Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film 20 & Beyond

Happy Halloween!!!

The day is finally here! Doing these little movie write-ups has been a lot of fun for me. Thanks to everyone -- however few of you there -- who has stopped by to check out my recommendations. So now we're down to the last one, but instead of writing about a film I just watched I decided to write about the film I'm going to watch tonight.

Were this a weekend I'd probably be up all night watching movies, but since Halloween has fallen mid-week this year by the time we get done with trick-or-treating I'll probably only be able to squeezing in one last film. That made it a tough call. Should I go with something modern, bloody and gruesome or maybe a classic from the 30's or 50's, films which I realize I've neglected so far in this marathon. I almost went with Creature From the Black Lagoon, which would have been a great choice. But in the end, I've decided to go with one that's both creepy, gruesome and a whole lot of fun. Possibly the perfect Halloween film.





I mentioned in my writeup on V/H/S that anthology films are notoriously uneven affairs. There's often one segment that shines above the others. Or one segment that drags the whole film down. In other words, there's no perfect anthology film. 

But hands down, the anthology film that comes closest to perfection is Creepshow. I think that's because more than any other anthology film I've seen, Creepshow feels like a whole film. There are five different stories, but they are wonderfully tied together in this comic-book framework and there is a consistent tone and visual style throughout giving the entire film a cohesion that most anthology films lack. Is there one segment that shines above the others? Sure. But I don't think there's a dud in the bunch. There are probably some of you out there who will feel differently. I know there are those that don't care much for the segment starring writer Stephen King. Fair enough. I feel, though, that each segment has it's own charms, and even if some are better than others none drag the film down. Although I must confess I have been known to skip the final segment with the cockroaches from time to time. But that's not because it's bad. It's just ... you know, it's a bunch of freakin' cockroaches. Ewww.

If perchance you've never seen it before, Creepshow is an homage to the old EC line of comic books like "Vault of Horror" and "Tales from the Crypt." Written by horror novelist Stephen King and directed by George Romero (Night of the Living Dead), the film opens with a short little setup where an overbearing father takes the titular horror comic away from his son, giving him a good smack for his troubles. He tosses the comic in the garbage, but then the Creeper (obviously inspired by The Crypt Keeper from "Tales from the Crypt") shows up to rescue the comic and guide us through its five short stories. It's all a ton of fun with lots of scares along the way. 

To give you a little taste, I found the trailer on YouTube:


And that's what I'm really in the mood for tonight; a great combination of fun and scares.

And if that wasn't reason enough for me to pick Creepshow as my final film, here's one last good reason: Playing the small role of the too-strict father in the wrap-around segment is none other than this marathon's most watched actor ...

TOM ATKINS!!!!


And a few more suggestions:

Looking back over the films I've blogged about this month I think I've offered some pretty good recommendations for Halloween viewing, but there are obviously many many more out there. There are still a bunch I wished I'd had time to write about. Some of them I watched, but didn't get around to writing up and some I wanted to watch, but wasn't able to fit them into my schedule. So to wrap things up, here are several other films in different horror sub-genres that I'd recommend for Halloween.


SERIAL KILLERS


Black Christmas - I'm talking about the 1974 original, not the 2006 remake. Halloween typically gets the credit (or blame) for starting the slasher movie craze of the 1980's, but this little film came four years earlier and was a huge influence itself. If you've never seen it, find a copy and watch it. The only reason I didn't watch and review it this year; I can't find my copy!!! But I'll find a new one in time for Christmas.

Halloween - Do I really need to say anything here?

A Nightmare on Elm Street - Also a no brainer. But skip the remake. Again, I'm not anti-remakes. This one just isn't very good.


CREEPY DEAD GIRL


Ringu (Japanese Original), The Ring Virus (Korean Remake), The Ring (American Remake) - I don't know that you'd want to make these into a triple feature or anything as all three versions tell essentially the same story, but any one of these would make for a frightful Halloween screening. Worth a look if you can track it down is the Korean version. Not as well known as the other two, but quite good.


THE DEVIL


Uh, Chuck? How do you have a "The Devil" category, but you left out The Exorcist? Very simple. The Exorcist isn't just a great horror movie. It's a great film. Period. Full stop. It has terrifying aspects to be sure, and I'd never argue that it's not a horror film (as the film's writer often does), but it just doesn't feel like a Halloween movie to me. And it's my blog, so deal with it. Now ...

The Omen - The antichrist is born! A classic film. And as a friend pointed out, one of the best horror musical scores evah.

The House of the Devil - Good indie flick from director Ti West. I felt the climax happened and wrapped up way too fast, and it ended exactly as I thought it would, but otherwise it's a solid, creepy film.

Prince of Darkness - John Carpenter's take on the antichrist attempting to enter our world. An interesting attempt to mix the mythic with a bit of sci-fi. Not 100% successful in that respect, but a good, solid horror film nonetheless.


MONSTERS


The Thing - John Carpenter's classic paranoid sci-fi horror thriller from 1982, and it's my all-time favorite in the Monster Movie category. There is none better. Don't even try to argue. (Also proof that I don't hate remakes. Though that prequel/remake The Thing that came out last year is kinda iffy. Stick to the original remake ... if that makes sense.)

Pumpkinhead - Not necessarily a great film, but a great monster without a doubt. This is actually half a really good movie. Anytime actor Lance Henrikson is on screen, or the old mountain witch or Pumpkinhead itself, you're gold. But whenever you're forced to watch the 30-something actors playing 20-something campers and their badly scripted yammering ... yikes. Still, it's a fun movie.

Let the Right One In - I should have watched this in my vampire run because it's one of the best (if not the best) vampire films in a decade (or more).


And last, but certainly not least ...
ZOMBIES


 Night of the Living Dead - Well duh.

The Return of the Living Dead - The perfect combination of horror, black comedy and punk. Will forever be remembered for making zombies specifically hungry for braaaaaaains!

Cemetery Man - Probably my favorite Italian horror film, this one also includes a healthy dose of black humor. But be warned, you might be lulled into a false sense of ease by the presence of star Rubert Everett, who would later go on to fame (or infamy) as the ultimate gay-best-friend-character in My Best Friend's Wedding. Don't be. This is a weird one with a capital WEIRD.

Oh, you know what? As long as we're on zombies you could always watch ...

**WARNING: Shameless self-promotion in 3, 2, 1**

Buy it HERE!

Ha! Sorry. I couldn't help myself. (But really, you can stream it on Amazon for like $2.99)



And that's all for my first Halloween Movie Marathon series. Thanks again for checking it out.

Of course, now that I've gotten into the habit of actively writing on my blog I need to decide what to write about next. Suggestions?

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Films 18 & 19

So you say you don't want to sit around the house watching movies this Halloween. Rather, you'd like to get out with some friends and catch something in the theater before heading off to a party or whatever. Great idea! And there are at least a couple of good options out there for you this year.



I've seen The Possession referred to by more than one oh-so-clever reviewer as The Jewish Exorcist. You see, the film is about a young girl who becomes possessed, the demon, or dybbuk, which does the possessing is based on Jewish mythology, and the film also features an exorcism, but performed by a Rabbi instead of a priest. 

See! Just the same as The Exorcist, but Jewish. 

Ok, seriously, it is without a doubt true that this film follows a lot of the same beats as William Friedkin's classic film. But in fairness, most possession/exorcism themed films do. If that's the type film you're making, it's almost impossible not to reflect that seminal film is some respect. Still, what The Possession does have going for it that so many The Exorcist knockoffs do not is a very strong cast, an excellent director and enough of it's own ideas to make it a worthwhile edition to the possession sub-genre.


That said, my top "in theater" recommendation for Halloween is ...


What a wicked little film Sinister is. I'm not going to lie to you; I'm a jaded, longtime horror movie fan so it's not easy to get under my skin, but this thing creeped me out big time.

Ethan Hawke plays Ellison Oswalt, a writer of true-crime books. Ellison had great success with his first book, but his last two didn't work out very well. We pick up the story as he is moving, with his wife and two children, into a new home. Unbeknownst to the rest of the family, the new house daddy has picked out for them also happens to be the scene of the crime that his new book is centered around. Yeah, moving into a murder house; always a good idea in horror movies. 

Anyway, while storing some boxes in the the attic, Ellison comes across an old box labeled "Home Movies" that appears to have been left behind by the previous owners (aka, the family that was murdered there). Inside the box he finds an 8mm film projector and several cans of film. Upon playing the first film reel he finds not home movies, but a film of the actual murder. And each subsequent reel reveals the murder of a different family, all in different homes and different time periods dating back to the 60's. Ellison thinks he's really onto something big with this discovery. Unfortunately for him, he is.

For a fairly low-budget affair, Sinister gets more right than most Hollywood films with ten times the budget. Firstly, the script is just so well written. The dialogue, the interactions of the family, how Ellison reacts to finding the films, it all feels authentic. There's none of the typical, horror movie "why the hell would you do that!" type stuff going on. Next, the acting all around is excellent. Hawke is of course a well-known, Hollywood personality, and we know he can deliver, but I think we've also all seen a horror film before where a respected actor sleepwalks through his/her role for a paycheck. Not the case here. The film really rests on Hawke's shoulders and he comes through, big time. Besides him, with the exception of the small role of sheriff played by Fred Dalton Thompson I didn't recognize any of the other cast members, but they were all fantastic. Just solid work all around. Finally, the film is smartly directed by Scott Derrickson, whose The Exorcism of Emily Rose I liked, but whose remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still I did not. Here, even though this is a much smaller film, I think he delivers his best work to date.

I suspect there is going to be some division on this one (currently Sinister has a 61% rating on Rotten Tomatoes). Some people aren't going to like that so much of the action is Ellison watching movies, investigating on his laptop and creeping around his house after hearing strange noises. This isn't a big, bang, splashy horror movie. But it's a damned creepy one, and well worth checking out. 

I kind of wanted to talk about the ending, but I don't want to be "that guy." So if you do go see it, let me know and we'll discuss later in the comments.


Footnote:  Also in theaters right now is Paranormal Activity 4: Hyperactivity. But, you know, it's the 4th one. I mean, do what you want, go check it out if you really love that series, but personally I can wait for the DVD on that one. 

(Ok, I confess, Hyperactivity is not actually the subtitle of Paranormal Activity 4.  But come one, it so should have been.)

Monday, October 29, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film 17

Today's Halloween movie recommendation probably should have come a bit sooner in this series as it's going to be one of the more difficult films to track down. I didn't find it on any of the VOD services. It's a much older film, so it's certainly not in Redbox. DVD's are still available, so cue it up in your Netflix fast or buy a copy from Amazon and get it overnighted because this is definitely one to put on your annual Halloween viewing list.



Released in 1980, The Changeling is easily my all-time favorite haunted house film. I will mention, though, that if you're a fan of a more modern-style horror film you might be a bit disappointed as there is barely a drop of blood spilled in the entire film. This one is all atmosphere and slow-burn creeps, but damn is it effective. Especially in the use of sound design, which is equally as effective at creating scares as anything seen in the film.

The plot revolves around a man played by George C. Scott who has recently lost his wife and daughter in a car accident (seen in a devastating opening sequence), and has now moved to a new city in order to try and get his life going again. Once in town, he's introduced to a young woman (Trish Van Devere) who works for the local historical society. She sets him up in one of the old houses they care for, one that hasn't been occupied in many years. As you may have guessed, there's a good reason why no one has lived there in a long while. Someone died there years before ... and that someone isn't happy about it.

From there I'll say no more of the plot, but leave it for you to discover the chills The Changeling has in store. What I do want to mention is that beyond the haunted house aspect, there's a wonderful mystery to be solved that is central to propelling the plot forward, and really what, I think, helps set this film above the many similarly themed films out there.

So in honor of a film that remains one of my favorites year after year, here is a short list of horror awards I'd like to give The Changeling:

*Creepiest use of a child's toy.

*Best seance scene.

*Creepiest use of a wheelchair.

*Best use of an old well (sorry The Ring).

*Best use of creepy otherworldly child's voice.

*Best George C. Scott fainting scene.

Ok, I just threw that last one in for fun.

I was also going to give it Best Roving Wide-Angle Steadcam Shots, but The Shining, which came out that same year, probably wins that one. Though, to be fair, The Shining had an entire hotel to move through were as The Changeling just has the one house.

But anyway ... if you enjoy a good mystery, atmospheric horror and strong acting, seek out The Changeling this Halloween.

But please don't accidentally rent or buy the other film called The Changeling which stars Angelina Jolie and was directed by Clint Eastwood. Not the same thing.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Films 14, 15 & 16

I got on a little bit of a vampire kick after watching "Stake Land," so to wrap up that trend here's a trio of vampire films that are worth your time. And none of them are "Twilight."



As you may have guessed from my digs at "Twilight," I don't care anything about mopey, whiny, emo vampires. Vampires are monsters. I get the whole psycho-sexual elements; the blood, the penetration and so on. And there have been really good films that explored those themes while still letting the vamps be the monsters they are. My point being, I guess, I don't want my monsters neutered. 

That's definitely not the case with "30 Days of Night." Based on the graphic novel by Steve Niles, this is a brutal piece of vampire cinema. I wouldn't call it a perfect film, but it's a damn good one with a unique setting. Once a year the small town of Barrow, Alaska experiences a month long period where the sun never shines. As the sun sets for last time before the titular 30 days of night, a boat load of vampires arrive in town for a month long feast. Once the townspeople figure out exactly what they are up against, their task is simple; survive until sun up.

And here is my only real gripe with the film; it never really feels like they've been hiding and surviving for 30 days. Everything else pretty much works, but somehow the filmmakers missed out on conveying a sense of how long a month would actually seem if you are fighting for your life 24 hours a day.

But that's a nitpick to be sure. This film had great tension, creepy as hell vampires, and a strong cast of human survivors. Well worth a Halloween viewing.




Surely you know this one already, right? Right? I don't think there's much that I can add to what you already know about "Fright Night." I mean, if you dig watching a bunch of horror movies every Halloween, you've seen this at least a couple of times already. 

But just in case ...

"Fright Night" is a great 80's horror film that gives you the best of both worlds, in terms of vampires, offering us both the seducer and the vicious beast in one character. 

Charlie Brewster (William Ragsdale) has a new neighbor, Jerry Dandrige (Chris Sarandon). Dandrige is a smooth pimp with the ladies. He's also a nasty, killing machine. He is, to my mind, one of the great cinema vampires. He starts off all cool, suave and seductive, but when he vamps out it's full-on ruthless monster time with some really nasty looking makeup to boot. Sarandon is great here, playing both sides of his vampire with equal ferocity. 

Also, there's no way to discuss "Fright Night" without mentioning the wonderful Roddy McDowall as Peter Vincent, the great vampire killer. Here he plays a wash-up actor who once started in a string of -- you guessed it -- vampire films and now must overcome his fears and help defeat a real one.


I've often heard "Fright Night" referred to as a horror/comedy and I suppose that's accurate, but don't get the idea that it's wall to wall yuks and sight gags and such. The whole reason this film actually works on both levels is because the comedy isn't forced, rather it comes naturally out of certain character personalities and situations. So, yes, there's a good bit of humor here, but at it's core "Fright Night" is a horror film.




Now here's one that's played more for laughs than horror, though, to be sure it has it's share of nastiness. Being a horror/comedy from the 80's starring Grace Jones, that kid from "Meatballs" and Michelle Pfeiffer's little sister, "Vamp" isn't going to be for everyone. And to be honest, it's not one of my favorite, must-watch-every-Halloween films. That said, when I do pop this in the DVD player it's a plenty entertaining enough diversion.

To sum up the story, two cooler than cool college guys rent a car from Long Duk Dong so they can drive into the city, go to a strip club and hire a stripper for a frat party. Unfortunately for them, the strip club they stumble into happens to be run by a gang of stripper vampires who feed on their low-life patrons. It's really not all as sleazy as that description makes it sound, and there are some nice touches that set this film apart from the dozens of other low-budget, vampire romps the 80's offered up, although things are still slathered in a healthy layer of 80's cheese.

"Vamp" is streaming on Netflix right now, so if you have a subscription it's easy enough to give it a shot. If it turns out it's not for you, switch it off and go find "Fright Night."

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film 13

No! my 13th Halloween recommendation isn't going to be a Friday the 13th movie. How silly would that be.



The year 1981 saw the release of what are arguably the two best examples of the modern werewolf film; "An American Werewolf in London" and "The Howling." Now, since I love to stir up controversy - at least unimportant, movie-fanboy controversy - I'm going to make the bold declaration that I find "The Howling" the better werewolf film over "An American Werewolf in London."

"Heresy!"

"Are you mad?!"

Maybe. But hear me out.

Firstly, I love "An American Werewolf in London" (hereafter referred to as the more easily typed "AAWiL") unreservedly. I'm not trying to detract from that film one bit. And yes, it is kind of silly to say one is better than the other as they are both completely different types of werewolf films. However, they are werewolf films and if you were going to do a side by side comparison, here are my reasons for loving "The Howling" just a tiny bit more than "AAWiL."

1) Scarier: While both films have a heavy dose of humor laced throughout, "AAWiL" leans more heavily on the humor whereas "The Howling" leans a bit more towards the horror. Both work perfectly well in what they are attempting to accomplish, but for scares, "The Howling" is easily, for me, the more tension filled, frightening affair.

2) John Sayles: More well known today as a film director, Sayles started his career writing low-budget films for folks like producer Roger Corman. In fact he'd already worked with director Joe Dante on "Piranha," and was writing the script of "Alligator" at the same time he was writing "The Howling." So why do I mention him? Because even though he was writing low-budget horror films he put a whole lot into talent into them. It's a great script with a lot of fun and scares, and just so much more going on in it than "AAWiL."

3) "The Howling" is way more sleazy: Why do I like that? Because it's different. "AAWiL" for all it's greatness is really just a modern spin on the classic, Universal "Wolfman." "The Howling" is a beast unto itself. I mean if you want to get all pretentious with it, "The Howling" is using the werewolf as a metaphor for the nastiest, ugliest aspects of human nature. These people want to be werewolves because it frees them to indulge in their most base desires.

But it also just makes for a weirder, more interesting film.

4) Hind legs vs. all fours: This is just a personal preference, but I prefer werewolves that walk on two legs. It's more menacing to me. More unnatural. The werewolf in "AAWiL" is good too, but come on, it's just a great big, scary dog.

5) Rob "Freakin'" Bottin: If you know me, you know my love for the creature creations of Rob Bottin, whose effects work on John Carpenter's "The Thing" remains unmatched to this day. Bottin's werewolves look more menacing than any I've seen on film before or since. They almost look like he had an idea for a devil costume then added hair and a snout. They look plain evil.


My one caveat here; the final werewolf. The transformation part is fine, but that last close-up ... sheesh. Looks more like a were-shih-tzu. I'm guessing the idea here was they didn't want to make her look as evil - because she wasn't evil - as the other werewolves, but man, was it a bad call by the director or whoever made that decision. But that misstep is only a couple of seconds of screen time. Everything else is brilliant.

6) More werewolves! This film is chock-full of them. One could certainly argue that quality is more important than quantity, but since I've already established that these are quality werewolves, the shear volume of lycanthropes in "The Howling" makes it a far more fright-filled horror film.

Don't take any of this too seriously. It's really all about personal preference. And honestly, you should have a werewolf double feature and watch both films.  But, if it comes down to it and you can - for some strange reason - only watch one werewolf film this Halloween, my vote goes for "The Howling."


Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film 12

Here's a little film that I don't think has gotten it's fair share of love.


I'm probably the gazillionth person to say this about "Stake Land," but that's because it's pretty accurate; think "The Road" (based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy) but with vampires. I'm going to go out on my own limb, however, and say, of the two films, I think "Stake Land" is the more interesting. Plus it's got vampires.

I've been thinking about "Stake Land" for a bit, and I'm finding it a difficult film to write about, other than just saying it's really good, go rent it. But that doesn't tell you much now does it.

I guess the problem I'm having is that this isn't a plot driven movie. It's more akin to a road movie, but it's also a very observational film. That is to say, here is a situation and here is how these different characters react to and deal with it.

Here's the set up; society as we know it has fallen apart as vampires have overrun the world. Not the mopey, metrosexual vampires of "Twilight" or some super, elite vamps attempting to rebuild the world in their own image. These are pure, animal-like monsters; unemotional, unthinking, unorganized, living only for the hunt. Through this world we follow a pair of human survivors; a young boy named Martin (Connor Paolo) and the man known only as Mister (Nick Damici), who rescued Martin when his parents were killed. The two travel across the country looking for nothing more than to survive. But even that simple notion has different meanings to both. Martin seems to want to find a place to settle, where as Mister is content to survive on the road, killing as many vamps along the way as he can.

We meet a number of other characters as we travel with the pair, but we never really get to know anyone. They don't speak to each other too often about anything overly serious or emotional. They are all very guarded, and for good reason. Any one of their company or all of them could be gone in an instant, so no one, especially Mister, wants to get too close. The most insight we get comes from Marvin's voice over narration. This all lends to that feeling I mentioned of this being a very observational film. And that's a good thing. It's a bit different way of telling a story and it works well here.

This one's definitely a little heavier than some of my other recommendations, but it's a good, creepy, unsettling film, and well worth finding it's way into your Halloween schedule.

Thursday, October 18, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Films 10 & 11

Watched a haunted house double-feature. First up, a haunted house film done well.


The remake of "House on Haunted Hill" isn't going to win any awards, but it sure is a blast. This is mostly a funhouse show, so don't expect anything particularly scary, though it does manage a few jumps and creepy scenes here and there.

The story - very, very loosely adapted from the Vincent Price starring original - concerns wealthy, amusement park designer Stephen Price and his wife, Evelyn. The couple utterly despise each other, but instead of getting divorced like normal people do they've decided to make each other's lives as miserable as possible until one of them can work out, how shall we say, other means of ending the relationship.

So how does a house on a hill which is haunted work it's way into the story? Glad you asked. This is the location Evelyn has chosen for her birthday party; an abandoned mansion that was once an insane asylum. She and Stephen arrive the night of the party to find a room full of guests no one seems to have invited. From here on out things go from bad to deadly. Scheming plots come to light, as well as plots within those plots, all the while something else is happening in the house that no one was counting on.

While the whole cast does good work here, it's really Geoffrey Rush and Famke Jannsen as Stephen and Evelyn Price who are having the most fun with the film. Rush, known for so many serious, dramatic roles, is joyfully chewing up the scenery like it were a bag of Lays he can't eat just one of while Jannsen goes evil, hate-filled, gold-digger times ten.

Really, the film only falters at the end when the evil spirit of the house is revealed as a truly terrible bit of CGI. It certainly doesn't ruin the film because you're not meant to take anything here very seriously to begin with. But it's definitely bad. That misstep aside, this is a fun horror film perfect for Halloween viewing.  


And now, a haunted house film done badly.


I tried to imagine the studio meeting that must have taken place as the "The Haunting" was being developed.

Studio Exec:  So we're going to remake "The Haunting." This film is based on the literary classic "The Haunting of Hill House" by Shirley Jackson, and it's been filmed once before resulting in one of the most effective and subtle psychologically driven ghost stories ever made. So. Who should we get to direct it?

Studio Lackey:  Hey, how about that guy that made "Speed" and "Twister"?

Studio Exec:  "Perfect!"

Wow! This movie is so bad. Terrible script, terribly over the top CGI, and badly directed. The only thing it had going for it was a pretty solid cast and even they look lost most of the time.

I remember hating this movie when it came out in 1999, so I don't know why I decided to give it another chance. But I did. Mistake. Avoid this movie.

Or better yet, check out the Robert Wise directed original.


Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film 10

So last night I watched what is easily my favorite found-footage film to date.


In case it's not obvious, the title is "Record" abbreviated.

Right from the start "[Rec]" succeeds where so many other found-footage films have failed; we are introduced to characters we actually like. No, really, think about it. How many found-footage, horror films have you seen where you kept thinking, "will they just get to the scary part because these people are pissing me off." "Cloverfield" immediately comes to mind.

Anyway, the set-up is this; a reporter - a delightfully perky, young woman - is doing a fluff piece for a late-night news show. Basically, hanging out with firefighters for the evening to give her audience a taste of what day-to-day life is like for them. Things start off rather humdrum as she tours the station house, watches them eat dinner, even peeks in on them while they're sleeping.

But then the alarm bell rings.

A seemingly innocuous call; a woman is stuck in her apartment. Two firefighters are dispatched along with our plucky reporter and her camera man. They arrive to find a group of residents in the lobby who begin telling them about hearing the woman screaming in her apartment. Moments later the firefighters break down the door and, as is often the case in these films, all hell breaks loose. At that point everyone attempts to leave the apartment building only to find an army of police and government officials blocking the doors. The entire building has been quarantined, trapping the residents inside along with our reporter and firemen. From there I'll say no more of the plot and leave it for you to discover the horrors that await.

Coming in at a lean 70-plus minutes, "[Rec]" wastes not a moment. It is a tense little affair, packed with scares. Everything about it just worked for me, and most importantly the filmmakers easily clear the "why don't they just put down the camera and run away" hurtle that trips up so many found-footage films. It also holds up well on repeat viewings, which is why it has worked it's way onto my "must watch" list for the past few Halloween seasons.


"[Rec]" is a Spanish-language film, but please don't let that put you off. It's a wonderfully scary film and I can't recommend it strongly enough.  However, if you just can't stand the idea of reading subtitles there's this:


"Quarantine" is the English-language remake of "[Rec]" and it's pretty solid itself. I had a few problems with it, though. It's run-time is padded out to 89 minutes, so it doesn't feel as lean and tense as the original. Also there's a slight change to the idea concerning the source of the madness taking place in the apartment building that I didn't care for. But these are just quibbles. It's a good film. I just happen to prefer the original.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film #9

What's this? I'm recommending an action movie for Halloween? Well, when said action-movie features devil-worshiping cultists, child sacrifice, and a dead man's escape from Hell then yeah, I'm recommending it for Halloween.



"Drive Angry" isn't a scary film, that's for sure, but it certainly is one distinctly wacky film. Judging from the people I've watched it with, this is either going to be a film you hate or a film you love with very few folks landing in the middle. And while I acknowledge that it's a far from perfect film, count me on the love side.

The story follows a formerly-deceased man named John Milton, played by Nicolas Cage, as he seeks revenge against the cult leader who murdered his daughter and plans to make a sacrifice of her infant child. Along for the ride is actress Amber Heard as Piper, a sort of variation on the hooker with a heart of gold character; the tough as nails, trailer park, white-trash girl with a heart of gold. Heard plays the role with such abandon, such relish, that you can't help but love her. Cage, on the other hand, plays his role much more laid back and, dare I say, subtle. At least subtle for Nicolas Cage, especially considering how bat-shit crazy everything else going on around him is. And while many of us go to Nicolas Cage films to see just how far over the top he'll go this time, the fact that he plays it mellow here was the right call as it gives a grounded center to the surrounding insanity.

So yeah, Cage is chasing the bad guys, blowing people's arms and legs off with skillful shotgun blasts ... and that's pretty much the plot. Fairly straight forward, and it's really all at service of setting up some outrageous action sequences and bloody violence, but what bloody fun it is. Take for example the scene where Cage's Milton gets into a shootout with about a dozen or so cultists who try sneaking up on him while he's having sex. The battle ensues, only Milton never stops having sex. Now based on that description you'd have to assume that this scene is insufferably stupid, and yet writer Todd Farmer and director Patrick Lussier understand how wonderfully absurd the situation they've created is and treat it accordingly, so they are able to make it work.

But perhaps the best aspect of the film is the character known simply as The Accountant.  Played pitch perfectly by William Fichtner, The Accountant's purpose and motivations are endlessly fascinating and, to me, elevate the entire film above it's simple revenge plot.

SIDE NOTE: Oh wow, speaking of the cast, I just realized something; this is Tom Atkins film #3 as the actor has a small role here as a police detective. Jeez, this is unintentionally turning in to the Tom Atkins Marathon of Halloween Films.


But anyway...

Originally a 3D film in theaters, many of those goofy 3D effects now look particularly cheesy on your 2D television screen. But so what. It all adds to the over-the-top silliness of the whole affair. So if you're wanting a break from the straight up chills of other Halloween themed films, consider taking a little side trip with "Drive Angry."

However, if you just can't bring yourself to watch an action film for Halloween, maybe give Lussier and Farmer's previous film, the remake of "My Bloody Valentine," a try.  Similar nutty, bloody fun, but it's a straight-up horror film, so far more chills and scares.

(P.S.  Tom Atkins film #4)

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Films 6, 7 & 8

I've got a little catching up to do as I watched several movies this past weekend, so let's go with three, short reviews today, all three recommended, two with warnings.


Another 80's film I have a lot of affection for, "Dolls" was the third film from director Stuart Gordon following his two successful H.P. Lovecraft adaptions, "Re-Animator" and "From Beyond."  My best recollection is that "Dolls" wasn't received as well at the time because it's a huge departure from those first two films.  Where those were effects heavy, gorefests, "Dolls" is a bit of a throwback story, a child's fable for adult audiences. Oh there's a little splatter here and there, but nothing near the level of those earlier films.  The story concerns a young girl who is on holiday with her father and stepmother.  Evil stepmother, I should say. See what I mean.  Throw in the Gothic manse in the English countryside, dolls that come to life and witches, and I think you get the idea.  This is pure Grimm's fairy tale stuff with a little 80's horror sensibility thrown in.  And a lot of fun at that.  Oh, the story is pretty simple, to be sure, but what else do you need for some good Halloween fun?

"Dolls" is currently available on Netflix streaming.

P.S.  It was suggested to me that because of this film's title and the image on the poster that I should probably mention that it is not a ripoff of nor does it have anything to do with the Chucky movies.  Firstly, this film came out a year before the original "Child's Play," so definitely not a ripoff.  But besides that, this movie couldn't be more different.  So if you don't care for the Chucky movies, never fear, this is nothing like them. And if you love Chucky, rest assured, this film didn't copy "Child's Play," so give it a shot.



A Direct-to-Video sequel to a marginally successful theatrically released film.  Typically that's a recipe for a crap film, but "Wrong Turn 2: Dead End" is anything but.  Oh, it's low-budget shows to be sure, but director Joe Lynch and his writers knew exactly what they needed to do within their limitations to make it work; just go all in.  This movie is way more fun than it has any right to be because it is so deliriously over the top.  This is the "Evil Dead II" of mutant, cannibal hillbillies movies.  The setup is this; a new, Survivor-style, reality TV show is filming deep in the woods, which just happened to be inhabited by ... wait for it ... mutant inbred hillbilly cannibals!

What's probably most surprising for this type film is how much attention is paid to actually giving us well thought out characters.  Nothing overly complex, mind you, but definitely not the cardboard cutouts you get in so many direct-to-video horror films.  Also, the acting is surprisingly solid across the board here, with Henry Rollins a fun standout as the ex-military man turned reality-show host.

One warning; "Wrong Turn 2: Dead End" is a nasty affair.  Though it's all very cartoonish, this definitely scores an 8 1/2 to 9 out of 10 on the gore scale.  But, I mean, it's mutant inbred hillbillies killing and eating attractive young folk.  What else would you expect?  Look, you'll know if this film is for you by the end of the body-splitting, gut-splattering opening scene.


 

What a genuinely bizarre film this is.  It comes from Italian filmmaker Dario Argento, and, while not his best, it is a standout in his already unique canon of films.  Argento started out making thrillers in the 1970's in the Italian Giallo genre of thriller films.  Those films did quite well, and he became known in the cinema press as the "Italian Hitchcock."  Then with 1977's "Suspiria" he ventured into the supernatural horror genre, once again, to great success.

In a way, 1985's "Phenomena" is something of a mish-mash of all those things Argento loved; we have the thriller, police procedural, supernatural horror, and his love of Edgar Allen Poe all rolled into one mess of a film.  And yet somehow, if you're open to it, it works.  I mean, how can you not love a film featuring police investigating a serial killer, a young girl (played by a then 14-year-old Jennifer Connelly) who can communicate with insects, a mutant, killer kid, a swarm of helpful flies, and a chimpanzee with a straight-razor.

An edited version was released in the U.S. under the title "Creepers," and while I haven't seen that version, I can't help but think it might have helped some of the pacing issues as the European cut tends to drag now and then. Either way, if you can find a copy it's well worth a look.

My warning on this one; if you're new to the films of Dario Argento or Italian horror cinema in general, then I'm not sure that this the film to start with.  It's just so completely out there.  Maybe try "Suspiria" instead.

Update:  I just found that the U.S. cut under the title "Creepers" is available on Amazon streaming, and it's free if you're an Amazon Prime member.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film #5

Today, a recommended, must-watch for Halloween, plus a recommended must-avoid-like-the-freakin'-plague.

Beware of the fog ...


We can keep this pretty short and simple.  I love this movie.  Love it, love it, love it.  Directed by John Carpenter, and written by him and producer Debra Hill, "The Fog" was released in 1980, just a few years after the release of their now classic, "Halloween."  Coming off the surprising commercial success that "Halloween" became, expectations for this film - as expectations often are - were a little over the top.  As such, the film was looked at critically as a bit of a sophomore slump for Carpenter (despite actually being his fourth feature).  And while I would agree that, yes, technically, "Halloween" is the better made film, there's just something about "The Fog" that I find more entertaining, at least as a repeat viewing experience.

Here we have a classically styled tale of a town cursed by a past injustice, and the ghosts who come back seeking vengeance.  The tone of the film is established beautifully in an opening scene featuring the late John Housman telling ghost stories to a group of kids on the beach, perfectly setting up the campfire-tale flavor of the film's plot.  Of course there's a bit of a modern spin to the tale.  Well, 80's modern.  These aren't your simple haunting-type ghosts.  To put it simply, these are pissed off, sailor ghosts with swords and big-ass hooks, and they fuck people up.

Look, I could go on about the "The Fog" for a while, but I said I'd keep this one short.  Just trust me here.  "The Fog" is straight-up creepy, Halloween fun.

Oh, and if you need more convincing, "The Fog" sports an outstanding 80's horror movie cast including Jamie Lee Curtis, her real life mom, Janet Leigh (Psycho), Hal Holbrook, Adrienne Barbeau, and, making his second appearance in my Halloween Marathon, Tom Atkins, this time sans mustache.

  


Beware of the fog.  No, seriously.  Beware.


If you are out looking for a copy of "The Fog" to watch this Halloween, please be careful that you don't accidentally pick up this 2005 remake.  This movie is bad on so many levels one scarcely knows where to begin in bashing it.

Firstly, let me state categorically that I am not anti-remakes, so that's not where this is coming from.  Yes, I sometimes scoff and don't see the point, but look, I'm always happy to see a good movie, so if someone has a great idea for a remake and they make it work, awesome.  And if I don't like it, hey, they didn't do anything that changes the original.  At least not unless they're George Lucas.  But that's a different discussion.

So anyway, I heard they were remaking "The Fog" and I thought, okay, whatever.  Obviously I love the original, so I didn't see the point, but fine, whatever.  I mean hey, earlier that same year I'd been entertained by another remake of an early John Carpenter film, "Assault on Precinct 13," so why not give "The Fog" a chance.  Well, the movie comes out and I go see it just hoping to be entertained.  What I was, though, was insulted for about an hour and a half in almost every way a movie can insult you.  Now, I must confess; in the theater in 2005 is the one and only time I've ever seen this film, so I can't talk about too many specifics.  I just remember hurting.  But I do recall exactly the point when the pain began.  It was the introduction of the most insultingly racially stereotyped "comic-relief" black-man character to appear on screen this side of Amos and Andy.

From there it's all a blur.

Just do yourself a favor.  Stay away.  If you're looking for the original, it's available on Netflix streaming, and it's still available for purchase on DVD.  But if you come across a DVD and the stars of the film are that guy who played Superman in the TV show "Smallville" and the 30 year-old actress who played Liam Neeson's 17 year-old daughter in "Taken" you've got the wrong one.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film #4

Today's film posed an interesting dilemma  for me. I'm writing this series of blogs to recommend fun Halloween movies that I've always liked and watched for years, and to hopefully discover a few new ones to share.  Hence today's question. I watched a new movie.  I liked it.  I would recommend it.  But I would not recommend it as a Halloween movie, so should bother writing about it?  Obviously, I've decided to and I'll explain why after I tell you about the film.


"The Tall Man" is the new film from French director Pascal Laugier, and it's his first English language film.  Laugier is well known in the horror genre for his notoriously brutal 2008 film "Martyrs," another film I'd definitely not recommend for Halloween.  Actually I'm not sure I'd recommend that one at all.  Oh it's a good film.  It's aces in all the technical areas as well as the performances.  It's just ... it's ugly.  I've had several people defend the film saying the brutality is at service to a higher message that the film is trying to get across.  And I acknowledge that that's entirely possibly ... I just don't know what the hell that message is.  Granted, I've only watched it once.  But it's an uncomfortable experience, and I'm not sure I need to sit through it again to try and ferret out its message.  That and the fact that I'm not wholly convinced that it's not just pretending to be about something bigger in order to justify itself.  That aside, I do acknowledge it's a well made and effective film.

"The Tall Man" on the other hand does have very interesting ideas at its core.  The story concerns a mining town whose fortunes have gone south - way south - with the closing of the local mine.  Poverty abounds, and to make matters worse, children are seemingly vanishing without a trace.  Rumors link the missing children to a local legend known as The Tall Man.  Some see him, or it, as a dark, supernatural presence.  Others believe The Tall Man is nothing more than a child molester who will eventually be caught and prosecuted.

Enter our main character, portrayed magnificently by Jessica Biel.  If you'll allow me a quick tangent, this is easily the best acting of Biel's career thus far.  She stretches beyond anything I've seen her do in the past giving an emotionally complex, multi-layered performance that I'd put up there with any of the best I've seen this year.


Back to the story.  Biel plays a local nurse, and the only medical professional in town since the death of her doctor husband.  She is warm and compassionate, giving her all to the people who trust her.  Her life seems particularly in tune despite the dying town she lives in.  That is up until the night the Tall Man shows up for her son.  She catches the hooded figure in the act of abduction and gives chase leading to a visually intense pursuit, going from a foot chase to clinging to the side of a truck.

And from there I'll say no more about what happens as it would turn deep into spoiler territory.  All I will say is whatever you expect to happen, you're wrong.  I'd hesitate to call what takes place a "twist" as that often leads one to think of a forced, gotcha sort of story turn.  That isn't the case here.  It's just that the story goes off in a completely different direction than one would expect from a film built around child disappearances and local legends of supernatural entities.  It's a thoughtful film posing questions about poverty, wealth and the welfare of children.  Thoughtful, but not pretentious as it poses questions, but doesn't throw answers at you.  In fact, I'd argue it offers no answers at all.  It's more of a simple, hey, here's some ideas, think about them.

So why wouldn't I recommend this film for Halloween?  It's just not fun and it's not particularly scary.  Why write about it then?  Because I think the film deserves an audience.  It's a very good, thought-provoking film with a fantastic performance from the lead actress, so I'd recommend you see it sometime if what I've said has peaked your interest.  But for a Halloween film?  Nah.  For me, at least, I'm looking for more entertainment and chills, and I just didn't get that from "The Tall Man."

I caught "The Tall Man" on Netflix streaming service, it's available on Amazon Instant Movies for $3.99, and it's also available in some Redbox machines last I checked.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film #3

Back to the "classics," so to speak, today we have the third film in the "Halloween" franchise, though it has nothing to do with the "Halloween" franchise.


Now let's get this out of the way right up front; this isn't a really good movie.  It's got issues.  A lot of them.  But if you can overlook them, what you've got in the plus column is a lot of goofy, silly, 80's horror movie fun that would make for a good watch with a group of friends (maybe not so much on your own).

"Halloween III: Season of the Witch" was conceived as a new direction for the "Halloween" films. Instead of continuing the exploits of that wacky kid with a weird penchant for killing babysitters, "Halloween" would become something of an anthology series of feature films.  Each October would bring a new entry in the series, but rather than sequels, they'd all be original, standalone stories.

Not a bad idea.  Except of course they'd already made one "Halloween" sequel that picked up the original story at exactly the point where the first film ended thereby setting up audience expectations that future sequels would continue the story of Michael Myers. Perhaps a new story could have overcome those expectations  had the film been at least tonally similar to the first two films, another killer stalking teens picking up where Michael left off or something, then maybe audiences would have bought in.  But comparatively, this film feels completely alien.  Add to that the marketing for the film really did nothing to dissuade expectations of Michael Myers or at least a new killer and you end up with a completely pissed off audience.

Too bad, really, because had it been sold as a standalone film, or maybe just moved the "Halloween" to a subtitle - "Season of the Witch: A Halloween Film" - then it certainly might have fared better at the box office, especially during the cheesy-horror loving 80's.  As it stands, "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is seen as kind of a footnote/misstep in the "Halloween" franchise.

But like I mentioned, this wasn't the best movie from the get go, so honestly, nothing may have saved it.  The story is beyond silly with it's attempt to marry science fiction with Gothic witchcraft, and a villain's sinister plot that makes absolutely no sense.  Really, I don't expect movies - horror movies especially - to make logical sense in the real world, but come on, at least make sense within the world you create.

So why would I recommend this to you?  What's it got going for it?  Come on!  It's "Halloween III."  It's just plain dumb, Halloween fun.  And it's got Tom Atkins running and screaming, plus big, squishy, wormy, snakey kid-head scene!


Oh, and that cheesy, yet creepy-ass commercial jingle is worth the price of admission alone.

Plus, it's a lot more fun than those god-awful Rob Zombie "Halloween" remakes.  Ugh!

"Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is available on Amazon's OnDemand service for a $2.99 rental or you can probably pick up an older DVD from the $5 bin at Walmart (where I got mine) or there's even a special edition Blu-ray if you're feeling all collectory.


Monday, October 1, 2012

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film #2

So much for getting a head start.  Well, it's October now and I'd hoped to be a few Halloween movie suggestions into this by now.  But that lovely flu-like bug I had last week altered my plans.  On the plus side, I watched several movies while lying on the couch all week.  On the not-a-plus side, I didn't feel like writing about them.  

But oh well.  Such is life.  On with the show.


There seems to be very little middle ground when it comes to the "found-footage" style of horror film.  There's lots of love and lots of hate, but very little "ehh, they're ok."  And then there are those that refuse to see them not because of any dislike towards the found-footage style, but because the shaky-cam that inevitable comes with those films makes them nauseous.  And if it's allergy season, count me in that last group.  Sinus pressure equals headaches, and that plus shaky-cam makes Chuck a sick boy.  Seeing one in a theater, where the screen takes up your entire field of vision only makes matters worse.  I remember seeing "The Blair Witch Project" in the theater and, though I never hurled, I did need to take a long nap afterwards.

Outside of allergy season, though, I've got no issues with found-footage films if they are well made with a compelling story.  Style is just a tool for telling your story effectively.  If you've got a good reason for choosing a particular shooting style and it suits the story, then what's the issue?  If, however, a filmmaker thinks they'll shoot a found-footage film because it's "easier and cheaper" than doing it the traditional way, then fuck 'em because the end result will most likely be an insulting piece of shit.  I've definitely seen a few of those.

That whole preamble sets us up for today's film, "V/H/S".  This one is a new release, so new in fact that it hasn't even hit theaters yet, but will very soon.  It is currently available OnDemand on Amazon and DirecTV (which is how I saw it), and probably most other cable providers that offer an OnDemand option.  At $9.99 for a pre-theatrical rental, it's a pretty good bargain.

But what is it and should you bother?


"V/H/S" is an anthology film made up of five short films plus the wrap-around story tying them all together, albeit loosely, and all shot as "found-footage" films.  As with all anthologies, there are stronger and weaker segments to the film.  Never have I seen an anthology where every piece worked perfectly and equally, and that's certainly not the case here.  What they all are, though, are solid, well conceived stories that delivery plenty of creepiness and a fair bit of gore, so there is plenty here for the horror movie fan to like.  This really would make for an excellent Halloween movie watching experience, especially with a few friends over because everyone will likely have their own favorite as the segments each offer a different tone and are trying to achieve different goals within the found-footage framework.  Mine, hands down, was the segment directed by David Bruckner ("The Signal").  More than the slamming doors and "oww, did you see that in the corner of the screen!" stuff you get from something like "Paranormal Activity," this segment was downright ghoulish, with an excellent monster right there in your face.  Unfortunately, it's also the first segment in the film (after the wrap-around segment setup, that is), which made the rest of the film slightly disappointing to me as nothing else that followed lived up to the completely screwed up nature of that first story.  Things never got boring, mind you, and I also really dug the final segment directed by a group calling themselves Radio Silence.  But the stories in between those two really never achieve better than just "okay," with one actually being a disappointment (surprisingly it's the segment directed by Ti West, probably the most accomplished of the directors involved).

So final word; yes, definitely would recommend for Halloween viewing.  Fun, creepy, nasty and lots of other horror film related adjectives.  Two warnings; this is a hard R-rated film, so don't watch with the kids, and lastly, despite a lot of hyperbole from some reviewers who saw this film at Sundance and other festival screenings, it really doesn't break any new ground in the realm of found-footage films, so if you already don't like that type film, this one isn't likely to change your mind.  Otherwise, have fun!