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......

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: ??

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)

Un-trade-able

Earlier this week I was asked what should have been a simple question by my buddy Brad: What would you need in return to trade Ben Roethlisberger? My initial response was Sam Bradford and a 1st round pick in 2011 or Aaron Rodgers. That’s it. (Brad suggested Phillip Rivers. F that.) Upon further consideration and circulating rumors about an inevitable suspension and possible trade I have concluded the man is un-trade-able. Take time and think of his value. There are four teams in the NFL who could turn down a straight-up trade for their incumbent starter; Patriots, Colts, Saints, and Packers (I considered the Falcons with Matt Ryan but even they would have to consider). So while his stats and highlights may not reflect that of the games greats, you cannot deny Roethlisberger as one of the top five most valuable quarterbacks today.

I have been watching this team since the pigskin escaped Earnest Byner’s grip. For 18 years I watched the likes of Neil O’Donnell, Mike Tomzack, Kordell Stewart, and Tommy Maddox not have what it takes to make the Steelers a threat to the legitimate contenders. That all changed on a rainy Miami night, where a then 17 year old Mike Reed sat through the early stages of a hurricane to watch rookie Ben Roethlisberger’s first career start. We all remember what happened. The Steelers did not lose the rest of the regular season, falling to the eventual Super Bowl Champion Patriots in the Conference Title game. Since that first season, the Steelers have yet to finish with less than 8 wins. The playoffs have only been missed twice, including last year when they finished 9-7. The Colts have deservedly so been praised for their run of years with 10+ win seasons. Since 2004 the Steelers have averaged 10.8 wins per season. I looked into the pre-Ben years to compare. In the 20 seasons before Roethlisberger arrived Pittsburgh averaged 8.8 wins per season. So he’s good for 2 more wins at this point. In an era where 9 wins doesn’t guarantee the final playoff spot that has to mean a great deal. Now look at the playoff records. In the four seasons the Steelers have made the postseason with 7 under center their record sits at 4-2 with the only loses coming to the previously mentioned Patriots and a fluke loss to Jacksonville where Dick Lebeau failed to use one of his four linebackers to spy David Garrard at all times. By the way, those two games the defense gave up 41 and 31 points while Ben lead the offense to 27 and 29 points respectively. The “defensive minded” Steelers have only lost playoff games in the Roethlisberger-era when they have given up over 30 points. 6 of the 45 Super Bowls played have been won by the Steelers, but only when Terry Bradshaw and Ben Roethlisberger have had the ball in their hands. So for all the “smash mouth” “run first” Steelers teams over the years, it has taken a Hall of Fame caliber quarterback to reach the ultimate goal of all NFL teams.

This has to factor into whatever decision the Rooney’s make. How far will they be set back should they part ways? Is there a QB in this years draft with the skill-set capable of penciling the Steelers in for 10-11 wins every year? Do you have to trade a guy who has been accused of sexual assault twice (but never convicted, taken to trial, or have the charges not be dropped)? My answer to all of these is no. Why trade a franchise QB in an era dominated by them? The guy has put himself in some tight spots off the field in his short time in the league. But, between the lines, he gives his team a chance to win each and every game. Were he ever convicted my opinion would be different. But as long as he maintains his innocence you can not talk me into trading a top 5 quarterback over moral issues.