Thursday, September 30, 2010

Horror Movie-A-Day-A-Thon-Apalooza-Fest: 9/29

The Film: The Exorcist (1973)

Director: William Friedken

Rating: 10 out of 10





Let me first ask this before I begin: if you were going to war with any one actor based on his or her film resume of asskickery, who would you take? Some popular answers might be Schwarzenegger, Sly Stallone, John Wayne, Charles Bronson, Clint Eastwood. All of them perfectly capable men, without a doubt. But my answer would be Max Von Sydow, an actor whom I'm sure most people wouldn't normally recognize, especially not as a bad-ass. But let me just lay this out there: he's the only actor in film history, that I can think of, to dance with both the Grim Reaper and the Devil on screen. I'll also point out that he doesn't exactly have a winning record against these fiends, but I'll take that kind of bravery any day.

Ok, now to the flick. Well, it's another demon child story (I watched The Omen prior to this) but instead of the child being innately evil, as was the child Damien, this little girl is being subdued and controlled by an evil demon, or the Devil (it's a little unclear). Most people know the story, even if they haven't seen the flick, or at least they've seen one of the innumerable parodies. It's even been tagged "the scariest movie of all time" by numerous publications, plus it says so on the DVD case, so it has to be true, right? The DVD case wouldn't lie!!!

Happily, in this instance, the case could be made for such a claim, even though it's such a subjective medium. The story is pitch-perfect, the acting is sensational, the mood is creepy when it should be, and that Goddamn kid is beyond terrifying. That little girl just knocked that role out of the park. The make-up is realistic and brilliant, the voice is otherwordly, and when "help me" rises out of her stomach....let me tell you, the "help me" fingerprints scene in Se7en has nothing on The Exorcist. The music is minimal, but most people would recognize "Tubular Bells" as the main theme song, and it's effectively creepy. The funny thing is, during the climax, the music is almost nonexistant. Most times, especially during the climax, a moment of heavy emotional scope coincides with blaring music to bring the ocassion to it's utmost boiling point. But in this film, you've invested so much in the characters and the story that the moment alone serves at the emotional apex, even without the music. I think that's a testament to William Friedkin's direction, he crafted a film that doesn't need any outside tricks to coerce the audience into a reaction, he did it with the strength of the images presented. Damn fine work here.

Next up.......

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Horror Movie-A-Day-A-Thon-Apalooza-Fest: 9/28

The Flick: The Omen (1976)

Director: Richard Donner

Rating: 8 out of 10





Here we have another 70's genre classic with a competent director, a bonafide leading man, a creepy little asshole of a kid, and it's another homerun for the decade. I enjoyed this quite a bit, and oddly enough this was my first time seeing it. I particularly enjoyed the notion of perceived evil, as the parents of this little devil child begin to suspect there's something off about their offspring, but they don't want to believe it. And, as parents, how could they? No parent would easily accept that their child is the anti-Christ. So, really, there's no straightforward villain to root against, save for the demonic nanny sent to protect the son of the devil, because the real villain is the devil which bore this child to the earth to wreak havoc on humanity. It almost isn't a horror movie, save for a few horrific death scenes, as most of the movie is a slow building, tense mystery and race against time to stop the child before he has his way. The stakes are as high as they could possibly be by the end of the film: a father must choose to kill his child or the world will suffer at the child's hands. It's a perfect slow-boil that I enjoyed right to the end.

The music, setting, and tone of the film is overall, well, ominous. As soon as bad things start happening (public suicide of Damien's nanny) they keep coming, from animals fleeing his presence, to dog attacks, to wind and lightning storms. He's a bad kid, no doubt, and he's genuinely creepy when he wants to be. I think the movie is creepier because you know the parents love their child and don't want to believe anything is wrong, when in fact they're dealing with the ultimate evil and they don't stand a chance.

The movie actually won an Oscar for it's score, which adds so much to the feel of the film. Even director Richard Donner agreed, the film wasn't nearly as affecting without the musical score in place. I wish more directors would realize this. Music can make or break a horror film.

Another note, I really enjoyed Gregory Peck as the American Ambassador and step-father of the devilish child. He sells his struggle with the reality of the situation perfectly, even dismissing the ominous prophecies of one creepy as hell priest on several ocassions when everything going on around him is screaming at him to listen to the words of the priest.

I watched this film and The Exorcist in 2 days, so I've had my fair share of devilish children, for sure.

Next: The Exorcist

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Horror Movie-A-Day-A-Thon-Apalooza-Fest: 9/27

The Flick: Phantasm (1979)

Director: Don Coscarelli

Rating: 6 out of 10



Man, I would take the 70's decade for horror cinema over any other decade. It's the decade that brought us Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween, Alien, Black Christmas, The Amityville Horror, Carrie, Dawn of the Dead, The Exorcist, Jaws, The Omen, Suspiria and this film, amongst others. Look at that list! You had Brian DePalma, Steven Spielberg and Ridley Scott making horror movies, something we may never see again. Some of the industry's greatest directors were helming genre flicks, when all we get today are first-timers and music video directors.

Ok, enough about that. This is one weird little movie, but not too weird that it loses the audience. It's just weird enough that you're not quite sure which direction they're going in. Most people probably see the title and immediately think of the deadly chrome balls the Tall Man uses on his victims and associate that with the horror of the movie. However, much like Pinhead in the first Hellraiser, who also became the face of a franchise due to fan interest and studio incompetancy, they actually play a tiny role in this original film. The film more closely revolves around the strange goings-on around a creepy old funeral home run by the Tall Man, which is how's he referred to in the movie. There's also a psychic, some kind of tuning fork portal to another dimension, the aforementioned killer flying balls, the shape-shifting Tall Man...and I didn't even mention the creepy little zombie dwarves that serve as the Tall Man's evil minions. It's weird. But, given the low-budget, I think it accomplishes a lot with very little. There's very little cast, sparse shooting locations, semi-cheesy gore effects, and one bad-ass black 1972 Plymouth Barracuda.

I think I'm a little on the fence with this one. There was some good initial set-up for a solid horror movie, but sadly it falters as it gets closer to the conclusion, which is a deal-breaker for me. I feel like it's the budget that began to be a hinderance as the movie continues on, as somehow things start happening that are not explained, and finally it concludes with a cop-out ending that doesn't fit the story. I'm going to point to the budget constraints because I don't want to believe the filmmaking was that lazy or that Don Coscarelli just couldn't think of a proper way to end it. The set-up deserved better than what it was given. Damn suits.

Next: Ummmm....errr

Monday, September 27, 2010

Horror Movie-A-Day-A-Thon-Apalooza-Fest: 9/26

Feature: Scream (1996)

Director: Wes Craven

Rating: 8 out of 10





Well, for my generation, this is the flick that either resurrected or killed the horror movie genre, depending on your point-of-view and general opinion of horror movies. This is the one that made films more self-aware by exposing the worn-out cliches that had run rampant in horror movies through the years. But, I'd like to point out, this wasn't the first flick to skewer the genre's predictable nature or exist in a universe where horror movies are present within the movie (Wes Craven did it himself a couple years before with the underrated Wes Craven's New Nightmare). I saw Scream in the theater when it first came out 14 years ago, and I've probably watched it 30 or 40 times since then. The slightly older generation has the slasher franchises (Friday the 13th, Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street), the newest generation has the torture-porn (Saw, Hostel) and reboot craze, but that middle gap is firmly occupied by Scream.

I'm of the opinion that the film was a fresh breath of air in an era of stale films. The major horror franchises of the 80's had long ago run out of steam, the reboots hadn't nearly come into play yet, and sadly, horror films were not considered the cash-cows they are now. In fact, they were the exact opposite, they were usually considered a risk not worth taking. The only decent horror movie I can think if in the early 90's was Candyman, which didn't find an audience until long after it's initial release. You could call Silence of the Lambs and Se7en horror movies, as many people do, but I would categorize them as psychological thrillers with only a few gory elements linking them to the horror genre. So Scream came along, trotted out some fresh young faces, genuinely scared audiences, was witty and clever, made a bundle of money, and all of the sudden it was cool to make horror movies again. And I have to believe that was a good thing. Suddenly horror writers had to come up with new conventions to make an audience take the movie seriously since Scream laughed at the old staples of the genre.

In the years following the release of Scream the industry finally started churning out some more creative horror flicks (The Sixth Sense, The Blair Witch Project), which may not be the greatest movies but at least they threw away the conventions and snapped audiences out of their horror slumber. And for that we should all thank Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson, otherwise horror might just have faded away into B-movie, direct-to-video obscurity.

You may notice I'm not going into the details or plot of the movie, but the fact is I don't know anyone who hasn't seen it. So instead of writing a bunch of crap that you'll skim over I decided to instead stick to the impact the film had on the industry.

Next up: A zombie feature of some sort

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Horror Movie-A-Day-A-Thon-Apalooza-Fest: 9/25

The feature: Black Christmas (1974)

Director: Bob Clark

Rating: 7 out of 10



Notice the year, people, this is a review of the original cult classic, not the shameless sequel that barely deserves a mention here. From what I knew of the movie it was only known as a cult, low-budget, B-horror flick that was mostly an afterthought compared to other horror classics of the era, but I think it's a bit more than that. The dialogue is snappy, the pacing is good, the tension is ramped up at the right moments, and the actors are all pretty darn good. You might even recognize a few of the stars, as Margot "Lois Lane" Kidder provides comedic relief and John Saxon plays basically the same part he would later play in A Nightmare on Elm Street as the town sherrif.

The plot is pretty vanilla: it's Christmas break at a sorority house and a murderer is in the house picking off the girls who haven't gone home for the holiday yet. It's a decent set-up for a 70's horror movie, and it works better in that era because a present day sorority house setting would be the epitome of stupid, drunken, naked girls spouting out worthless dialogue just so they could get drunk and naked. Nothing of the sort happens in this film, thankfully. I know I sound less than hetero saying that, but I want a little intelligence for my buck, and this film delivers. Where the films fails a bit is the lack of a noteworthy musical score. If I mention Halloween, Psycho, The Exorcist and Jaws I would bet dollars to doughnuts that one of the first things that springs to mind is the iconic musical score in each film. So it's no secret that in order to become a bonafide horror classic music is of the utmost importance. It helps build mood and atmosphere, and while this films does pretty well with both in a very simplistic way, it could have been better.

My only other issue is it's simply not very scary. The creepy and obscene phone calls from the murderer are probably the best scare-tactics in the film, and even that wears off as they happen more frequently as the movie goes on. The pioneering use of the first-person POV steadi-cam (I think they were the first) as a way of cloaking the identity of the killer was well executed, but it pales in comparison to the technical mastery of the technique in the opening sequence of Halloween. But, credit where credit is due, Black Christmas used it a full 4 years before John Carpenter did, and it is effective.

I think the most interesting fact about the film is that it's director, Bob Clark, went on to direct a vastly different holiday classic, A Christmas Story. So there you have it, the man could satisfy audiences in horror and family films, which is something to be commended.



Next up......

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Horror Movie-A-Day-A-Thon-Apalooza-Fest: 9/24

Second Feature: Dario Argento's Suspiria (1977)

Director: Dario Argento

Rating: 7 out of 10



This is more like it. It's funny watching two very different films such as Rob Zombie's Halloween and Suspiria back-to-back, if for no other reason than to watch with great detail how much of a superior director Dario Argento is. There isn't much I can say about "Suspiria" that hasn't been said before, it's a horror classic that has earned it's stripes as such.

The most famous feature is the rich in-your-face color scheme present throughout the film. In fact, there's many scenes that only seem to include red, green, or blue, as the other colors never hold much weight on the screen. I found myself most intrigued with the extreme deepness of all the reds in the film, whether it's the hallway walls of the creeped out ballet school or just a haunting glow that splashes across the actor's faces from some unknown source. Couple the unsettling lighting and colors with a creepy electronic score from Goblin and, believe me, you've set the mood for a great horror film. Because, really, if you've got creepy lighting and music you've got the main ingredients to scare the audience. Name me one truly scary movie without great music. It's impossible and it's sad, I haven't heard a great horror movie score in ages.

I know that most of the knocks against the film are for hokey acting and a pretty silly plot, not to mention my own qualms with the ending, but whether it's a little convoluted or not it's still just a fascinating movie to look at and admire. Since I know most non-cinephiles haven't seen this movie, a quick plot synopsis: girl goes to away to ballet school, freaky things start happening, and soon she suspects witchcraft. That's really it. The opening sequence involves a pretty unnerving series of events culminating with a brutal murder that actually has the gall to show the killer's blade puncturing the victim's still-beating heart. It's unrelenting and the imagery is pretty intense, even by today's standards. Unfortunately, the film is marred by cheesy 70's special effects, which include unbelievably bright red blood with the viscosity of pancake mix.

The first thing I thought when the movie ended was "well, that ending kinda sucked". However, the second thing I thought was "my God, I want that on Blu-Ray!" This movie truly shines as a feast for the eyes. You could just look at the film without the dialogue and simply absorb the colors and get lost in the music and the movie would play beautifully.

So, that's my recommendation: watch the movie, just don't get too caught up in the campy dialogue and thin plot, just enjoy the visceral experience.

Next up: ??

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Horror Movie-A-Day-A-Thon-Apalooza-Fest

Horror movie season has begun (first day of Fall for me) and I decided to start a little marathon for myself this year. I plan on watching one horror movie a day, some I've seen and some I'm watching for the first time, and then writing a short little blurb about each. Each day's choice film will be randomly selected from my collection or a netflix arrival and is based on my whimsical taste of that particular day. If you're a lover of horror films I do hope you find this mildly entertaining.

First up: Halloween (2007)

Director: Rob Zombie

Rating: 4 out of 10





I really can't explain why this movie was chosen for the first day of viewing as I don't even remember liking it the one time I watched it, which was a year ago. Having seen it one time and being an utter disappointment, being as I hold John Carpenter's original to be one of the top three jewels of the horror catalogue, I suppose I viewed it this time with a more curious eye. I wanted to see what Zombie offered, what he had cooked up in terms of creatively telling a story we already know. The first time through I wanted to see how far he strayed from the original, this time I wanted to learn why.

I'm sad to report I didn't really find anything worth learning, just a series after series of slow scenes and character traits I never wanted from Michael Myers. I don't want to see a 10-year-old Michael as just another monster in a world full of monsters who acts on his killer instincts only after malicious motivation. Michael Myers was an anomoly in the original, an upper/middle-class suburban kid who snapped one night out of the blue, not a confused child who murders rats, cats, dogs and eventually humans, but only if they call him a "faggot" or talk about his mom in a lewd manner. Because, really, wouldn't you act out against those people too? Not murder them, per se, but definitely stand your ground. In essence, Zombie creates a sympathetic murderer in the vain of all these new horror icons with some kind of humanitarian purpose, like he's ridding the world of these evil people. He's had wrong done to him since he was a child, and you can bet he's going to punish those who caused him any grief. I mean, who are we kidding, you want to see Michael's step-father get his throat slit after all the verbal abuse he throws at Michael and his mother. When you give a character like Michael Myers motivation you bury his psychological ferocity. Rob Zombie seems to think you can make up for that with physical brutality, as this is undoubtedly the most physical and bruising version of Michael we've ever seen. But that's not it. In the original he stalked these high school kids with very little reason, almost for the sake of it, because he was evil incarnate, and it was terrifying. They had done nothing wrong to him, and yet he mercilessly stalked them from the shadows. I don't want to understand the mind of the murdering psychopath because, guess what.....that's not who I'm supposed to identify with!! Basically, in this film he kills becuase he's a battered puppy, a sick child who got picked on everywhere he went and now he's going to kill you with his whiffle bat.

Technically, Zombie is a competent director with a knack for setting a mood, but the film is far from scary. The first half we only see Michael as a child, including portions of his home life and eventual incarceration under the supervision of Dr. Sam Loomis. Where I think the film truly lost it's bearing was when they let Zombie WRITE THE SCRIPT. The scene where he breaks out of the sanitarium is quite possibly the worst idea in the entire movie. My critique, mind you, is of the unrated director's cut which is supposedly very different from the theatrical break-out sequence. Nonetheless, this is the version the writer/director preferred and it's completely absurd. The first half of the film is also littered with extreme steady-cam close-ups, a device normally reserved to convey a heavy emotional moment or a big reveal. But here Zombie employs it during the most mundane conversations, which I found to be jarring and pointless. Pull the camera back, Rob.

After he breaks out of the sanitarium the film boils down to basically bits and pieces of John Carpenter's film rushed along and spliced in with Rob Zombie's newer ideas and scenes. Let me just say, most of the acting is awful, especially the girls who really just babble on and chew up scenes that serve no real purpose. Malcom McDowell is servicable as Dr. Loomis, except when he's spouting rehashed dialogue that Donald Pleasance uttered in an infinitely superior fashion in the original. One of the few positives I can say is I actually enjoyed the ending. I was assuming they would end the film in a similar way as the original, even going so far as to have a pretty close replication of the scene and dialogue in this film. But then they continue on for another ten or fifteen minutes and actually concoct a decent enough finale that's pretty shocking and different from what I was expecting.

In a nutshell, the movie is too long (just over 2 hours) and wanted to do too many things to either be considered a retelling or a remake. It's too much of both and the end result is unsatisfying. I hold the character of Michael Myers dear to my heart, so maybe I'm a bit harsh on the efforts of Mr. Zombie, but who cares? I expected greatness and was left wanting. Oh well.

Next Up: Dario Argento's Suspiria (1977)