10/5: The Thing From Another World (1951)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
10/9: Altered States (1980)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/4: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/3: Freaks (1932)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
10/4: Mark of the Vampire (1935)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
10/8: The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

Blog Updates

2011-12-06T12:34:00.001-05:00

If you are one of the few who periodically show up to my blog, you may notice some changes. The obvious is that I've added a "drop down" menu bar, which theoretically could help me focus more of my blog posts and perhaps make it easier to find some of the things I write about. As a result of this, I've reconfigured some of my Scary Movie Season blog posts, and I've got more plans for that on the horizon as well.

I still have 32 movies I saw during my 2011 Fall Scary Movie Season, so that is still an ongoing venture. It is going very slowly, as I keep getting distracted by other things or I simply neglect or refuse to sit down to write increasingly long and complicated posts on the horror films I saw for Halloween. However, despite all that, I will still be posting about those movies, the next film on the to-do list being Altered States.

I also changed the template of the blog, but quite honestly that was accidental. I was fooling around with a different drop down menu that was giving me fits, and in the ruckus of trying to make it work I lost the original template design. So now this is the basic design for my blog, but there will most likely continue to be minor changes as I try to get more comfortable with the whole set up. If anyone has any thoughts on how everything looks or feels, just drop a comment or send me an e-mail. I'd welcome input.

Addressing The Re-Institution of The Groin Pain Center

You may also notice that on the drop down menu appears "The Groin Pain Center", which was the name of a pretty successful (in terms of my own standards) blog I had up a few years ago that was dedicated to the injury known as a "sports hernia". I've learned a lot, again through my own experience, on the subject of sports hernias and chronic athletic pubalgia since I had that previous blog and I really want to address the things that I've learned. My most viewed blog post, by far, is my The Fear of the Sports Hernia post, and I can address the issue in a lot more detail than that one post does. So I'll probably put more work into that once I've finished writing about the horror films I saw. That probably means it will take me forever to get to The Groin Pain Center posts, but I'll work to get through those films a lot faster than I have.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/8 - The Curse of Frankenstein

2011-12-01T15:05:00.007-05:00

The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

I have very, very little experience with products from the legendary film production company, Hammer Film Productions. I've really only seen three films made from the company; Five Million Years to Earth, These are the Damned, and now The Curse of Frankenstein. Considering the role Hammer Films played in producing so many horror films, most of them of reportedly pretty high quality, it's clear that I need to see a lot more of their films. The Curse of Frankenstein is probably the best place to start when beginning to focus on Hammer Film Productions for two reasons; the first being that The Curse of Frankenstein is the most obvious beginning of Hammer Film's focus on (and success with) the horror genre. The second reason is that its production is almost like a reboot (not exactly a remake) of the Universal's Frankenstein from 1931, which along with Universal's Dracula and a few others, really began the modern horror genre in film. That is supposedly a big reason in why Hammer decided to make this film; they were intent on remaking all the older classics to establish themselves as a dominant force not only in the horror genre, but as a film making company as a whole.

Hammer Film Productions have gained a special spot, it seems, within the horror fans hearts, and there are many reasons for that. One could make a case that English horror was, to a certain degree, the 50s and 60s equivalent of what Asian horror has come to represent for today's horror fan. In the era of Hammer Film's growth, America was producing a lot of black and white creature feature films based on the fears of the Cold War and nuclear annihilation. The more golden age style horror film, dealing in Gothic tone and vision with werewolves, vampires, and the like, were not being dealt with much anymore after WWII and if they were touched at all as B movies, they were only being produced in black and white. There were some great creature feature films being produced by Hollywood in the early to mid 1950s, but there were also a lot of bad ones and they really seemed to take over the American horror film market in a similar way that the found footage/shaky cam style film production (and/or the remake epidemic) has dominated American horror recently. At best, the old back and white films from the '30s were getting re-released for a quick buck by the American movie companies. However, at a time when this was the unequivocal norm in the United States, Hammer Films (which were the predominant horror film company in England at the time) were producing more traditional style horror films (demons, vampires, etc.) and in extravagant color. The films were often even breaking barriers that hadn't been approached yet, like showing more blood and gore instead of simply implying it off screen.

Hammer Films was basically tapping into a market that no one else was tapping into at the time (traditional horror stories enhanced with color and infused with gore). This could be compared to the late 1990s and early 2000s Asian horror boom which tapped into a horror genre that was either mostly ignored by Hollywood, or was attempted to be placated by the influx of the shaky cam/found footage era. In that regard, The Curse of Frankenstein could be seen as a The Ring (of sorts) of its day. The Curse of Frankenstein was the film that began the more focused direction of horror-centric films done by Hammer and it was a huge financial success not only in Europe but also in the US. Its success proved to Hammer Films with a successful blueprint, and the film company developed a reputation for making good Gothic themed horror films. Their success helped set a trend that would eventually lead to more graphic horror films like Night of the Living Dead, and the whole Hammer Film catalog is an important part of the evolution of horror which lead to the 70s boom of evocative and classic horror films.

The film The Curse of Frankenstein itself is a solid little horror film that puts its own twist on the Frankenstein story. Part of the reason for the direction the film takes on the story is due to a need to avoid any likeness from Universal's 1931 Frankenstein film. Universal continually threatened lawsuit if the content of The Curse of Frankenstein was too similar to their classic, which in part lead to multiple rewritings of the script. As a result, the film really only has its source material (Mary Shelly's Frankenstein) in common with the '31 classic, although there are similarities in how the story is handled and both films rather liberally "re-imagine" Shelly's original book into film form. Really, if you want to watch this film you should specifically intend not to compare it to the '31 Frankenstein because they have distinctly different feels to them. In The Curse of Frankenstein, there is considerably less of a reason to identify with the Victor Frankenstein, which interestingly is true also for his monster (the film seems to follow a long tradition of making allusions to the man and the monster becoming one in the same, which even the very first Frankenstein film from 1910 does). Both of them can be seen as much more morally corrupt characters, and this gives the whole film a much different feel.

I saw The Social Network this past summer and found myself comparing the portrayal of a young Frankenstein (he is first introduced as a youth in the beginning of The Curse of Frankenstein) to the portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network. This observance seems to highlight a theme of emotional distance (something that was featured in character makeup of Mark Zuckerberg in "The Social Network") between Victor Frankenstein, played by Peter Cushing, and his fellow characters in the film. The general emotional distance the film belies leads to a more stripped down experience in this film as a whole, which contrasts The Curse of Frankenstein a great deal compared to many of its earlier contemporaries. The '31 Frankenstein, like any version of King Kong, are two examples of films that seek a strong emotional connection out of its audience with its monsters as much as its regular characters, which is a big part of their continued relevance. Some sense of emotional attachments are presumably supposed to be created by the characters of Paul Krempe and Elizabeth, however these attempts feel rushed and overshadowed by the events surrounding the film and thus become less than noteworthy. This essence of detachment doesn't really hurt the film from a quality standpoint, but for me it does give the film a little less impact. The later parts of the film do tend to get a little bit more sympathetic and character driven, which does lend itself well to the film as a whole, but I still came away from the film noticing more of the emotional distance of the characters and, the film as a whole, more than anything else.

Since the events of the film feel like the most prominent feature of the film, then the visuals are likely to be key in the success of the film, and The Curse of Frankenstein is a pretty solid film in this regard. It's in color, which made it all the more appealing at the time of its release but probably has less to do with an evaluation of the film now. A good example of successful visuals used in this film is the visual of a man falling off a staircase from the perspective of being above him watching him fall downward, which was quite impressive and reminded me a bit of how Hitchcock used a similar perspective in a couple of his own films to great effect as well. Also, a nice horror scene is created when a door is opened to find the monster free and angry was also extremely effective, so the film does have that going for it. Although, it doesn't do anything visually that feels as grand or daunting as its predecessor did, although that is a comparison between the two films - something I specifically said not to do! In the end, a comparison is likely to be impossible not to do, and it can actually be fun to see some of the intentional changes (if not clear references) to its predecessors, both the '31 film and its follow up in 1935, Bride of Frankenstein.

Of course, in the end, if you compare them closely together you could end up faulting the movie for not being as much of a classic as the Universal films are. That would be unfair to this film, which is a solid horror flick that has an important place all its own in history (being the apparent first step for Hammer Film Productions becoming what they became). The Curse of Frankenstein is a good film that I don't necessarily recommend as a must see, but if its on there is no reason to turn it off.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
10/3: Frankenstein (1931)
10/4: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
10/5: The Thing From Another World (1951)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/4: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/3: Freaks (1932)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
10/4: Mark of the Vampire (1935)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
10/8: The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

I Got Distracted

2011-11-27T23:00:00.007-05:00

Nine Inch Nails: 31 Ghosts IV

The video above is basically a music video I made for song 31 on the Ghosts album from Nine Inch Nails. I've listened to the 31st song on the Ghosts album countless times. Over the course of those listens, I have developed a nagging desire to express the visual interpretation I get from the song, but I have no experience drawing cartoons (my idea behind the song was always in cartoon form), recording cartoons, or choreographing video images to music. I had forgotten the idea for a few months, until it recently popped back in my mind again with vengeance, and I started to do semi-unreasonable things. I tweeted Trent Reznor to see if he'd want to get me in contact with some animators he might know, but oddly enough he never responded. I then contacted an acquaintance of mine who is a very serious and accomplished animator and told him my idea. Why I did this, contacting a man who is busy making things that actually show up on IMDB about my video idea, I will never know. Like I said, I started to do some semi-unreasonable things.... I started to ponder the thought of never getting these visual images, crammed in my brain and slowly scrapping away at what little is left of my sanity, out of my head.

Then, I became desperate enough to try something that I initially thought would be impossible to make happen, and unlikely to get to work at all. I once found a website called Sketch Star on a late night free internet games searching spree (after getting bored from too many plays of Robot Unicorn Attack). I don't know why Sketch Star is on a gaming site because there is no game to it, but this is a happy coincidence since I never would have come across it otherwise. The website is just a free and easy place to make animations in, which at the time curiously intrigued me. So I made a free account, and proceeded to make poop joke videos.

I made another four videos on Sketch Star, including a stick man pooping while lifting weights, but I eventually tired of the videos and realized that no one was really going to watch and laugh at my supposedly witty stick man videos about poop, farts, god, and fate. However I still had my profile/membership at Sketch Star, which I was reminded of when I tried to think of ways I could get the ideas in my head about the Nine Inch Nails song out and onto "paper", or the digital equivalent. I didn't really think Sketch Star would work for what I wanted to do, but eventually my desperation got the better of me. Perhaps months ago I had already drawn out a really terrible "storyboard" of the video idea I had for the song, and I was tired of allowing that to be the end of it so I figured making animations on Sketch Star couldn't be any worse than what I wrote down on paper already.

One thing lead to another, obsession took over, and I spent the last two days neglecting my next review of The Curse of Frankenstein and my Hammer Films research to draw this video. Since I put so much time and effort into it, I decided to post it to my blog. So there it is. I'd use this video as an excuse to why I've taken so long to continue my "Scary Movie Season" posts, but no one is really paying attention to that anyway so I'm in the clear.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/5 - The Thing from Another World

2011-11-20T23:12:00.036-05:00

The Thing from Another World (1951)

By the time I saw this movie, I had already seen 44 films. However, as soon as I heard the introductory music that initially accompanies that Winchester Pictures Corp. logo, and then hearing how the music changes just as the logo gives way to the iconic title of The Thing From Another World, I couldn't help but get excited. It was almost as if I hadn't seen any horror films up to that point, or as if I was a kid in a candy store in search of a serious sugar binge. Such a visceral reaction to this movie is built a lot on the fact that this is a really good film, but it also has a lot to do with a strong sentimentality for it, too. There is comfort in numbers, however, as I'm not the only one who tends to feel so strongly about this film. It has that kind of effect on many people, including a rather famous and public love affair between it and John Carpenter. It is his love for the film that has most likely planted the seeds for other people growing up in the late 70s, early 80s, and beyond to come to know and love the film due to his cameoing of the film in his own seminal classic; the original Halloween. Coincidentally, or perhaps not so coincidentally, Carpenter would go on to remake this film with his own cult classic version, released in 1982, of The Thing.

The Things "The Thing" Features

John Carpenter could be blamed for arousing interest in the original The Thing From Another World, but a film is generally only memorable if it does something right, and nobody would talk about the film if after one viewing they wished they had never seen it. This film does a lot of things very right that prevents most of those kinds of reactions and, while it doesn't bring anything revolutionary to the table, it does establish much of the standards for the following 50s creature feature horror era. One of the first things you'll notice about this film is its dialogue. The way the characters in the film interact and communicate with each other is one of its strongest points, and while some of it can come across as a bit sappy at times, a great deal of it resonates as relatively realistic (especially for an early 50s horror film).

The reason much of the dialogue comes off as so realistic is two fold; the first is due to the form of banter many of the characters engage one another in. The characters playful prodding of each other, the broken dialogue by natural distractions, and the very capable deliveries by the actors are all responsible for the effectiveness of the dialogue. The attributes of the films dialogue also goes a long way in adding to the interesting group dynamics of the film (which I will address again later while contrasting it with Carpenter's eventual remake). In hindsight, I found myself perhaps controversially comparing some of the dialogue in the film with what is seen in the original Star Trek, perhaps similar to this example of a series of Kirk/McCoy interactions. I can't help wonder if Gene Rodenberry got any inspiration from the dialogue style of The Thing From Another World. A second reason for the successful dialogue can be explained by the use of real references to historical events that correlate to what is happening on-screen. Such a reference is made to the executions of Ruth Snyder and Judd Gray and the apparently famous (I didn't know anything about it until I read the IMDB trivia about the film) photograph of their execution.

Another rather startling thing about this film, which the dialogue itself tends to showcase, is just how intelligent a movie it is. The Thing From Another World is a thinking mans sci-fi film, to some extent in the vein of H.G Wells or Jules Verne fare. Evolution is important to the plot of the film, and explained by one of the scientists as it has a lot to do with the antagonist. There is also an opposing voice of reason in the group, a newspaper reporter, who questions the actions of the government officials and is always lobbying for the rights of man (in the form of the freedom of the press). And, like Frankenstein or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde before it and The Fly or Altered States after it, the film provides altering views of the positives and negatives of science. On one hand, there is the stereotyped mad scientist on the scene to show how science can go overboard, but on the other hand science is used by the group for the defense of humanity against the monster. This take on science could be related to the new atomic age with which the world was thrust into after World War II; while scientists could be blamed for bringing such a dangerous thing as the nuclear bomb into existence, it was also science and reason that was going to make sure we wouldn't turn the world into a burnt out cinder with the knowledge we now possessed.

The Beginning of the Creature Features

The Thing From Another World doesn't break a lot of ground with its meshing of Sci-fi with horror, since that was accomplished in film from nearly the very beginning with Frankenstein. However, it does seem to modernize the genre-mashing more by infusing more refined modern concepts (like applying evolution to the story) into its science, and thus giving it more weight as a sci-fi film. The movie also applied more explicit horror techniques like intense and faster paced imagery such as the alien throwing the door open to attack during the fire scene. While not everything in the film ages well (it is 60 years old this year, after all), time has been very kind to the general themes and execution of the plot and story. As a result the film is still relevant and the horror aspects of the picture, while not up to code in the gore happy era we live in today, continues to work beyond the simple monster film aspects. I was also interested in how the film portrayed the alien as a seemingly intelligent, and yet emotionally uninterested entity, and how that might have set a prototype for Ridley Scott's Alien (although Scott's antagonist is a bit more obviously animlaistic than the alien in the original The Thing From Another World). I also have a theory about the nature of the alien/monster in the film that might apply more so to Carpenter's version of The Thing, so I'll reserve that discussion for that blog post.

There is another reason that this film's horror relevance is still intact; the great execution of its soundtrack and the atmosphere the film has. Atmosphere is usually created in a film by the sound/music of a film and the use of visuals in a movie, and being someone who doesn't have any formal education on either subject, I'm not sure I'm in the best position to explain why they work so well in this film. From a music and sound standpoint, this film seems like one of the earlier films to do some of the things that became standard and stereotypical; the best example being the "flying saucer music" featured in this picture that I can only assume was made with a Theremin. Those sounds, combined with a rather booming and epic soundtrack, give the film a real sense of gravitas. Visually, the film doesn't seem to break a lot of barriers, but it might be one of the earlier films to emote a general sense of claustrophobia (though obviously not to the level of its later brethren) and it is certainly one of the earliest examples of a "full body burn" stunt on film. The claustrophobia of the movie is also briefly contrasted by the classic scene where the men discover the shape of the object in the ice underneath the expansive sky of the Arctic.

Thinking Way Too Hard About a 50s Horror Film

I want to get back to the subject of the group dynamics from The Thing From Another World, because I think there is some really interesting things that can be talked about as a result of this aspect of the film. The way the movie presents the group dynamics at the center of all the action and dialogue, I believe, has some very distinct socio-political undertones relating to the time in which the film was made. Perhaps when addressing only the 1951 film without considering the remake and prequel, the undertones are not as apparent. But when juxtaposing this film with the 1982 remake and the 2011 film, which was a prequel to the 1982 film, I feel a noteworthy trend can be identified. In the '51 film, while there is some conflict and disagreements between one scientist and the rest of the group, most of the theme of the group dynamics in the movie is one of cooperation and teamwork. We come to identify with the American servicemen, who are featured as reasonable and brave men who try to do what is right to survive. There is one dissenting scientist in the film, who adds to the complexity of the conflict in the storyline, but his misplaced beliefs are overcome by the good will and teamwork of the rest of the group which further emphasizes the positive outlook of the film.

The general good vibes of the group dynamics in the '51 film are in stark contrast to both the '82 and '11 versions of The Thing. In Carpenter's '82 remake, paranoia abounds and the fact is that nobody can be trusted within the group, dissenting scientist or not. The 2011 version is a prequel to Carpenters '82 remake which, for the most part, is a carbon copy of Carpenters version. This means that it shares the same amount of paranoia and distrust that is infused in the '82 film as well. Now, the differences in tone and emphasis between the '51 film and the other two films are probably entirely due to the fact Carpenter's movie more closely follows the original novella (titled Who Goes There?) than the '51 film did. This was a conscious decision made by Carpenter to avoid competing with the original film. Carpenter's goal was accomplished, as the remake is a very different film from the original; the movie from '51 was only loosely based on the novella and took a great many of its own liberties. This got me to thinking, is it simply coincidence that three versions of the story of The Thing (the original "Who Goes There" novella, the '82 film remake, and the '11 prequel) that were made in times of unrest turned out dark and brooding, whereas the movie made during a still relatively triumphant time period (the '51 film) turned out considerably more upbeat?

I quickly found this "coincidence" worth further analysis. The novella was published in the middle of 1938, with World War II looming off in the distance and already causing a great deal of socio-political angst throughout the world (or at the very least Europe). The 1982 film remake was released during the early years of the Reagan Administration which saw a strong rise in tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States and the 2011 prequel, just recently released, comes at a time when divisiveness is proclaimed (whether accurate or not) to be at its highest since the 1960s in the US and socio-political unrest has been evident throughout the world (i.e. the Arab Spring). In contrast, the 1951 film was released six years after the US had been victorious in WWII, the Great Depression was becoming a distant memory and the Cold War had not reached its pandemic levels of fear. The US felt good about itself in 1951, the US had finished instituting the Marshall Plan to help rebuild war torn Europe on America's dime and the economy had successfully transitioned out of its war-time production and into peace time. It is my opinion that this film seems to reflect the positive vibes of that time with not only its generally uplifting theme, but also by featuring a band of Americans saving the world from alien destruction all on their own. But even with its upbeat style, the film ends with a famous warning to "watch the skies". This seems to mirror the fact that the real problems, such as an intensifying of the Cold War and a final showdown in the media over McCarthyism, were still on the horizon. It seems like each adaption of The Thing is essentially a barometer of the time in which it was made, which I find fascinating.

Parting Shots

The film isn't all perfection and intellectual triumph, which should be mentioned to fairly critique the film. Amongst its worst offenses are the not so forward thinking representation of women and the seemingly idiotic actions of some of the men while dealing with the tasks at hand. Most of these things can be defended in one way or the other, but depending on a persons own point of view of the film those defenses might seem either logical or simply lame excuses. For example, in regards to the portrayal of women in the film, the only female in the movie is indeed a secretary and she does do a lot of coffee serving throughout the film. However she is also shown to be a feisty, strong, and professional woman who wears pants and sits at a desk which is a pretty different image compared to the stereotyped 1950s woman homemaker. The film also seems to be intentionally trying to showcase how humans often produce a calamity of errors despite their best intentions. These errors include the blowing up of important material by essentially dynamiting it to smithereens, the use of an electric blanket as a plot device, and the seemingly stereotypical use of force upon meeting an alien (although in the context of this film it was an appropriate response). The dynamiting was actually straight out of the novella, but the other examples could be construed as trying to show the fallibility of men, despite the recent conquering of nuclear energy. We may have conquered the atom, but we created a monster in doing so, proving that even the best intentioned acts can have unexpected collateral results.

Inevitably, anything I have to say about The Thing From Another World is going to end exclaiming the virtues of the classic film. Sentimental influences or not, this film is a stalwart of the horror genre, and is one of the few films that I generally tend to watch every year during my "Scary Movie Season" regardless of how much I'm trying to expand my list of seen horror films. From the imagery of the men in a circle out on the ice, to the swinging of the door open by the alien at the start of the fire scene, this is a film that usurps its age with still compelling and well executed (even today) imagery and dialogue. But what tempers the film further is the socio-political background with which the film was made in. A much deeper viewing of the film can be had once one identifies, and perhaps debates, the apparent analogies and allusions to its era and juxtaposes them to the other versions of the film. Of course, if you're viewing the film for the first time, you'd likely be content to just enjoy it as a creature feature.

This film is a lot like Forbidden Planet for me; I perennially watch it every year around Halloween, and I have a strong sentimentality for the film. Usually when I develop such sentimentality for something, like the Nintendo 64 gaming system or Nine Inch Nails, I second guess my admiration for whatever it is I am so fond of and hesitate to exclaim the virtues of it outside of my own sentiments. However, this is a film that is highly regarded as a classic sci-fi horror film, and its influences can be seen not only throughout the 50s creature feature boom but also in later seminal works such as Alien. There is no reason to be bashful, this is a must see film.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
10/3: Frankenstein (1931)
10/4: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
10/5: The Thing From Another World (1951)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/4: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/3: Freaks (1932)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
10/4: Mark of the Vampire (1935)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/4 - The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

2011-11-16T23:00:00.008-05:00

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)

When you watch a film like this, whether you know it or not you are gaining a large education opportunity. Where many of the early horror films like Frankenstein, Freaks, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde have a large amount of history surrounding them and are historic themselves, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is part of an earlier generation that was the equivalent of god saying "Let there be light". The generation in which it was created wasn't just historic, it was beginning of history; not only for the horror genre but to all of modern feature length film-making. In addition to its part in the evolution of film-making, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is an incredibly interesting film, and for a variety of reasons. The first, and most obvious, reason is because the film itself is a very good ride; it is visually stunning and the storyline is very compelling. While the film requires patience and respect to get anything out of a viewing of it, it's worth it not only due to its visual style but also for the impressive twisting of the plot which must have rendered this film an automatic classic upon its release; a title with which the film has never (and never will) relinquished.

A second allure of the film is due to the the extensive influence this film has had on filmdom, not only due to its early existence but also because of the aforementioned visual style it presented. While it makes for an interesting film to actually watch, it also set a precedent for sets and art for all films to follow. I'm sure this film is important in any academic class dealing with the history of film, and you'd likely learn in such a class the details of how The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari helped set the standard in German Expressionism in film and is amongst one of the first full length horror films ever produced (The Golem appears to be the very first one). However, it doesn't take an educated eye to grasp the extent of the influence this film had on the horror genre and film in general. All it takes is one viewing, with all the films slanted lines, shadows, and intense angles, and anyone paying attention will note the strong similarities between it and much of the styles Tim Burton has liked to use at one time or another. That means that the films continued influence is not only seen in the academia of todays film students, but it can also be found right in the middle of the popular films of the last 25 years. Additionally, a music video for the song "Forsaken" made for the soundtrack of the film Queen of the Damned is so heavily inspired by The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari that it seems less a homage and more a kind of remake of the most iconic scenes of its source material.

The film includes a character who is described as a somnambulist. I had to pause the movie and Google what exactly that was and, as it turned out, it's a term used to describe a sleep walker. I personally did not make the connection while watching the film, but since then I found a list of zombie films on Wikipedia that noted some debate as to whether The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari could be construed as the first zombie film. Upon reading this, I rather enjoyed the thought and I tend to agree with this interpretation of the film, particularly because I had such a hard time defining it in the first place. Initially, after viewing the film, I was trying to figure out how it really fit into the horror genre because, like Freaks after it, it doesn't really fit into even the modern loose concept of "horror film". Visually it certainly has the feel and look of horror, but it almost seemed more like a murder mystery than anything else. However, if one views the film as either a prototype, or as the actual first, of the zombie film sub-genre, it becomes much more clear how the film is clearly part of the horror genre. It certainly fits the early White Zombie, first generation, zombie film prototype and certainly shares nothing with the second generation George A. Romero era zombie film standards.

Also, to my delight, there is additionally some very interesting socio-political commentary on record about this films possible alluding to, or identification of the state of mind of the entire German people as a result of their defeat in World War I. This commentary is not too unlike something I mention in my blog post on Frankenstein. The difference between what I say about Frankenstein, and what is said about The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, is that I'm only taking note of historical context in my blog on Frankenstein whereas the comments discussed on the Wikipedia page of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari imply almost a precognition on the part of that film. I find such discussion fascinating, and marvel at how all of Europe strolled along ignorantly, either out of stupidity or by the ostrich head in the sand reflex, after World War I. But thats a subject for another blog. In the context of this film, I am amazed to see not only the high value of the visuals of this film as well as its status as a epoch starter, but the film also has a brain due to the complexity of its layers and possible allusions.

Clearly, this is a must see film. It is to be seen to be believed, just as Dr. Caligari himself proclaims about his somnambulist. Supposedly no film student should graduate without seeing it, either, so if you have any interest in a career in film, then this is required viewing. If you only plan on watching two silent films ever in your life, it is my opinion that they should be this film and Nosferatu.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
10/3: Frankenstein (1931)
10/4: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/4: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/3: Freaks (1932)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
10/4: Mark of the Vampire (1935)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/4 - Mark of the Vampire

2011-11-15T17:53:00.006-05:00

Mark of the Vampire (1935)

I was brought up on It's a Wonderful Life and Lionel Barrymore's incredible performance as Mr. Potter is unforgettable in that film. Many years later I started to notice more of Barrymore's work, first with his rejoining with Frank Capra in You Can't Take It With You and then later in his recurring roles in the Doctor Kildare films, and I started to wonder if he had ever been in a film when he was not in a wheel chair. 1935s Mark of the Vampire may be the first film that I've knowingly watched in which Lionel Barrymore is not in a wheelchair throughout the film, which I found a little bit exciting, personally. Trivial personal pursuits aside, Mark of the Vampire is a solid film that can take up your interest on its own merits, and it definitely has some interesting twists in it as well.

I watched this film only a day after viewing Freaks for the first time in my life, and I swear that I had no idea that Tod Browning directed both films until I started researching Freaks to write my blog about it. Mark of the Vampire was actually one of the last films Browning directed in his life (second to last film he was credited for). Browning appears to have been something of a horror-centric director, especially once he caught on after his success with Lon Chaney during the silent film era. However, much of the films Browning made teeter on the line between the horror genre and the "this movie is just strange" genre, and to a degree Mark of the Vampire might share that confusion with the rest of his films. There are parts of the film that fit snuggly into traditional horror (or at least the golden age of horror), but it has a lot of tricks up its sleeves and not all of it fits into said genre.

This is a film that I feel constrained in talking about because part of what makes the film work is that you go into it knowing as little as possible. So I can't really go on and on about too much of the film without risk of saying too much. If speaking in generalities, I can say that this film does not particularly stand out in the special effects department, although it does hold its own. There is a bat flying scene that will not impress a modern eye, but there are some other effects that are actually pretty effective (and in proper context are really good). There is good atmosphere and very good use of lighting and shadows to evoke that atmosphere. This is also a Bela Lugosi film, and he plays his part as well as possible despite Lionel Barrymore seemingly coaxing the camera into focusing on him the most.

Lastly, I can say this because there is limited risk in revealing too much; this film is a remake of the lost film London After Midnight (which was a silent film). That shouldn't reveal too much of the plot because in this case, the only thing left of the film is still photos and a screen play. So, unless you go out of your way to look into what "London After Midnight" was about, you can't possibly know what "Mark of the Vampire" is about. The only known copy of London After Midnight was burned up in a relatively famous fire on the MGM lot. London After Midnight was also another Browning directed film (with Lon Chaney), and is one of the most famous "lost films" of all time, so he was essentially remaking his own film for the "talkie" era. I did enjoy Mark of the Vampire, but I wouldn't put it too high on the "must see" list unless you've got the time to spare and you really enjoy early horror films or old films.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
10/3: Frankenstein (1931)
10/4: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/3: Freaks (1932)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
10/4: Mark of the Vampire (1935)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/4 - Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

2011-11-14T22:36:00.009-05:00

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

This film is under appreciated. Its ranking on IMDB is relatively appropriate so this isn't a film that has received unduly harsh criticism over its existence, but I still believe this is a film that is under appreciated. Fredric March, who played the lead role of Dr. Jekyll, received an Oscar for his efforts with the role, and yet still I say this film is under appreciated. From a more horror-centric point of view I'd even admit that Frankenstein and Dracula, which both came out in the same year that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde came out, are more clear cut horror films with more identifiable icons. However, I still say 1931's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an under appreciated film. It's under appreciated because it brings to the table all of the following: incredible acting performances, excellent special effects, and revolutionary camera work which to me all adds up to movie making history. I wasn't aware of any of this before watching the film, even though I know my way around 1930s classics like Frankenstein, King Kong, The Wizard of Oz, and Gone With the Wind. My lack of knowledge, despite my awareness of the classics of this era, I think is indicative of the plight this film faces; it just doesn't get as much attention as some of its brethren does. I find this strange because I feel like the film has aged remarkably well. If you watch this film today, in 2011, it will strike you how little you have to "contextualize" the film to fully enjoy it despite the fact that this film is 80 years old (the 80th anniversary of its official release will apparently be on New Years Eve Day).

There are two specific things from this film that most stood out for me: the camera work and the sexuality oozing out of this pre-code horror film. To highlight the remarkable achievement this film's camera work is, I first want to refer to a later work. What you probably already know is that the original Halloween came out in 1978 and starts off with a long tracking, point of view opening shot which is essentially legendary in and of itself. In some sense, the Halloween opening shot was also the opening salvo of a new era in horror which ushered in the 80s horror boom. What you might not know, however, is that John Carpenter's trend setting opening POV shots in "Halloween" are not quite as revolutionary as is commonly assumed. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde from 1931, a horror film released 47 years prior to John Carpenter's masterpiece, opened with nearly five minutes of its own long tracking, point of view shot.

What magnifies (with the help of 80 years of hindsight) the accomplishment of those long tracking POV shots in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the context. Such a complex camera technique is difficult to pull off well even today (Atonement being a prime example of a recent movie to receive accolades for such a shot), so a film of this era attempting it is rather astonishing. This film was being made only four years after sound was officially used in a motion picture in 1927s The Jazz Singer. Film-making, as we know it today, was still so new in the time of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde that the simple experience of heard dialogue was still relatively new to crowds; things like long tracking POV shots in 1931 seem like the movie equivalent of the experiments made at Bikini Atoll with the nuclear bomb. Despite this, the director of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Rouben Mamoulian, wasn't content to just sit on his laurels on story telling; he was intent on pushing the boundaries of his craft so far that essentially duplicating his feat nearly 50 years later (in Halloween, and albeit a vastly improved version) would still be considered impressive.

The second distinctive thing about this film, its sexuality, is something that seemed more fitting for todays eyes than anything 1930s audiences were ready for. As a matter of fact, like many of the horror films to come out at the time (like Frankenstein: and, of course, Freaks), it was heavily edited and censored after its initial release and it wasn't until the 80s and 90s that the original versions of many of these films started to get seen fully again by the general public. The themes of sexual repression, especially in the Victorian setting that the film is placed in, are intriguing in and of itself and could be seen as controversial in the time of its production. However Mamoulian wasn't going to deal with sensuality and sex just through subtext, allusions, and metaphors in his film adaption of the famous novella. No, what sets this film apart even further from the pack is the incredibly sexy Mariam Hopkins and the role she plays of prostitute Ivy Pearson. There is a specific scene, where Dr. Jekyll first meets Ms. Pearson, that explodes with sexuality and features the great legs of Hopkins. I live in 2011 with all the porn, birth control ads, male impotence correction ads, Victoria secret models, sex scandals, illicit Family Guy sex jokes during prime time, and proclaimed sexual debauchery a man could possibly handle, and I still found that scene really hot.

Another remarkable thing about this film is how one could construe the film as anti-domestic violence story more than anything else. The film seems to chronicle the cycles of abuse to, what I assume, an incredibly accurate degree. Like everything else this film seemed to try to do, this topic seems incredibly taboo for the 30s and, again, Mamoulian tackles it with reckless abandon not only in the story of the film but also in its visuals. This aspect of the film, what men who abuse women do and how those women who get abused can get stuck in the cycle, might be the strongest source of true horror for this early horror film. In addition to that, the more obvious questions the movie continuously asks is how are we, as humans, supposed to handle our own sexuality? This movie is only 11 years removed from the passing of the 19th amendment, and yet it speaks on the rights of women (to not be dominated sexually or socially by a man) and the complexities of sexual desire (the animalistic desires of all human beings dueling with our seeking of a more humanitarian existence) as good as any film before or after it.

I find this film a hard one to write about because the film has so much history to it that I feel strangled by it all. That isn't unusual for a film this age, the film I wrote about previous to this was Freaks which has a long and turbulent history all its own, but there seemed something unique with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It might be due to the films deep psychological bend, or it might be because of the complexities sexuality, both which are deal with in the film and are brought to light perhaps due to the age of the film. This film just seems to have a lot more layers both historically as well as in content. There are other questions that could be discussed with the film, like possible racist undertones int he portrayal of Mr. Hyde (which I tend to disagree with) or how this film is part of a long line of "we all have monster inside of us"/ mad scientist horror films (i.e. Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, The Fly), but this is a blog space and not supposed to be a published novel area. I already write too much as it is on each movie...

What I don't understand all that well is why this film isn't put more on a pedestal in the horror community than it already is. This film has all of the bells and whistles, complexities, and technical achievements of any horror film ever made. The Jekyll-to-Hyde transformations look so good that nobody knew how it was achieved until Mamoulian finally gave up the information decades later. You can watch the film today and be amazed at how clean and well done the special effects look, much better than the obvious fade/disolve techniques used in The Wolf Man and most of the other flicks of the early horror era. This might be one of the oldest films that stands up to modern tastes that I've ever seen, but even with the accolades it has received it doesn't seem to match the excellence the film actually provides. It could be because the film isn't quite as ghoulish or horror-centric as a horror-buff might be looking for, or it could be because of a possible conspiracy dealing with its remake featuring Spencer Tracy that was produced only ten years after this film. Regardless, the film deserves a bit more attention than it receives.

This is a classic. A must see, horror or not. See it immediately, see it soon, see it some time, just see it.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
10/3: Frankenstein (1931)
10/4: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/3: Freaks (1932)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/3 - Freaks

2011-11-10T23:00:00.003-05:00

Freaks (1932)

Sometimes, trying to determine what differentiates a horror film from a film of a different genre can be difficult to discern. For example, I am still at odds with whether or not I consider Jaws a horror film because I never used to think of it as a horror film. I'm slowly starting to accept it as part of the horror genre, but I'm still not committed to that, and I'll have to sit down and really watch it again to make that decision. On the other hand, I basically consider Jacob's Ladder to be my number one horror film of all time despite the fact that not everyone really considers it a horror film. Over the past couple years, I've tried to really expand the scope of horror films I've seen by seeking out movies like The Reflecting Skin or Picnic and Hanging Rock only to find that sometimes one person's horror gold is another persons interesting or strange movie with no "horrific" or scary content, traditional or otherwise.

So with all that in mind, enter Freaks from 1932. Freaks is a film with a great deal of historical notoriety and significance within the film industry. It is rumored to having effectively ended director Tod Browning's career (who reached his zenith as a top Hollywood director after the success of Dracula) because of the poor reaction it got from the movie-going public. Freaks didn't resonate with 1932 audiences because it of what was perceived at the time as its over the top shock-value. The seeing of disfigured people, as well as some other aspects of the story, were so shocking at its first screen test that the film was heavily edited afterward and, after its official release after editing, it was banned from individual cities and states in the United States as well as the entire United Kingdom for over 30 years. That shock value, within the 1932 time frame, is the entire hat stand with which Freaks can hang its cap on as a horror film. So, ironically, the very thing that forced the film into the horror genre is what limits its appeal to a true horror fan base in todays era. While the people the film shows are significantly disfigured, when considering the kind of images the public has seen since the release of Freaks 79 years ago from films like Hellraiser, The Fly, or I Spit on Your Grave, there is a generally limited shock value to the film today.

The question them must be asked, is there anything else that this film has to it that might render it a horror film by todays standards? If you really stretch the perceptions, a case could be made yes. This could be still construed as a horror film in the same sense that the Hostel or Saw films are horror films, although with the way that Browning designed the film as a morality tale, Freaks horror similarities with the Hostel and Saw films are tedious and flimsy. In a comparison sense, the case could be made that Freaks was the 1930s version of the Hostel or Saw franchises in terms of shock value and graphic content, but that only continues the trend that Freaks could only be considered a horror film within its own era only. Really, what gives this film value today is the aforementioned morality that was injected into it, although that lesson was apparently lost on the 1930's audience simply because they didn't like seeing disfigured people on screen. Freaks is an anti-bigotry and, in essence, an anti-racism film, which clearly the American people (or any other people, for that matter, since it was banned in the UK and Commonwealth states as well) were not prepared to hear in the 30's in any form, let alone through metaphors and allegories.

When I was looking into this film, I was under the false impression that I had seen it before and that it was a silent film. The reason for all my confusion was because I was confusing Freaks with an earlier silent film also directed by Browning, and also dealing with circus performers, which I had seen about five years ago called The Unknown. While the stories are distinctly different, there are some interesting similarities, like featuring a "strongman" as one of the main characters and, of course, the circus setting. I actually preferred The Unknown to Freaks, although The Unknown is also a little hard to fit into the horror genre as well. Although Freaks does hold the distinction of having some scenes and imagery which lends itself to the horror style. This the vivid imagery is used in the Freaks attack scenes which have a look and feel that is compelling even today. I also likened one of the final scenes of the film to the jack in the box scene from the episode of Its a Good Life from The Twilight Zone.

The fact of the matter is, Freaks is a film of limited value in a strictly horror sense outside of its era. If you go into the film looking for something that fits your expectations of a horror film, you'll most likely finish the film disappointed. Films like Frankenstein and Dracula at least have monsters and vampires in them which, even if the films don't make people jump out of their seats today, render them indelibly as horror films. Freaks, on the other hand, is basically a mixture of a love story and a heist film. However, Freaks as a historically significant film, or perhaps simply as a drama, is a movie certainly worth seeing. Browning also has an eye for impressive visuals, and that vision is exemplified in this film as well. I recommend this film for anyone who has a lot of interest in films as a whole, but if you're looking for scares this isn't a place to go (new school or old school).

I have admittedly counted it as a horror film on my rankings. Usually I throw any films I don't really consider horror on the bottom of any horror film list I make, even if the films themselves are really great movies. However, I'm largely judging this films genre placement based on some of its unusual story, and on how it was initially perceived upon its premiere. Even The Exorcist didn't get the kind of appalled reaction that Freaks seemed to get from the public on its initial release, and for that it should be rewarded. But because the film lacks a really strong identity as a horror film across all eras, I feel unable to rank it particularly high on this list.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
10/3: Frankenstein (1931)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/3: Freaks (1932)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/3 - Frankenstein

2011-11-06T22:00:00.009-05:00

Frankenstein (1931)

One of the things I fear the most when writing about old and TCM acclaimed movies is that those films that I rave about (like Forbidden Planet, The Uninvited, or The Thing From Another World) will be seen by other people around my age, or younger, and those people might turn to me and say the most dreaded thing of all, "It was boring!" One of the biggest problems with a movie of the renown, impact, and age of James Whale's Frankenstein is that it is viewed through the glass of either misplaced expectation or sentimentality. That means that some people won't watch the film simply because it's "old and not in color", and some people will be obsessed with the film because they grew up with it and think it's great in the same way that they think their wife, who farts in her sleep, is the most incredible woman in the world. So if I were to tell you that the visual richness of the film is incredible, is that despite the former or because of the latter?

I have to be upfront with everyone and say that I've always had a special place in my heart for this Frankenstein, and further viewings of the film have only deepened my enjoyment of the film. When I think about this film, I think of it as one of those films that isn't just iconic, but actually seems to have found its way into the shared sub-conscious of all mankind. People seem to know the "It's alive, it's alive!" quote and its origin no matter if they've seen the film or not in the same way that they seem to identify the famous monster of the film as the prototype for the Frankenstein monster. This film version of Mary Shelly's seminal Gothic novel "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus", which had already been adapted for film as early as 1910, really only shares the basic premise of its monumental novel. Its differences from its source material, however, are part of what makes the film so special. Like how the eventual 1953 film adaption of the H.G. Wells classic War of the Worlds shared the key themes and basics of its novel, but differed from the book overall, the 1931 Frankenstein has become its own monster (if you excuse the play on words). The makeup Boris Karloff wore for the film (done by Jack P. Pierce) became so famous that Universal actually copyrighted that exact Frankenstein monster look (the flat head top and bolts in neck), and the famous quote "It's alive, it's alive!" may live on longer than the human race itself. This film is famous on its own merits outside of the literary work it is based on, and has probably shaped most people's perceptions of the original novel even if it differs greatly from Mary Shelley's book.

But how do I rave about the visuals, or the acting, in a way that won't make people like my niece Mary roll their eyes? How do I explain to my girlfriend that I rank it as one of the "must see" horror films, even though she probably wouldn't walk out of a movie theater afraid to be alone in the house after having seen it? How do I explain the importance and noteworthy nature of Frankenstein without resorting to sentimentalities? The answer is, you can't, because this film, like King Kong two years later, was made to expose your sentimentalities. The film features a monster that might kill you if you encountered it, and yet the viewer might feel more remorse for the monster than anyone else in the film. Sentimentality is what makes the film work, so there isn't any reason to run away from the very thing that the film was built upon. Perhaps the kids won't find the time to pull themselves away from Angry Birds to see this film. Maybe, even if you ripped their smart phone away from them and convinced them to watch Frankenstein, they might complain that it's boring. Inevitably, however, a few of those kids are going to find themselves transfixed by the film not simply on its novelty, but rather because of its grandeur and effectiveness. That is why the film is so good, and thats why the film lives on as a heralded classic.

From the very beginning in the cemetery scenes, both the visual aesthetic of the film and its deeper meanings are appeased with the tilted religious symbols emphasized in the grave robbing scene. Sometimes the film even seems inspired by the sets of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, although Frankenstein is less exaggerated, and thus a bit more realistic, visually. Not all the themes from Mary Shelley's original work are completely fleshed out in this film, but the most core and basic ones are and they are done really well. There are subtle hints on the questions of god, man, and their rightful places in the world, and those questions are not simply the bible belt propagandas you would think you'd expect out of film made in the middle of America's Great Depression. Whale's Frankenstein has meaning, and some of those meanings are vigorously debated between film lovers to this very day; questions not just about religion and god, but also "blank slate" ideology and also possibly homosexuality (although perhaps not in this one but more so its sequel; Bride of Frankenstein). This is a philosophically weighty film and isn't just a dumbed down for the 1930s audiences, and like the film itself the questions it raises are still pertinent today.

In the end, though, what makes this film stand out is, above all else, its visuals and style and how they set the mood and atmosphere of the film. If you watch other films of its era like Dracula or White Zombie, it becomes pretty easy to see just how advanced and well done the visuals of this film are (and beyond that, the film as a whole, really). The crooked angles not only in the cemetery scenes but also of the castle and the countryside surrounding it are further distinguished by the stretched shadows and epic sets, of which is most famously exemplified by the Frankenstein laboratory. The juxtaposition of the straight and clear lines, brightness, and overall less chaotic aesthetic of all the scenes away from the cemeteries, castle, and mountain/hills further extrapolates the grip of Frankensteins obsession and further showed how different parts of the nature can be at odds with each other (like science Vs. religion and good Vs. evil).

A nice thing about living in 2011 is that I can the original, unedited film in the comfort of my own home now, whereas people from 1931 to about the mid 1980's could only get their hands on the post-code version. TCM now shows the uncensored version of Frankenstein, and that is where I watched (and recorded to DVD) the film this year. That means that I had a chance to see the full scene of the notorious girl by the pond scene, I have an old VHS version of the film from 1980 that still has the scene cut which I've been stuck watching the past few years. Many of the scenes that really emphasize much of the sentimentality for the monster that I spoke of earlier was cut from the film after its initial release, changing some of the complexion of the film. It is much easier to have empathy for the monster with all the scenes intact because many of the scenes help infer a lot more about the monster, and touch more on the "blank slate" possibilities of mankind, than can be gleaned from the film without the scenes. I feel it's a much more interesting film with these scenes on it as the director intended.

There are also some very interesting historical things that are going on in the world when Frankenstein comes out in 1931. In that time, Adolph Hitler was rising to prominence, and the historically famous suicide of his niece (which happened under suspicious circumstances still debated today by historians) occurred only two months before the Frankenstein debut in New York. Barely over a year after Frankenstein was released, Hitler was appointed to the chancellorship in Germany. Interestingly, the film is based in a German area, and it is a film portraying a man creating a monster. Hitler comes to power in January of 1933, and he creates a nation of monsters with his third reich. It can be particularly odd to watch the film when having some actual historical context of the world within which is was made in.

There are really an endless amount of things to talk about, both historically as well as relating directly to the films content and interpretations that can be taken from it. With censorship issues, its production history, and philosophical questions about different endings if different things had happened within the story, this is a film that proves not to just be a horror classic but a classic film in every sense of the word. Most of the film is relatively straightforward on the surface, but it is the subtext that makes this film especially enriching. Another big reason I'm such a fan of this film is because it is a serious and unrelenting horror film. There aren't the humorous distractions and goofy comedic reliefs that come with its sequel, or with films like The Uninvited, and that is the biggest reason why it is of my opinion that this film is better than Bride of Frankenstein.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
10/3: Frankenstein (1931)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/3 - Repulsion

2011-11-03T23:22:00.004-04:00

Repulsion (1965)

Of all the films that play on sexuality as a frightening and horrific aspect of humanity (from rape-revenge films like I Spit on Your Grave to turning of age sex allegories like Ginger Snaps), Repulsion may be the most effective and disturbing use of sexuality ever put to film. Plus, for a film from 1965, some of the visuals used must be considered revolutionary since films of that time really weren't doing most of what Repulsion did. Additionally, the plot is of so much intrigue that film-makers are still trying to tell its story today as proven by the recent release, and success, of Black Swan (a film bearing striking resemblances to Repulsion). Visually, everything in Repulsion has aged remarkably well, though there there are aspects of the film that won't necessarily translate well with some people most likely due to its slower pacing (a common complaint heard for many horror classics). In the end, though, I feel that this is a film of incredible value and intrigue to the horror genre, and is a must see for anyone serious about increasing their "horror palate".

For how complex and deeply layered Repulsion seems to be, there really isn't a lot of content on this film in a lot of the typical places like the IMDB trivia and frequently asked questions section, and its Wikipedia page. This confounds me as many of the films I have see, even when they aren't as highly rated as Repulsion, often still have extensive trivia and FAQ sections. This leaves me curious on why this film isn't as broadly discussed as one would expect; between the interesting perspectives the film portrays on being a female in a male dominated world and the possible reasons for many of Carole's (the main character) visions and behaviors, there is a great deal of fodder for discussion. Perhaps nothing is more interesting and noteworthy, even if it partially takes away from the film, than the disturbingly odd incongruities between the fact that Roman Polanski was the director (and co-screen writer) of this film and the matter of his scandalous personal life which seems out of character with this film and (in my opinion) it being in the top five all time for feminism in horror. Then again....maybe it fits together perfectly (which is most disturbing of all and would, for me, knock it out of the "feminism in horror" category).

Polanski's setting the table of the movie, if you will, with the revealing of how everywhere Carole goes men watch and gawk at her like a dog staring at steak at dinner time (and amazingly, the film itself ends up lending itself to that theme because, as a man, I drooled at how attractive the actress who played Carole, Catherine Deneuve, was throughout the film). Even in the most mundane experiences of her life, like walking to work everyday, men force their way into her life by their uninvited attention and the seeming interjections of their desires. To me, the crawling pace and relative silence of these scenes connect and contrast so perfectly with the presentation of Carole's slow slip into madness that without the pacing as is the film would have lost a lot of its bite. This is where the film, to me, is at its most rich and I marvel at the intricacies of what Carole was going through during the film and the mystery of what happened to her earlier in her life.

The question then has to be asked, what exactly is wrong with Carole? What is it that makes her react the way that she does to the men around her? From a conversational standpoint, this may be the most interesting and inviting question from the film, and it really leaves a great aftertaste to the film once you've viewed it. A lot of theories are thrown out there, some that have more backing within the film itself than others, but in the end this is one of those films that it's really up to you individually to decide what the answer to that question is. Visually we are certainly given clear clues that she might be losing her grip on reality, and it gets a lot more intense than just men gawking at as she quietly walks. Her grip on reality starts to diminish so much that its as if she is taking us down with her, almost becoming a live action version of the ending to the famous Don Hertzfeldt cartoon short called Rejected.

Eventually, the "unreliable narrator" aspect of the story replaces Carole's loss of grip on reality with its own grip on the film and our experience o fit, and that is when the film becomes its most visually stunning. Getting to that point is a slow progression, but if you have more than a passing interest in film narrative and stories (on paper or screen) then it is worth the journey. One of the aspects of this film that I took particular enjoyment was the "cracking and splitting" that coincided with Carole's increasing downward spiral. This effect was really pretty cool on its own merits, but after having just seen the film May for the first time around a month prior to Repulsion, its use was actually exciting in terms of relating one film to another. May uses a nearly identical visual and sound technique, and it uses it in a very similar context, which makes it obvious that it was a reference and homage to Repulsion.

To me, Repulsion is a film that should be of huge notoriety within the horror genre due to its imagery and visuals. Surrealism in film, at least from a visual aspect, has probably existed for as long as the filming process itself has been in existence and it was used in horror as early as the sets in the film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. However, Repulsion took surrealist imagery and plugged into a modern horror movie and did so in a way that was properly correlated with the story itself. In addition to the surrealism, there are visual effects and tricks that make this a noteworthy (doing tricks that would make Mark Romanek and Wes Craven jealous) and very fulfilling horror film. What also proves that this film is really special is that I would recommend this film just as ferociously outside of a horror context as I do within it, because it's not a horror film for horrors sake, horror is just the inevitable result of the story itself.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
10/3: Repulsion (1965)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/3 - Event Horizon

2011-11-02T22:55:00.003-04:00

Event Horizon (1997)

This is another film that I had previously seen, but wanted to re-watch because the last time I saw it was when I was in high school. I, again, don't remember much from the film so watching the film this time around was, like with my recent viewing of Rosemary's Baby, kind of like watching it for the first time. The more I wrote about this film, the more I felt like it's a film that I should highly recommend, except for one key problem; I don't really like the film. Rather than spend the whole blog ranting on one specific problem I have with the film, I've decided I'm going to expound on all the virtues (and from a horror genre perspective, there are many) of Event Horizon. Then, if anyone is still reading (I mean lets face it, no one is even reading now), at the end I'll explain why I ultimately don't like the film and I'll probably never watch it again.

Event Horizon was first pitched as a movie like The Shining, but in space (as I learned in IMDB's trivia section). That in and of itself might be a worthwhile endeavor, except that the early pitch obviously became a bit more complex once the film became a finished product. While it is true that nothing in this film is particularly new or revolutionary in story or plot, what makes the film unique is how it separates itself from most of the The Shining clones that have come into existence. There is no getting away from the similarities to The Shining (or to Amityville Horror before it), but those types of movies really serve more as the foundation for the film upon which some of the visual stylings and "horror in space" prototype of Alien are built upon and is fused with elements of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Hellraiser, and Solaris. Additionally, while not necessarily an element purposefully injected into the movie, some inspiration for the film had to have come from the legends of the Philadelphia Experiment.

The combination of all these elements, which are relatively well integrated into the film by Paul W.S Anderson, really do end up building a unique and atmospheric "horror in space" film that owes as much to "Alien" as it does to The Shining. The film also takes its time and setting pretty seriously; the film seems to succeed on portraying a fairly possible and realistic future. On paper, it would seem like this film has all the makings of a horror classic, and all of these positives do have the end result of a coherent and interesting film. Despite a disappointing box office run in the theaters and poor critical reception, Event Horizon has attained cult classic status in the years since its release. On top of all that, the movie has a pre-Matrix Laurence Fishburne in it, which I like. These are all good things...so why did my recent re-watching of Event Horizon leave me firmly disappointed in the film?

Basically, my problems with the film have nothing to do with any issues of quality on the films part (though there are some flaws I'll get to). No, I don't like this film because I don't like Session 9, or any of the original Amityville Horror's, nor did I particularly like Burnt Offerings. No matter how much the movie is spruced up by other influences and motifs (like Alien and Hellraiser), in the end this is another "man possessed by building" except instead of a building it's a space ship. Refer all you want to alterations and differences between this version of that formula and to all the others, the fact is that its the same basic premise and I've never been a big fan of that premise. The only film of that formula that has ever succeeded for me is The Shining, so really Event Horizon was doomed from the get go from me. This is why I decided to talk about all the good of the film first; the reason I don't like the film is really more about my personal preference than it is about something wrong with the film. I suppose I could complain about the film not really introducing anything new and just taking pieces and parts of other films and slapping a new name on it, but honestly the film is put together well enough that such an argument is pretty flimsy.

I also did have some complaints about certain aspects of the film, like for example how seemingly unprepared rescue mission was which seemed incongruent with the reality and future the film was set in. But those things weren't at the root of my issues with the film and they might not be noticeable or annoying to others. Admittedly, this is a film that I wouldn't recommend, but I do recognize some of the films allure. I'm just not on board with it.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
10/3: Event Horizon (1997)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/3 - Rosemary's Baby

2011-11-01T22:00:00.004-04:00

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

I have seen Rosemary's Baby before, back when I was still in high school. This is only the second film, up to this point in the 2011 Fall Scary Movie Season, that I picked to watch a film I had already seen before (the first being The Uninvited). Early in the season I like to watch films I have never seen before but the closer I get to Halloween, the more I re-watch some of the classics that are my favorite. The nice thing about re-watching Rosemary's Baby, though, is that it feels very much like I was seeing the movie for the first time. I didn't remember much of anything from my previous viewing, which made for a nearly virgin reaction to the film itself as if I'd never even seen it before.

The film is a pretty fascinating creation for a great many reasons. First of all, this is a Roman Polanski film (as is Repulsion, a film I viewed almost directly after Rosemary's Baby), and with that comes some interesting discussion. Engaging in that discussion would probably lead to some spoilers for the film, so I'm going to avoid delving into details and concepts, but suffice it to say that there is considerable irony and contradiction between Polanski's work and his personal life. His portrayal of women in both Rosemary's Baby and Repulsion (the only two works of his I've actually seen), when juxtaposed with his life, can lead an observer to a lot of odd connections and lead to many questions. These connections and questions are things I will probably address more directly in my blog post for Repulsion, but they are pertinent to this movie because of the interesting take of feminism I interpret from this film. It's also odd to note the strange art-imitating life-imitating art that seemed to follow Polanski and the people he worked with around, which also includes Mia Farrow and Woody Allen (whom Farrow had a rather infamous relationship with). If you try to educate yourself about some of the odd liaisons and scandals of Polanski, Farrow, and Allen on the internet, you might notice not long after you start researching that hours have went by, a lot of tabs are open in your browser, and you haven't even seemed to scratch the surface of it all.

Anyway, after seeing this film I began to wonder how it might relate to the theories of "feminism in horror" and if it somehow fits into the concept or not. What makes this film stick out, when talking about feminism, is how male dominated Rosemary Woodhouse's (Farrows character) world is throughout the film. The only two exceptions to the seeming Victorian level of male oversight is Mia Farrow as the lead character and Ruth Gordon (who I'd like to make a few comments on later) as a nosy neighbor. The level of patriarchal representation in the film reaches frustrating levels, which not only plays a role in the plot of the film but also perhaps is a statement against women who are glidingly subservient to the men around them. My interpretation of such a perceived viewing is that Rosemary's Baby is a thickly veiled morality tale, in the spirit of many episodes from The Twilight Zone and Star Trek, expounding on how a woman can be much like the proverbial frog in boiling water. To me, this more "feminist" perspective could be pitted against a more misogynistic interpretation of the film asserting that woman, when exploiting their femininity and motherly instincts, can be easily manipulated (similar to my attempt at interpreting the 1992 mini-series Intruders) but I much prefer the intrigue of the feminist interpretation. What makes them both such good arguments is that both can be backed by supportive content within the movie, which makes this topic yet another fascinating aspect of the film

Now I'd like to get to what I wanted to say about Ruth Gordon. While I was watching Rosemary's Baby, Gordon's performance as the nosy next door neighbor was something that jumped out at me. I was really taken by her performance as an invasive and relatively jarring character and it seemed like she stole the show pretty much anytime she was on the screen. Little did I know that I was taking note of a performance that won Ruth Gordon an Oscar for best supporting actress in 1969. Her character almost felt like not just a progression from, but also a societal and film-making step up from, the character of Minnie from 1935's Bride of Frankenstein. They may have nothing to do with each other, but it felt to me like their coarse and jarring natures shared a certain similarity in feel, but in Rosemary's Baby it was upgraded from a comedic relief stock character to a more important and integral character to the story.

Other things that further enriched my viewing of this horror classic was the performance, both in acting as well as in physical presence, of Mia Farrow. Mia Farrow seems to be a naturally skinny woman, but in this film they push that skinny look even further, and to great effect. There are also a lot of tricks and treats in the film dealing with religion from the macro, puritanical, perspective of the devil to small trinkets like the Time magazine cover of "God is Dead" which enrich the film even further without forcing religious overtones down your throat. In addition to all that, you get to see a middle aged Ralph Bellamy, who I remember being first introduced to with his rousing performance (matched also by Don Ameche) as Randolph Duke in Trading Places. Little did I learn later that I had seen him as a much younger man as a younger kid watching a little flick called The Wolf Man; he plays a great supporting role again in another horror film 28 years later in Rosemary's Baby.

This is one of the undeniable classics of the horror genre, so it isn't like I need to make a rousing nomination as a must see film for horror fans. Interesting thought is to perhaps view Rosemary's Baby after first viewing The Devil's Advocate to get an interesting perspective of where the latter film owes much of its genealogy to.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
10/3: Rosemary's Baby (1968)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

A 2011 Fall Scary Movie Progress Update

2011-10-29T14:06:00.004-04:00

I am not sure how many people actually show up here and read about the horror movies I post about, but if you do exist, I wanted to give an update about the next few days. There are only three days left (counting this one) in October, and once I fall asleep on Halloween night, that is my official ending of what I call "Scary Movie Season". Once that happens, I don't really watch horror films anymore. I mean, I watch them...but I don't feel required to try to view at least three horror films in one day any longer. Since I only have three days left to binge on horror films like a recently dumped female with a pint of Edy's Ice Cream, I've decided I'm essentially putting my blog posting on hold until November.

It has gotten difficult to watch the movies I want to watch as well as to write overly analytical blogs about said movies concurrently. Thats why the blog posts have gotten relatively sparse over the past week. As of this blog post, I have now seen 72 films since August 22nd. That is 72 films in 69 days. I have only posted about 41 of those 72 films, so I've got a long way to go before I post a blog about all the movies I've seen (which is the goal). Obviously I'm not going to be able to get all the posts done by Halloween, so I've decided that I'll just keep posting about the movies I've seen into November, and I'll just focus on watching movies for the next three days rather than worry about posting blogs.

Basically, I won't be writing anymore more blogs for the rest of the month since I'll be craming in as many films as I can until I fall asleep Halloween night. The posts will come back in November.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/2 - Let the Right One In

2011-10-26T02:00:00.012-04:00

Let the Right One In (2008)

I'm sure you've heard the saying "the wrong place at the wrong time", and all of the variations of the idiom (right place at wrong time, right place at right time, etc.). Let the Right One In is a movie that should be a victim of the "wrong place/wrong time" cliché due to its release coinciding with the Twilight boom as well as its initial offering not being as a Hollywood product. Perhaps it has suffered from a larger place within cinema, and a larger fan base, due to some of its circumstance but the film isn't any less of a cinematic golden goose as a result. The film is so good, and so well done, that if you actually sit down and watch it you'll probably come away from it certain that it hasn't gotten the notoriety it deserves on a larger scale (other than in horror fan-boy circles).

The only reason I picked up on the existence of this movie is due to discussions being had around the internet (by previously mentioned horror fan-boys) dealing with comparisons to it and its American remake Let Me In, which came out in 2010. It's a good thing I ran into those discussions, because if I hadn't I wouldn't have made it a goal to see this film with so much prudence. I still haven't seen the remake as I wanted to give the original a try first, but I do plan to watch the American remake next year during my 2012 Fall Scary Movie Season and then I'll be able to compare the two for myself.

Anyway, lets just get it all out there right now and admit that Let the Right One In is another vampire youth romance. If I don't acknowledge it, it will end up becoming the 180 lbs sparkling vampire in the room, so we all might as well get it out there; core elements of the story in "Let the Right One In" bare obvious similarities to Twilight and, by extension, The Vampire Diaries. There is actually a long list of similarities about these three recent vampire institutions that go beyond their clear plot and storyline similarities to each other. All three of these started out as books: The Vampire Diaries (novel series) was the first of them all to get published in 1991, Let the Right One In (novel) got published in 2004 but didn't get an English language release until 2008, and of course the first of the Twilight saga books was published in 2005. I find it interesting to note that Twilight was the last of three to be published,which I believe raises a lot of questions that aren't often addressed in the mainstream....but this is a blog post about movies so I don't want to go there right now.

I haven't seen more than one or two episodes of the TV adaption of The Vampire Diaries and I've only seen the first film of the Twilight franchise, so I'm not exactly well versed on those brands. Having admitted that, it still seems apparent to me that Let the Right One In stands out amongst the three in the "youth vampire horror" category for two reasons; the first is that the film is much darker and much more stoked in the traditional vampire mythos compared to the other two. The second reason being that the film has a much more serious tone due, in part, to its social commentary on bullying and sexuality. Where the other two brands may even touch on those subjects, Let the Right One In really confronts them head on and makes them a true part of the storyline. To me, this is why Let the Right One In should be freed from any eye rolling from the jaded masses who might hear the general premise of the film (youth vampire romance/horror) and disregard the film as an also-ran; in my opinion Let the Right One In is essentially the 2001: A Space Odyssey equivalent to Star Wars and Star Trek (no offense to Star Wars and Star Trek intended).

Of particular interest to me from watching Let the Right One In was how true to the traditional, and more European, mythology of vampires it sticks to. Ironically, the sticking to the oldest of clichés on vampires is what induces a breath of fresh air into the genre. I was also drawn to the large roll that bullying played within the film, and how that hits so close to home within the US due to the hot-button issue that bullying has become today. I came to learn later how powerful the inclusion of bullying into the story was since the movie also deals with sexual ambiguities as well, which I only really picked up after reading up on the film on IMDB. Sexuality seems to be at the root of a lot of the bullying issues in the United States today (or it's at least portrayed that way), which is spot-on on the movies part. This is where I feel the film really builds up its integrity as a truly impressive film.

Let the Right One In is one of those movies that you can really sit down and peel off the layers of the film after viewing it, if you so desire. I love movies with that kind of weight and depth to them, and I especially love when a movie in the horror genre has such traits. It's also a film that if you don't care about all those layers, then you can just sit back and enjoy a story about a vampire. This is a film that has made a name for itself in such a way as only Asian horror films (or American remakes of Asian horror films) seem to have done over the past decade and a half. When you watch the film, it's easy to see why it's so hyped, and I do believe it deserves every bit of it.

Check Let the Right One In out, it's one of the best vampire films you can possibly see; an automatic classic.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
10/2: Let the Right One In (2008)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/1 - Trick 'r Treat

2011-10-22T23:00:00.008-04:00

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

After viewing Begotten, I was in need of a good old fashioned, high quality, horror film immediately after viewing it. It didn't need to be anything groundbreaking, and as a matter of fact I had preferred after Begotten that it wasn't groundbreaking or deep; it just needed to be fun. After some consideration, I thought that Trick 'r Treat might offer that kind of experience. Trick 'r Treat was a film that Ben and I had contemplated watching on many occasions, but for whatever reason pushed it onto the back burner in favor of other films. It had continued to sit on my list of movies to see ever since then and, after the hard work that entailed watching Begotten, when I went to pick the next movie I wanted to see Trick 'r Treat finally seemed to jumped out at me. I guess it worked out that it took so long for me to see it (although I would have rather seen it with Ben), because Trick 'r Treat filled its role perfectly as an easily digestible horror film (at least compared to something like Begotten) and I really enjoyed it.

Trick 'r Treat is not a film where you will be in need of seriously analyzing much of anything. However, this is a film you should pay attention to due to some nonlinear storytelling and to connecting points throughout the film that relate to both earlier points in the film and hold significance to later points in the film as well. At its core, Trick 'r Treat is a horror anthology, but it holds that distinction in a very similar way to how Dead of Night holds that distinction; the short stories in Trick 'r Treat are of the "interrelated" variety that also hearken to more recent films like Pulp Fiction or Crash. I have even found myself wanting to describe Trick 'r Treat as the horror film imitation of Pulp Fiction, although outside of the interconnected stories I'm not sure the comparison and claim is truly applicable.

Something I was really fond of picking up while watching the film was how the final story we are shown reminded me of one of the few episodes I've seen from Tales from the Darkeside called Halloween Candy. The stories themselves are obviously quite different, but there is a similarity in the premise of both tales. Perhaps even more similar, both in name and in storyline, is another episode from from Tales from the Darkside titled Trick or Treat, but I've never actually seen that episode and I only know of it due to my IMDB and google searching of the "Halloween Candy" episode from Tales from the Darkside. I also remember thinking during this film that I wish the antagonist from Pumpkinhead had been designed more based on something from Trick 'r Treat than what it ended up being made as, but thats all the detail I'll get into with that.

If there are any two things you watch on the actual day of Halloween (and especially the night of), the first has to be the original Halloween, and the second should be Trick 'r Treat. It's perfect Halloween horror fun and I'm amazed, like many others, that this film did not get a wide theatrical release. With its production values, look and feel, and the actors involved, one would assume this film had to have been released in theaters but you'd be assuming wrong; it was actually a straight to DVD affair. Really quite unfortunate as the film deserves much better.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
10/16: Halloween (1978)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
10/16: The Fly (1986)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Trick 'r Treat (2007)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
10/16: Return of the Living Dead (1985)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
10/15: Zombie (1979)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
10/16: My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
10/16: Monster [Humanoids from the Deep] (1980)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

12 Hours of Terror at Capitol Theater in Cleveland

2011-10-17T22:00:00.011-04:00

The Capitol Theater on West 65th Street in Cleveland, Ohio hosted the second annual 12 Hours of Terror, and this years addition featured seven horror films shown consecutively from 10 PM Saturday, October 15th to 10 AM Sunday, October 16th.

I'm actually about two weeks behind on my Scary Movie Season reviews which has resulted in a backlog of 19 movies I have yet to write full blogs about. If I were to add the seven movies from the 12 Hours of Terror to that list, I would be 26 films behind. Because of this, as well as because I wanted to acknowledge the awesome event that Cleveland Cinemas put together sooner than two weeks after the event actually happened, I've decided to break precedent for these seven flicks and post them before I get to my other films. Each movie still has its own post where I have my one sided film discussions, as has been the case for all movies I've seen. However, rather than adding each movie posting individually over the course of a few days I'm just going to add the links to all the finished blogs to this blog and have this be the main connection to the films. I just feel like doing it this way gives more credit to the novel way I saw the films, during the 12 Hours of Terror event, and I think the people who ran the event deserve the credit.

I can actually only review six of the seven films that were shown during the event; I fell asleep to most of Basket Case. I saw a fair amount of the film, but I don't feel like I would have a fully informed review on it because I missed some big chunks during the brief moments I rested my eyes. I was able to stay awake for all of the rest of the films though, despite struggling a bit with the last movie because it had been a long night and my second 5 Hour Energy of the night hadn't quite kicked in early in the The Return of the Living Dead. By the end of it I was running on all cylinders, though. Anyway, here are my movie reviews:

12 Hours of Terror Movie Lineup (written in the order shown during the marathon)

Zombie (1979)
Monster [Humanoids From the Deep] (1980)
Halloween (1978)
My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)
Basket Case (1982)
The Fly (1986)
The Return of the Living Dead (1985)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/1 - Begotten

2011-10-14T21:00:00.008-04:00

Begotten (1990)

I recently looked through someone's list of influential/good/important horror films and saw within that list a movie called Begotten. The person who made the list went on to say, "you won't like this film, don't watch it". I obviously didn't end up listening to the warning, although it did inform some of my expectations going into the film, for better or worse. I can actually echo what that person said about this film; no, you will not like this film and no, I don't highly recommend it. And yet, you will find at the bottom of this post that of the 33 films I've seen and rated up to the point that I viewed it, Begotten holds the #12 spot. It is ahead of 21 other films up to this point, including a few that I really enjoyed like Occult, The Children, Intruders, From Within, and even The Crazies. But I still rank Begotten ahead of them. Why?

Well, to get right down to it, I kind of feel required to have it ranked as highly as I do. I don't put it there because I enjoyed the film, instead I put it that high in a similar fashion as to why people go to church every Sunday when they think it's boring or, similarly, why I often work out so hard even though my track career is over. Alternating feelings of social requirements and the idea that "this is good for me" (amongst many other reasons) cause people to do such things, and that has something to do with why I rank this movie so high. In essence, Begotten is a lot like going to church because of its subject matter; the movie is basically a creation story and by extension a religious film. But its style, presentation, and gratingly graphic nature is not designed to entertain or please, which is also similar in many ways to other religious services and ceremonies. Begotten also was not really intended to horrify or scare, although the imagery and actions on the screen are unsettling and, in the truest sense of the term, horrifying. Begotten was not made to be a sci-fi flick, or an adventure epic, or to appeal to the masses in any easily accessible way; Begotten was made to challenge. In that way it succeeds, which is a big part of why I rank it as highly as I do.

Essentially, Begotten performs like a silent film from the 1920s and it looks like one, too, with its stark black and white coloring. How does the film do any "challenging" of anything in such a perceived dated format? Begotten challenges its viewers to take the common preconceptions of the beginnings of life and more closely identify with it by humanizing it all. It humanizes the violence of nature and natural selection and the brutality of creation, both in religious terms as well as in terms of the natural world around us. Essentially, this movie is a visual presentation of what I think Ian Malcolm means when he talks about the rape of the natural world. The film almost (or maybe even more than almost) feels like a pornographic or snuff film of god and nature, which can also be seen as an allusion to what man is doing to the nature surrounding him as much as it is an allusion to the violence of the natural process itself. I think this also ties in with the film's possible assertion of a cyclical system of existence.

The silence and monotonous repetition of the film are two of the biggest things that I think make Begotten such a hard film to swallow; there are no discernible words said during its entire 78 minute show time. At first, and to an extent I still, see the length of the film as a problem because it felt like the filmmakers were simply dragging the movie along. However, I also think I've come to an understand the repetition from a performance piece point of view; the repetition and monotony is meant to present the arduous amount of time that creation takes. It would still make for a better experience, and by extension maybe have more of an impact, if they could have cut down the film time a bit, but Begotten is an experimental performance piece and that means my opinion is certainly up for debate more so than it usually is (and it's always open to debate). I just feel that a cutting down of some of the open monotonous film space might have let the "grinding of the gears" of the viewers mind happen more fluidly rather then them screeching to a halt in-between hard to see scenes of seemingly methodical pointlessness.

The "grinding gears of the viewers mind" is my own reference to the fact that the film is not easy to discern either visually, thematically, or even story wise. I feel like I grasped it surprisingly well, though, and it is intuitive enough that you don't have to have graduated from film school to follow much of it. But I also did read up a little bit on the film before watching it anyway, so that helped me follow along pretty easily. I wish I didn't do that because I would have liked to have seen how well I could follow the movie going into it with a completely empty slate. I won't describe anything other than the movie essentially being a creation story or one mans version of the history of Earth to any of the readers of this blog, and I'll let those who decide to watch the film figure it all out for themselves.

Anyway, it is of my opinion that Begotten is not great horror viewing in any traditional sense. I do not recommend the film for horror/Halloween viewing, but I do recommend that you see the movie for yourself. It is a valuable piece of art, I think, and it is a great centerpiece for discussion. But I suspect you won't exactly get the standard thrills and chills from watching it that you probably would from watching the more traditional horror fare.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
10/1: Begotten (1990)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 10/1 - In the Mouth of Madness

2011-10-14T16:51:00.001-04:00

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)

John Carpenter and Wes Craven are two of the most influential and successful horror-centric directors in cinema history. They have both made era defining movies (Carpenter with Halloween, Craven with A Nightmare on Elm Street and again with Scream) and they both introduced iconic antagonists (Carpenter with Michael Myers and Craven with Freddy Krueger and, to a lesser degree, Ghostface). These two guys are as big as it gets, at least in American horror, when it comes to horror directors and writers.

What I found is that John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness represents both a moment in time as well as a point of reference for a kind of Carpenter Vs. Craven show down. Craven seems to have built a large portion of his career on meta-fiction and self-reflexive films, which he is most famous for using in the Scream franchise. However, Craven didn't write the Scream movies, he only directed them, but he did write and direct his final Freddy Krueger picture, New Nightmare. New Nightmare came out only a few months before In the Mouth of Madness, and both are infused and built upon self-reflexivity and meta-fiction. I found it interesting that they both started toying with similar ideas at the same time, although Craven is identified more with this style than Carpenter is because of his involvement with Scream.

Despite their similarities, In the Mouth of Madness is a bit different than Craven's Scream (I've yet to see New Nightmare, so I can't properly compare) in how it deals with the themes of meta-fiction and self-reflexivity. In the Mouth of Madness plays a lot more on the concepts of reality, planes of perception, and dimensions in an H.P. Lovecraft-ian way and more in the vein of Alice in Wonderland or, in other aspects, Silent Hill. Carpenter used a scene during In the Mouth of Madness where the characters drive over a bridge that almost seemed like Alice falling down the rabbit hole or Rose Da Silva waking up in the fog of Silent Hill. There was always a debate going on about what was real and what wasn't real in In the Mouth of Madness and a question of whether literature was becoming reality or not. Craven's toying with meta-fiction and self-reflexivity, in contrast, is more about people manipulating fiction and trying to make it real for their own gains in reality and more similar in style to the famous Giallo Tenebre. While their differences distinguish themselves from eachother, they both ultimately use the same devices to help pull out the monsters that they feel reside in all of us. In Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness the monsters are a bit more literal, and in Craven's Scream the monsters are more figurative.

Usually I prefer the more supernaturally charged takes on horror stories, for example I much prefer The Innocents to the original The Haunting largely as a result of this. But in the case of Carpenter's meta-fiction phase to Craven's, I feel like Wes Craven becomes the victor and I suspect a lot of that has to do with the fact that In the Mouth of Madness didn't satisfy me despite its take being more on the supernatural than Craven's. I am surprised by my own preferences in this case because In the Mouth of Madness should appeal to my interest in deeply layered stories as well as the fact that the movie feels like it was inspired by Hellraiser. I don't know exactly what it is, whether some of the pacing felt off to me or if I was annoyed with certain aspects of the film, but In the Mouth of Madness didn't resonate with me. It's because of this that I feel like Wes Craven wins the duel between the directors on the subject of how they handled self-reflexivity and meta-fiction t films. In rebuttal on the part of John Carpenter, two of my top five all-time horror films were written and directed by Carpenter, so, Craven might have won the battle but he also might have lost the war in terms of who I like the most.

There were also a few interesting things I took note of while watching In the Mouth of Madness, the first being surprise and intrigue when I learned that Charlton Heston had a small, but vital, part in the film. What was most interesting was the way his character was almost like a gun distributor for a world about to shoot itself to death. I never would have made that analogy if anyone else other than Heston would have occupied the role he played, and it made me wonder why the most vocal member of the NRA would take such a role. It might be that nobody else gets that kind of interpretation of his character other than me (meaning I'm off my rocker), or it might be that he and his people were not aware that his character would be portrayed the way it was. Either way, I found it odd and not fitting within what Heston projected publicly.

I also found it interesting that Sam Neil was played lead character, who at one point begins talking about the extinction of man. Jurassic Park had come out just a year before and Neil, of course, plays a major role in that film where extinction is also talked about a great deal (memorably the extinction of paleontology, what Neil's character did for a living, was quipped about). Lastly this film, like many others by John Carpenter, has many anecdotes and references to films he loves from the past. As I talk about in my post about Quartermass and the Pit, Carpenter uses the name "Hobbs End" in In the Mouth of Madness as the name of a key setting, and even some of the ideas involved in the movie seem to hearken to Quartermass and the Pit. Carpenter has a history of making references and being influenced by classic horror films in his films, as exemplified additionally by his referencing and alluding to the movie The Thing From Another World in both Halloween as well as big time in The Fog. Carpenter eventually, of course, remade The Thing as well.

Anyway, I thought In the Mouth of Madness was intriguing, but the film didn't leave me as satisfied as a lot of the other films I've seen so far this year have. It's worth a look, but deep down down I won't be talking about it at parties.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
10/1: In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 9/28 - Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County

2011-10-13T07:30:00.004-04:00

Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

This is one of the easier posts I'm going to make on a horror film so far because I don't have a lot to say about it. The fact is, this film is not very good. This is another "found footage" film, but it is one of the early ones before found footage was a clear cut sub-genre and it was originally a made for TV movie. It was presented as a supposedly real collection of video segments which showed a family being harassed by, attacked and, eventually, abducted by aliens. I actually remember seeing this film when it was presented on UPN with my family and I remember an odd sensation of not wanting to continue watching the whole thing, but being a bit fascinated with it like how people like to watch car crashes. At age 14, I could tell it was not a "real event" and I found the acting to be terrible, though there were times were I thought the movie to have potential.

There is not a lot that can be gleaned from the movie in any horror, sci-fi, socio-political or cultural angle, so there isn't a lot to dig into when it comes to Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County. There was a forced situation of racism (or seeming racism) put into portions of the film, but the lack of integrity and authenticity to the film never gave it much of a chance of being noteworthy. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this film is that a little over a year after this TV presentation was broadcast, The Blair Witch Project came out as the consensus epoch starter of the "found film" era.

Really the best compliment Alien Abduction has coming to it is that it is a pretty good example of a B-movie, and it can work a lot better as a film if understood as a B-movie from the get-go. To me it fits all the requirements of a B-movie, so its place in that category shouldn't be a difficult debate. At times the film can even have some kick to it, and when you combine the poor acting and the low budget, a case could be made that the movie is good for some entertainment. However, the full version of the film, which was longer than the version that came out on UPN on January 20th, 1998, does start to drag and started making me wonder when it was going to end (almost like counting the seconds to the end of class when in high school). If you watch the TV original cut, that problem would be solved pretty quickly and you might get more enjoyment from the film.

The movie could have helped itself a lot more by eliminating all the interview sequences as well, which simply interrupted the pacing of the movie and contributed nothing to the film in anyway. There is one scene that sticks out the most from a horror perspective, and it involves the little girl and the gun, but that works simply because seeing a young child with a gun is a pretty disturbing visual. For the life of me I don't understand how this film is rated at 6.3 (as of 10/13/2011) on IMDB but, of course, to each their own.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)
9/28: Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County (1998)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 9/28 - The Eye

2011-10-12T23:00:00.004-04:00

Gin gwai: The Eye (2004)

The Eye, along with Shutter, were two films which I first saw as American horror remakes. As remakes, the movies did not impress me. But just as the original Shutter from Asia did, the original Asian The Eye was able to usurp the bad taste of the remake and make me feel like I never even saw the remakes first; I was captivated by the original The Eye the whole way through. I couldn't help but be reminded of The Twilight Zone episode "Eye of the Beholder" while watching the beginning of the film, and from there on there was always something I could enjoy while watching this film. Whether it be the visuals, the story itself, or the interesting connections between it and other films, The Eye is yet another powerful Asian horror film.

What made the visuals stand out was not how big and in your face they were, but rather how natural and almost organic they were. It had a kind of Legend of Hell House quality to it in that the visuals presented were often more of shadows and glimpses when they were at their most abstract. When you got full views of something that was supposed to be of the supernatural, you weren't always sure whether it was something supernatural or if it was something that fits in with the natural, living, world. This worked magnificently at keeping any viewer off balance, and allowed the uneasiness and fear to build up more naturally than the aesthetically forced style of most horror films. Another comparison that could be made in the visuals sense, and perhaps more closely, is with The Sixth Sense which also shared a concept in the "I see dead people" plot-line.

You could make a case, albeit a flimsy one, that the American remake of The Eye could be used as a kind of supplement to the original because of its different focus. What elevates the original to far beyond the remake is that the Asian The Eye is much more atmospheric and edgy. The American remake focused a lot more on the patient/therapist relationship, trying to dig for a romantic angle to the film whereas the original just assumes that portion of the film and focuses its attention on the storyline and atmosphere. The two films, it could be argued, almost work together on this because of how the fulfill each others omissions or mistakes. The problem with this is having an entire remake of the original just to add more of a romantic storyline leads to a remake that falls short of the original as a whole. So from an overall perspective the remake is a waste, but if you could make it more of a short film in addition to the original, like if it would have been a DVD addition on the Asian horror original, it would be a valuable asset to the film. The remake as simply a whole movie of its own, however, is basically a disaster.

Of the strengths of original The Eye, it is the visuals that drive all of ultimate success. Its portrayal of death looks really poignant and frightening considering how minimalist and simple the visuals of it are. In addition to that, I personally had never picked up so many of the "easter egg" type visuals, like ghostly figures or images in the background that are not an integral part of the scene. It really adds a layer of discomfort and intrigue to the experience when there are added visuals that are not meant to be seen, but are meant to be noticed, which I felt like this movie accomplished more on me than most other movies have. The music was also pretty complimentary to the film as well; it wasn't the typical music you'd expect for a horror film but often when that is the case, the film makers use it perfectly to help give the film an interesting contrast in the background.

The movie also seemed to follow some of the motifs that were featured in Shutter, like suicide and the effects of such decisions religiously within their cultures. Tying into that was how, in one scene, a child who the main character briefly knew who had just died of cancer was telling the main character who was struggling with her own experiences to "keep a chin up". This, to me, seems to be a general anti-suicide theme I thought I picked up in both this film as well as Shutter.

About the only flaws I saw from the film were some awkward scenes and situations, like why the main character was invited and allowed to stay with a stranger and spend the night the room of the dead daughter of that stranger. The movie also might have fallen into the trap that Silk and Occult fell into where the demands of the visuals were too high and/or not enough time was spent on certain special effects scenes (not all of them, just a select few) which left the visuals falling a little flat a times. But those two things were only minor compared to the overall strength of the film and the cohesiveness of the story. This films, along with Shutter, in my opinion show why the American horror remakes of Asian horror original stories usually don't live up to their predecessors; they just aren't as good of films. It isn't a cultural thing, nor is it a money thing, it is just an execution of the story thing. Check out the original The Eye, and try to stay away from the remake featuring Jessica Alba .

Yes, Jessica Alba is incredibly attractive, but you'll probably be surprised to see how attractive the female lead, Angelica Lee, is in the original. So you aren't really losing out in that department either (....not that such a thing should have any real weight on the subject....).

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/28: The Eye (2002)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 9/27 - Edison's Frankenstein

2011-10-12T20:30:00.006-04:00

Frankenstein (1910)

I found out about this movie, which at a little over 12 minutes in length is really a short film, after looking through the horror.com forums. I might have seen a blog posting about this film a few months ago at a random horror blog, but I didn't pay much attention to it and did view it. The posting in the classic horror forum at horror.com, however, did get my attention with the message board post 100 years of Frankenstein in Cinema. In this post, the author featured the first cinematic version of Frankenstein, which is now in the public domain so I don't feel wrong in posting the video right here:

I was intrigued, and I was interested to see what the film was like, so sat down and watched the 1910 version of Frankenstein. As soon as I saw it I wanted to write a few things about it, but I won't be including it in my rankings because it is just a bit too old to fit into my list properly. I have no problem including silent movies in a list with modern films, but this is an Edison made film so it's so early in the film making industry that they are basically making up techniques as they go. To rank it along with all the other films seems akin to yelling at a two week old baby for not having good posture or praising how the baby manipulates his/her Cheerios as modern art. I'd gladly judge a baby's actions with such impunity, but to judge a film in such a way seems a bit much.

There is a lot that can be said about this film, but much of it has more to do with its historical significance than it does with the film itself. I'd rather talk strictly about the film which does limit some of the talking points, but there are still a few things to say about it. For one thing, there are some interesting things the film does that still has a place in even today's modern film making. A little known band called Mr. Meeble came out with a video for one of their songs called "I Fell Through" which actually uses the same technique in 2007 that Edison Studios used in 1910 to create the creation sequence of the Frankenstein monster; they recorded the scene and then played it in reverse for its visual effects. It just goes to show, the more things change the more things stay the same.

Something else I found impressive about Edison's Frankenstein was the use of the mirror to elicit the rather deep concept that perhaps the monster is in all of us, (something exploited as recently as Sam Raimi's Spider-Man) and proof that the "Look behind you!" visceral reaction was being exploited in horror from the very beginning. There is some debate on what constitutes the "first horror film", and arguments can be made for or against Edison's Frankenstein, but it is the first official Frankenstein adaption put on film and it is an important piece of film history. People who are honestly interested in history, or in films as a whole, should check out this little flick; it's only 12 minutes long and it's free and on Youtube. Go take a peek at it.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 9/26 - Shutter

2011-10-12T11:00:00.005-04:00

Shutter (2004)

I fell in love with this movie the moment I turned it on. Usually I would blame such automatic adulation on the fact that I have some kind of sentimentality to the movie, but I haven't seen the original Shutter before so that can't be it. I have, however, seen the American Shutter remake which actually made me struggle to convince myself to see this movie. Because of my previous experience with the American remake, all things really pointed to me being critical of this movie as I was going into it. The beginning credits alone, though, seemed to win me over as I perceived them to be so smart with its red tint hinting at a combination of a photo development black room and/or everything being stained with blood. I don't remember a lot of details from the American Shutter, but what I do remember is how disappointed and bored I was with the movie. For whatever reason, the Asian original had me intrigued from the very moment I started the film.

For me, what makes the original Shutter so intriguing is how it succeeds as a horror film. I can't tell for sure, but it either succeeds despite or because of itself. Most of Shutter is basically an exercise in "this is how you do Asian horror"; the film follows pretty much all the standards and clichés of the late 90s/early 2000s Asian horror boom that I discussed in my Dark Water post. It has a small infatuation with water as a result of the photo development room scenes and it has a long haired girl seeking revenge in the afterlife. You could even make a case that it is using technology as a medium for its terror, although I didn't count that against it in my list in the Dark Water post because the cameras used in this film are not digital so to me they aren't quite as "high technology" as the movies like Kairo or One Missed Call that use the internet or cell phones as plot devices.

Despite all the conventions and standards that play out in Shutter, the film succeeds where Dark Water fell short for me because the imagery and creativity achieved in Shutter overcomes all the Asian horror standard plot constructs. In Dark Water these constructs already seemed old and tired, but in Shutter it almost felt innovative even when I knew I had already seen it all done before. Shutter is as creative visually as anything before it or since, which is a big accomplishment considering it came out in 2004, six years after Ringu, two years after the American The Ring remake, as well as after Ju-on: The Grudge, "Kairo", Gin gwai: The Eye, and of course Dark Water. The point is, Shutter was still able to look fresh and new after many other highly successful movies had already "been there, done that". That seems almost impossible, but it is what Shutter does.

Shutter had a lot of scenes and moments that also allowed for some interesting thoughts after the film was over. Another familiar Asian horror motif that was featured in this film was suicide, which is something often used in Asian horror is presumably due to the very real plague of suicide in the Asian area at large. The film is steeped in the religious and cultural influences of Thailand and Asia, and it tries to combine and contrast the emotional pressures that might lead to one ending their life within their culture to how emotional and peer pressure can lead to one living on in pain and shame. There are some very real issues at play in this movie which, to me, make Shutter not just a horror film for the sake of scaring people. There seems to be a statement being made about suicide and social pressures, and what that statement is can be debated and discussed at length. I think this goes a long way in giving the film a lot of its authenticity.

The film can also be taken as pure horror entertainment, though, if that is all that is being looked for. I was already enjoying myself during the movie until the bathroom scene is shown, and it is at that point that I realized the film is one of the greatest Asian horror films made to date and that the movie was just toying with its viewers like how Reggie Miller toyed with the Knicks in 1995. Between that, and the possible allusions/references to Psycho, I was lead to believe that no Asian horror list is worth due credit unless it has Shutter in it (and rated highly, at that). One could even try to make the case that this film is built upon the unreliable narrator concept, although that might be pushing it a bit. If such a concept had legs, though, I feel like it adds another level of mystic and depth to the film as a whole.

Shutter is an incredible film. If you are trying to build up your Asian horror catalog then Shutter is one of the first five movies you should see from Asia. If you are just looking for great horror films regardless of their origin, then add the Asian original Shutter from 2004 to your "must see ASAP" list. Do, however, avoid the American remake from 2008.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
9/26: Shutter (2004)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 9/25 - Quartermass and the Pit

2011-10-11T21:30:00.001-04:00

Quartermass and the Pit [Five Million Years to Earth] (1967)

I have to admit, sheepishly, that I have an attraction to the Ancient Alien series on The History Channel and I've seen a lot of the episodes. The show intrigues me, whether I accept their hypothesizes or not. It isn't the truth of what the show says that is most impacting, though, but rather it is the fact that the shows ideas have been implanted into my head from now on. The show has now given me a new perspective, or perhaps even contaminated my thought processes, and when the subject of alien visitation comes up I tend to ponder what the Ancient Aliens show has brought up on the topic. So when I was watching Quartermass and the Pit, some of my perspectives on the movie were manipulated by what I have already seen and heard from the Ancient Aliens show. Some of this actually lead to me being more intrigued by the movie, and some of it lead to me being persuaded less by some of the directions the movie ended up going. It is this, the idea of the time I live in contributing to my perceptions, that can be a big problem when watching a lot of the older movies which are a product of their own time. I'm pretty aware of all this, though, so I feel like I'm better than most at taking movies from previous time periods and not dismissing them simply because they don't fit snuggly into my own expectations and points of reference that have been developed in the time I am a product of.

A good example of how my experiences growing up in a later era comparatively to the era of Quartermass and the Pit lead to a positive outlook on the film is how I correlated a plot device within it to Steven Spielberg's remake of War of the Worlds. If you thought Spielberg's ideas of how to introduce the tripods were a fresh twist on the original H.G. Wells story, then you'll have to watch Quartermass and the Pit which will help you realize that Spielberg's idea wasn't so fresh after all. This revilation gives Quartermass and the Pit a lot of integrity; the introduction of the tripods in 2005's War of the Worlds were, in my opinion, one of the few tweaks of the story that worked relatively well in the remake, and that tweak might have been inspired by Quartermass and the Pit.

But an example of how the generational-gap gave me a less than impressed perception of Quartermass and the Pit was my disappointment once the mystery of what was in the "unexploded ordinance" under the road in London was unfolded. The reveal of that mystery did not match my expectations, both in how the direction the film decided to take as well as the special effects used to present that direction. While the revelation of what was physically in the object might have fit within the movies time period, I think the visuals fail within the contexts of its era. I'm actually very forgiving when it comes to old school special effects, and I'm actually a sucker for some of the great special effects movies of the 30s, 40s, and 50s. I find the original King Kong (1933) compelling visually on its own merits even today, and I think visual/effects presentations of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), Forbidden Planet (1956), and Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953) are authentic and persuasive. I'm sure there were budgetary constraints to be considered for Quartermass and the Pit, but this movie does not hold up to the aforementioned movies visually.

So, essentially, the movie has its flaws but it does have an interesting story concept which is presented pretty well. The question then has to be asked; do the flaws outweigh the strengths or is the movie's positives dominate over its individual flaws? For me, the movie overall is too strong to be spoken of only in negative terms, and my opinion can be further supported by things like the use of the street name Hobbs End, which employs the use of the word "Hobb". Hobb has linguistic roots as nickname for the devil. The name "Hobbs End" is also used predominately in the film In the Mouth of Madness, which leads to a cute kind of horror film lineage that seems to make Quartermass and the Pit the Adam of the Hobbs End term. Also of interest was the side story of the hauntings on Hobbs End which lend an incredibly creepy portion of the unseen story to Quartermass and the Pit.

Additionally, the film has a decidedly anti-racism, anti-fascism message to it which has to be correlated to the time and place the film was created. This is a post-WWII British film created at the height of the Cold War and in shadows of the Civil Rights movement happening across the pond in the United States. I find the deeper messages of the film to be inspiring and culturally invigorating because I took them to be such positive messages relating to the times in which the movie was created. I also found there to be some interesting religious undertones to the film beyond the simple use of Hobbs End. The film itself does seem to depict a kind of apocalyptic battle with the devil trying to destroy humanity and with humanity trying to banish the devil back into the depths of the earth just as god sent satan into pits of Hell. There is some interesting imagery of a sort of devilish looking entity in the sky during the climax of the film, as well, which also seemed to remind me in some way of either of the Eye of Sauron or maybe something I might have seen from the movie Krull.

Prior to seeing the film, I had no idea that Quartermass and the Pit from 1967 was part of a long line of Quartermass stories that were first created through the 1953 BBC series The Quartermass Experiment. Quartermass and the Pit gave a good enough showing to convince me that I have to dig more into the Quartermass universe by watching the previous Quartermass movies Hammer Films also came out with. That implies that I would opine that fans of horror should watch these films as well, but I would probably only tell people who are very interested in the horror genre's past as well as its present to see these films. They aren't for people just looking for the best scary movies to see during the Halloween season.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/25: Quartermass and the Pit (1967)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 9/25 - Dead of Night

2011-10-03T10:00:00.102-04:00

Dead of Night (1945)

This movie anthology achieved something for me that I've never experienced before. Usually when I'm watching a movie within the fantasy/sci-fi/horror genre I will find myself thinking, "oh, I bet they got this idea from an old Twilight Zone episode I've seen". Well, while veiwing Dead of Night, the reverse happened and I found myself thinking that The Twilight Zone might have taken inspiration or ideas from something that had actually come before it. There are concepts, both in the general short stories as well as in the tone or wording of certain scenes, that remind me a great deal of a variety of Twilight Zone episodes. It was a really spectacular experience seeing this movie because not only did it seem to upstage Rod Serling, but the movie itself was just really really good.

What I'd like to do with this post is what I did in my Three...Extremes review; do a short review of each of the short story sequences and then have a conclusion featuring my thoughts on the film feature as a whole. However, in the case of Dead of Night, all the short stories tie into a core story which is presented to us at the very beginning of the film. This core story has a House on Haunted Hill kind of quality to it because of its inclusion of multiple people showing up at a house together for a gathering of sorts. A big difference, however, between the two movies is the gathering in Dead of Night has no haunting or initially ominous theme to it like in House on Haunted Hill; this gathering is more of a normal house party and allows for the introduction and telling of each of the following stories:

The Hearse Driver

There are two stories that really strike me as something straight out of a The Twilight Zone in Dead of Night (remember, though, that Dead of Night predates Twilight Zone by 15 years). The first story to do this is, not coincidentally, the first story told by a guest in the film; "The Hearse Driver". For me, this extremely short story has a lineage of sorts with a variety of Twilight Zone episodes including The Hitch-Hiker, A Stop at Willoughby, and The After Hours. Each of these feature a kind of unseen force of nature or fate intervening in the lives of others and directing them into places that they wish not to go. These short stories also featured the use of a repetitive quote or behavior, which is most blatant in "A Stop at Willoughby" (have I ever mentioned that I live in Willoughby?)

Of them all, though, the clearest similarity between this short story and anything from The Twilight Zone is the episode Twenty Two which has a direct correlation to the story as well as the repetitive nature of a quote, as I mentioned. Of all the stories in the film, "The Hearse Driver" seems to me the most like something Rod Serling would have written.

The Christmas Party

This portion of the film doesn't seem to get a lot of attention or praise in a great deal of the discussions about Dead of Night, and I'll agree that it (along with the golfing story) is the runt of the litter, but it's still a nice addition to the film. It had a nice The Changeling kind of quality to it, except in place of a grisly and doubting George C. Scott, you have a cute young girl instead. Well, that, and the story is shorter and simpler. Supposedly the idea of this story was inspired by a real life murder case.

The Haunted Mirror

Everyones favorite story from this movie seems to be the last story of the ventriloquist, and for good reason, but I don't quite fit in with the masses because of "The Haunted Mirror". This story, of a mirror seemingly taking control of a mans mind, was actually the story that I came away most impressed with from Dead of Night. I actually felt like someone could take this story and make a whole movie out of it (like what has been done with the ventriloquist story from Dead of Night). Certainly the use of mirrors as a plot device in a horror film has been done with great zeal since 1945, as exemplified by the exploits of the Koreans with Into the Mirror (which joined the American horror remake list with Mirrors) as well its use in a favorite of mine; The Skeleton Key. But "The Haunted Mirror" is not like those movies, it has a very different story line and concept which is why I think this story could be a film on its own merits.

I also really enjoyed the following quote made during this story, "Lets get the wedding over and then we can start making divorce arrangements after." It stuck out to me as great dialogue and almost prophetic for the state of marriage in the 90s and into today.

The Golfing Story

H.G. Wells is credited with this story, but this fact is not a man talking point of this legendary film which on the face of it would seem odd. Having such a legendary writer as a contributor to not only the earliest horror anthology committed to film, but also such a successful film achievement at that, would seem to be a big deal. Apparently, though, it isn't a big deal, and there could be a few reasons for that. The first is that to some extent this story is a mood killer and is generally considered to be the weakest installment in Dead of Night. I imagine nobody wants to make a big deal that H.G. Wells is responsible for such a story. Secondly, according to IMDB's trivia section for the film, the characters of the story seem to be based on characters from an earlier Alfred Hitchcock film, so to an extent it's almost more of an adaption than an original story by H. G. Wells. Lasltly, the story itself is a pure comedy and not in line with even what represents a horror-comedy. You wouldn't expect such a story to be from H.G. Wells, which is why people probably don't associate it to him.

Clearly this story was supposed to be a kind of breather for the characters in the film, and by extension the film audiences, after all the heaviness of the first three stories. Perhaps the two most frightening things you can take away from "The Golfing Story" is the quote from the homeowner to the main character trying to leave the house that he should "have one for the road". By that he meant he should have an alcoholic beverage before he gets in his car and leaves.... I've always enjoyed the handling of drinking and driving in early films and how awkward it is in hindsight. Additionally, the ending of the story was actually quite strange and made me wonder if the story might have something in common with The Entity....

The Ventriloquist's Dummy

"The Hearse Driver" came across to me as the story that felt the most Twilight Zone-ish, but "The Ventriloquist's Dummy" put a different slant on The Twilight Zone/Dead of Night connection for me. It was this last story that, for the first time that I can remember, gave me the thought that maybe The Twilight Zone might have borrowed concepts from something else as opposed to everything always seemingly borrowing from The Twilight Zone. The obvious connections to The Twilight Zone are not simply rooted in the twisted state of the story, but also in the fact that two Twilight Zone episodes, The Dummy and Caesar and Me are about a ventriloquist and his puppet who seems to become sentient all on his own. "The Dummy" is the episode that is most closely related to the story featured in Dead of Night, and the similarities are stark. "Caesar and Me" is really only related to "The Ventriloquist's Dummy" because of the similar use of plot device and the dark tones of the stories, but other than that they are very different.

While there was a dual personality ventriloquist movie that had already been made prior to Dead of Night (The Great Gabbo, which also has an additional namesake in its early use of color), the horror aspect of the story concept had not yet been applied. I have yet to see The Great Gabbo, so I can't say this by experience, but it is categorized as drama and romance so I suspect that there is a huge difference between it and "The Ventriloquist's Dummy". The Twilight Zone doesn't need to feel ashamed of itself for creating an episode that so clearly borrows from a previous work; they weren't the only ones to do it with this story concept. There are multiple movies that exploited the crazy ventriloquist idea, one that came out right around the same time as the The Twilight Zone episdoes, and all must cite in one way or another their influences to Dead of Night.

While looking around the internet on the subject of Dead of Night, I found someone who makes an interpretation that "The Ventriloquist's Dummy" is a representation of a homosexual relationship. Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't buy that as accurate on the part of what the filmmakers were trying to do (though I haven't studied film academically, so I don't know). From my perspective, perhaps in a literary light you can interpret the story as an allegory to a homosexual relationship, but to claim that it was an intentional allusion to homosexuality that got by the censors, the way the article claims, is in my opinion off base. The multiple personality disorder theme seems to me to be what the authors were going for, which itself wasn't something clearly understood in the 40s (or even today for that matter) so that was probably a controversial concept in its own right.

Conclusion

I knew nothing about this movie until recently, and the fact is that Dead of Night holds an iconic place within the film industry as a whole, let alone in the horror genre. What is so great about Dead of Night is that anyone can pick up this movie today and be truly entertained by it. I have a strong sentimentality to The Uninvited, which came out a year before Dead of Night, and I would defend my lauding of "The Uninvited" by citing its importance as an early supernatural non-monster horror film as well as it being well made. However, if I sit down some of the kids from my alma-mater high school and have them watch The Uninvited, I suspect most of them would complain or chuckle at a lot of it. With Dead of Night, however, I feel like if those same kids would respond a lot more legitimately to it because of its wrap around storyline and twist which might engage them more. Basically, my point is that Dead of Night is timeless and is still relevant as a horror film even today.

If you are looking for high quality horror films of any era that you haven't seen yet, Dead of Night has got to be on your list of must-see's.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
9/25: Dead of Night (1945)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 9/24 - Dead and Buried

2011-10-02T21:00:00.005-04:00

Dead and Buried (1981)

The beginning to this film is one of the more surprising and in your face introductions you're going to find in the horror genre. It's an important achievement in my perspective because for me, outside of the great introduction, the movie never really hit the spot. Dead and Buried is actually a pretty well done film, but I don't think the movie is generally my cup of tea so no matter how good it was I probably wouldn't have found it very compelling. Having said that, I still took a few things away from the films, like my infamous "genetic makeup" observation which I break down for Dead and Buried as follows: The Dr. Mephesto from South Park, who liked to genetically conjure multiple assed animals, spliced the DNA of The Fog (the locations seemed so similar), The Wicker Man, Wrong Turn, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and White Zombie and created an unholy conglomeration from each of those films to create Dead and Buried.

The White Zombie comparison might be the most integral comparison of them all because Dead and Buried reminds me a lot of what I've heard the original zombie movies are like, and White Zombie is acclaimed to be the first of the zombie films. I haven't actually seen these films so I can only go based on what I've read and heard, but I do have a strong general concept of them. The original zombie films are on my list of things to see but as I've said, they aren't really my cup of tea so I haven't had a lot of motivation to get to them. This is also a big reason why I have yet to see The Serpent and the Rainbow; traditional zombie films, no matter what the era, don't seem to appeal to me as much as other horror sub-genres.

Now, what makes the comparison to White Zombie pertinent for Dead and Buried is that it uses a version of the original zombie concepts like being brought back to life by a person knowledgeable in the "dark arts" or voodoo. However, Dead and Buried has it's own twist on the zombie mythology and it separates itself from the other films in large part because of this. This is what gives the film a special niche in the sub-genre overall, and because of all this it the movie does have a strong allure. What should be understood is that this movie is far different than the zombie films of George Romero, who revolutionized in the zombie sub-genre with his movie Night of the Living Dead. If you go into the film looking for a Romero era zombie film, you'll most likely come away disappointed.

Again, the film really doesn't tickle my fancy, but it does deserve the credit it seems to get by horror film fans who are in the know. Also of very interesting note is that Dead and Buried has a pre-Nightmare on Elm Street Robert Englund within its cast having a smaller supporting role. Only three years after this film, though, he began his reign as the seminal character Freddy Krueger.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/21: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/24: Dead and Buried (1981)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 9/23 - Aliens

2011-10-01T22:30:00.002-04:00

Aliens (1986)

The problem with me writing a "review" (I prefer to think of my blog posts as me having discussions with walls) for Aliens is that it's basically going to be me comparing it unfavorably to its predecessor Alien over and over. In thinking about it before writing it, the thought dawned on me that such a post would not be very compelling, especially for those who prefer the sequel to the original (and there are quite a few of them out there). While I can't change my point of view (because this movie isn't as good as Alien), I can try to avoid the pitfalls that I probably make in my Occult review where I keep repeating over and over the same critique laboriously. Did I mention that Aliens isn't as good as Alien?

There are a lot of really good things going on in Aliens, and it isn't my intention to demean those achievements. The face hugger/attempted rape scenes in Aliens, to me, are the most compelling portions of the whole film and show that portion of the Alien mythos in a way not broached in the first film. Aliens also continues the anti-corporation message and even pushes more into a study on Machiavellian tactics and how they can be detrimental to society. But the real standout in the Aliens film, bigger than all the action and alien hordes, is the Ripley/Newt storyline. The Ripley character's strength and resourcefulness is taken to new heights, and her role not only as a feminist role model but as a film icon was solidified in this this movie. Aliens can be argued as a stronger "feminism in horror" contributor than its predecessor because of the dual role that Ripley performs successfully, and Sigourney Weaver plays perfectly, of the mother figure and the hero. From a technical standpoint, what also scores big for Aliens is the fact that the side story of Ripley/Newt not only doesn't distract, but actually fits in perfectly with the film; it's this achievement that really makes Aliens click.

However, I must again fall into comparison mode and say that almost everything that Aliens does is just an exponential increasing of what Alien did before it. There are more aliens, there are bigger aliens, there is a more elaborate face hugger scene (as already mentioned as a positive), there are more guns and more booms, and there is a bigger beef with "the company". To me there are only two significant changes between Aliens and Alien that doesn't simply involve going for "bigger, louder, and nastier", and the first is the dismissing of the style of pace Alien had established. Essentially, this eliminates pretty much all of the "horror movie in space" dynamics from Aliens that made Alien a revolution in the horror genre. This, to me, also makes Alien the unquestionable superior in the horror movie sense because Aliens becomes more of an action/sci-fi/thriller than a horror film. While Aliens still works within the horror genre, it doesn't have the presence or weight that Alien has there.

Secondly, the focus is more concentrated on Ripley in Aliens. Her feminine instincts for motherhood as well as survival give the movie a more robust focus and a stronger backbone than many other "who can survive?" style movies. A case could be made that this aspect is just a further "upgrading" of Ripley's relationship with her cat in the first film, but I think Aliens does a good job establishing a more rich tapestry to the Ripley/Newt connection which makes it much more pertinent. If we are focusing on a horror interpretation, though, it is my contention that the mood, atmosphere, and claustrophobia of the the first film trump the contribution of the Ripley/Newt storyline because sometimes (or maybe even most of the time) the atmosphere of even a really good horror film is as important as the quality of its plot and story telling. That is really where the difference between the movies lay for me; Alien feels like it leaves more of an imprint on myself as a viewer than Aliens does because of its atmospheric use of visuals and pace. It is from a horror point of view that I think the debate of "which Alien is better" has more compelling points of merit than simply opinion and movie taste.

I'd also like to touch quickly on the visuals. Perhaps the biggest endorsement I can give Aliens is that it doesn't look like a movie from 1986, it looks more recent (with the exception of the look of the computers). That isn't necessarily true for even the best films from that era; even when their special effects are excellent there is often a "feel" of the 70s or 80s based on the visuals of the film (perhaps it's filming style or quality, I don't know). Even in this regard, though, I still prefer Alien to Aliens because the closeups of the alien in the first film seem more carefully filmed and meticulously crafted compared to much of the closeup alien scenes in Aliens. I think this has a lot to do with circumstance, however, as Alien is a claustrophobic film intended to prevent too many full views of the beast whereas Aliens has a ton of scenes with hordes of aliens which might have diluted some of the attention to detail compared to the first film.

In addition to that, I suspect director James Cameron's ultimate focus on the later fight sequences with Ripley and the "bitch" she fights (which looks incredible) might have distracted him from the earlier alien hordes. Still, while I can make my own case for preference on Alien, Aliens is amongst the best sequels of any film franchise ever and it is a movie of required viewing for any sci-fi fan or horror fan (it's amongst the best "creature feature" flicks available during any "Scary Movie Season").

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/23: Aliens (1986)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season: 9/21 - Dark Water

2011-09-28T18:30:00.050-04:00

Honogurai mizu no soko kara [Dark Water] (2002)

I liked Dark Water. It is a solid horror film, but, it is solid in the way that Insidious is solid and that is where I would like to begin the focus of my commentary. To be a solid horror flick in the way that Insidious is solid is not to berate any movie, but Dark Water has something going against it; it's an Asian horror film. With the creation of an Asian horror film, like with great power, comes responsibility. That responsibility is to live up to and fulfill a standard that probably isn't very realistic due to the horror movie version of putting the pussy on a pedestal. When I reviewed Silk, I made the following comment with how Asian horror is different:

"It isn't that stereotypes, clichés, and rip offs don't happen or exist in the Asian horror market, it's just that they are based on the clichés of their own making rather than what we've come to expect in the US."

There is a lot more truth to that than I realized when I first wrote that. As a matter of fact, I went on to say how in Asian horror they are more apt to do things outside of any stereotype, their own or others, in the horror genre but I'm starting to wonder how accurate that statement is. Asian horror is amazing stuff, and Hollywood should be jealous of the stuff that Asia has been churning out from the horror genre over the past decade and a half, but Asian horror is not perfect. I have now seen 14 Asian horror films (as in: movies I have to see with English subtitles). Two of those 14 were pre-Ringu era and one of them was an anthology, so I'm not going to count them. Check out this quick list I concocted:

6 of the 11 have the clichéd "long hair over face" revengeful dead female antagonist (four of them feature prepubescent girls, two feature very early adulthood women) premise.
5 of the 11 have their plot devices built upon some kind of technology, whether it be through new IT hardware or through advances in the medical field.
4 of the 11 employ water as either a visual stunt or an integral part of the storyline.

Now this is perhaps a flawed sample size since it's based soley on Asian horror films I've seen; and I've largely picked what movies I've seen based on what I hear through the grapevine as what is the "best" in Asian horror. So some of their similarities might be due to all of us American horror film nuts seeking out similar stories from Ringu since that movie seemed to cause a revolution in the Asian horror film market. On the other hand, 7 of the 14 films I've seen have been remade already by Hollywood and are on many peoples all-time lists for best horror. They aren't just cult classics, they are bankable commodities, so that seems to give them more weight on their own merits.

My points all lead to this: Asian horror has its own ruts and clichés that it seems to have gotten stuck in, also. I'm not saying that we should all think Asian horror sucks now, because Asian horror has a visual style which can take any story and add a great deal of suspense and horror ot it. Beyond that, there are two real reasons that Asian horror, in general, is still much better than Hollywood at making horror films. The first is that their clichés are still more interesting than our clichés (although if they keep sticking with the long haired revengeful female spirits, it might not last much longer). Secondly, even when they follow all or most of their own clichés, their movies are still of very high quality and still work because they tweak those stories and do different things with them visually or within the plots of their movies. That was why Insidious was so good; it took the basic model that had been done many times (both well and not so well) and spruced it up with some fresh eyes.

Thats kind of how Dark Water succeeds, as well. Dark Water almost feels like a slight twist on Ringu with a little different perspective as well. Now I don't think it is anywhere near as innovative or as visually enriching as Ringu, but instead my American eyes found some of Dark Water to be a kind of modern adaption of The Yellow Wallpaper. Instead of a story of a woman trapped in a marriage that was the product of the 19th century, in Dark Water we have a story of a woman dealing with the aftermath of a failed marriage that seems to be the product of the 21st century. I feel there are a great many interesting connections, including their climaxes and conclusions, of both The Yellow Wallpaper (link takes you to the actual story) and Dark Water. Because of all this, I feel this movie is another great nominee for membership in the "feminism in horror" club. In a singularly scary movie context, Dark Water works like Insidious does, but in a feminism in horror context, I believe this movie is more like the Asian niece of Full Circle (aka The Haunting of Julia).

As a matter of fact, I would have ranked this movie a lot higher on my list if it didn't seemingly recycle so much of the same visual stunts and basic elements of plot as some of its Asian horror predecessors. There are some pretty stark similarities to (the character American's know as) Samara's storyline and the atmosphere/look of Ju-on's elevator scenes. It's not a carbon copy, but it's pretty darn close. If not for that, Dark Water would have placed this movie directly on top of Full Circle on my 2011 list as a result of its high quality visuals instead of directly below Insidious because of its rehashing of a lot of the things that Asian horror was already doing when it first came out. Another case could be made for the incredible similarities between Full Circle and Dark Water, but I found those similarities to be more complementing and interesting as opposed to detrimentally ripping-off. Regardless of all the similarities (good or bad) between Dark Water and other movies, the movie itself is very good and it is amongst the best that Asian horror has to offer. If it's one of the first Asian horror films you see, you'll probably be more impressed by it than if you see all the other classics first. I do recommend the film, and I believe the film has an even stronger place in the genre if you go deeper into it and look at the film from a gynocentric point of view.

2011 Fall Scary Movie Season Overall Rankings:

9/8: Alien (1979)
9/12: The UFO Incident (1975)
8/30: The Uninvited (1944)
8/30: Noroi: The Curse (2005)
8/31: Three...Extremes (2004)
9/1: Full Circle [The Haunting of Julia] (1977)
8/22: Insidious (2010)
9/19: Occult [The Unidentified] (2009)
9/21: Dark Water (2002)
9/14: Re-Animator (1985)
9/11: The Children (2008)
9/18: Intruders (1992)
9/7: From Within (2008)
9/6: The Legend of Hell House (1973)
9/13: Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)
9/11: Silk (2006)
9/5: May (2002)
8/28: The Crazies (2010)
9/16: From Beyond (1986)
9/18: Corruption (1968)
8/29: Communion (1989)
9/8: Apollo 18 (2011)
9/7: The Dead Zone (1983)
9/17: Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (1978)