Director: Samuel Bayer
Year: 2010
Country: USA

Platinum Dunes is an unholy entity shepherded by a wicked being that thrives on the disappointment of others. Their modus operandi is ostensibly to update classic horror franchises in a way that manages to strip them of every element that made the original enjoyable and unique. They are nothing more than a vehicle used to capitalize on a popular franchise while single-handedly dumbing down American cinema. Now, this is not to say that these movies don’t provide a modicum of entertainment. In between the myriad of bad parts are one or two shining moments, enough to keep the viewer relatively entertained. A perfect example of this is last year’s Friday the 13th redux. By no means was it a good outing, but it had some unique kills and possessed a modicum of depth. Unfortunately, we’re given no such respite from A Nightmare on Elm Street, a movie that is such a chore to sit and watch, a meeting with Freddy in the dreamworld seems like a better alternative.

Central to the film’s utter failure is a weak script, which attempts to give a back story to a character that is wholly undeserving of one. We find an attempt to humanize Freddy Krueger, updating him for a generation where one of the biggest dangers threatening our children every day is pedophilia; the kindly old man who works in your school or your innocuous next door neighbor is anything but, and instead of logic and reason prevailing you hunt them down and burn them alive. While this certainly doesn’t serve as a justification for Krueger’s actions, they must certainly operate on a different level than a child murderer (and supposed pedophile), especially when it’s revealed why the parent’s did what they did. Attempting to humanize pre-burned Freddy, if only for a brief moment, takes away from the character’s overall impact. This of course brings us to the crux of the matter: how did Jackie Earl Haley do as Freddy Krueger?

(Read the rest of the review at Horror Squad)

Director: Joey Stewart
Year: 2010
Country: USA

High school is a bitch. You know this, I know this, Jason Kabolati knows this. Judging by The Final, one of the eight films that makes up 2010’s After Dark Horrorfest line-up, you would think that his four years spent at high were akin to spending four years trapped in Satan’s frozen maw. This is the feeling you get while watching The Final, written by Kabolati and vomited onto the screen by Joey Stewart.

The Final is little more than your basic high school revenge story, with the added bonus of being covered in a haze of incomprehensibility and gaping holes in logic. A group of social outcasts, led by their defacto leader Dane, are sick and tired of being bullied day in and day out. A couple of bullies that are no doubt gay for each other enjoy picking on Ravi, a meek dark-skinned boy; a trio of vapid twats pick on Emily, a shy girl who prefers to hide her face behind her hair than dress like a slut; and Dane and Jack, another outcast, sit in the forest and talk about being bullied to the dulcet tunes of the banjo. The rest of the outcasts, of which there are at least four, are merely incidental. Instead of doing the sensible thing, like going to the principal or another authority figure, they plan a costume party and invite their tormentors for an evening of torture and mayhem. Failing to question why a small group of popular kids that all know each other (the back stories of which we never hear) are all invited to a costume party in the middle of nowhere chauffeured by masked individuals whose identities they never question, they all show up, with the added bonus of a black fellow the outcasts actually like, ensuring some whackiness will ensue. It does not.

The Final is a poorly constructed diatribe against school bullying made all the less effective by characters that a tread a fine line between overly ‘high school movie’ formulaic and utterly one-dimensional. The bullies who are so mercilessly tortured are so incredibly self-aware of their status as massive assholes that it borders on satirical. The guys are basic douchebag jocks, the girls plucked straight from the movie Clueless. Their victims, the so-called outcasts, are only slightly better written, offering an odd blends of hopelessly geeky looking to relatively normal. This doesn’t matter to the bullies, as they don’t discriminate, having chosen their victims seemingly at random years ago when they were younger. They are the uncool, the poor, hapless individuals who failed to excel at sports or grow into the barbie doll aesthetic. In this we have the only accurate representation of school bullying, one that disappears amidst a sea of cliches and poor dialogue that makes you wonder if the writer has ever ventured outside the bubble of high school comedies.

It’s these worn out cliches and utterly dreadful dialogue that made the film an utter chore to get through. The ridiculous notion of fate is bandied about, serving as nothing more than a half-assed attempt at giving the film some sort of depth when all it does is make the two-dimensional characters and their ridiculous revenge agenda all the more laughable. In between tired monologues of how the bullies brought everything upon themselves and the same ol’ garbage about how the outcasts’ masks are a reflection of what the bullies turned them into (including two Nazis, a clown, a girl with a blank face mask, and the leader, sporting a gas mask and a voice masker), we’re given the film’s one saving grace, and that’s a banjo, played by one of the outcasts while the rest torture the bullies.

The Final is a poor entry in the After Dark canon, a muddled mess of a film attempting to be far more than a loose collection of mildly clever torture scenes. The attempt at giving the horribly real problem of school bullying a deeper meaning beyond “kids are inherently dicks” was remarkably lazy, using buzzwords such as fate and faith to obscure an otherwise unoriginal and incomprehensibly illogical script. If there is any point to be made in The Final, it was completely lost.

For added lulz, check out Count Vardulon’s utterly hilarious review of the film here.

]]> http://www.ilovehorror.net/2010/04/25/review-the-final/feed/ 1 http://www.ilovehorror.net/2010/04/24/first-ever-i-love-horror-round-table/ http://www.ilovehorror.net/2010/04/24/first-ever-i-love-horror-round-table/#comments Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:01:06 +0000 bmchargue http://www.ilovehorror.net/?p=2468 I have culled together some of the finest minds in horror blogging to have a metaphorical round table discussion on a variety of topics that tend to flutter around the world of contemporary horror. Somehow I managed to get involved and spit out something that resembles words. This is why I stick to that whole type-y thing.

This is basically a test run, and we plan on doing more in the future. If you have any discussion questions you’d like to hear us talk about, feel free to leave a comment or shoot me an e-mail.

Participants: I Love Horror, And Now the Screaming Starts, Zombots and Castle Vardulon
Topics: A whole ton of crap, including the current state of horror films and sexism as the new racism in horror. I think there’s something regarding remakes in there as well.

The only Asylum production I’ve taken the time to watch was Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus, and I only reviewed it because it was so hilariously bad I knew I could have some serious fun with it. But since one of my favorite films is Paranormal Activity, I felt I owed it to myself to review the “mockbuster” PA rip-off, Paranormal Entity.

I didn’t hate it.

The plot is pretty much the same as Paranormal Activity, but with a few added twists and turns. In the Finley home, weird things have been happening. Having recently lost her husband, mother Ellen has been writing letters to him, and after receiving a response, they begin to suspect the “hauntings” that are occurring are his doing. Brother Thomas thus begins filming the events, which is where the film starts. These suspicions are cast aside, however, when daughter Samantha begins to be targeted. What could it be?! My guess is a demon. Déjà vu and a couple brief shots of boobs ensue.

I don’t want to call Paranormal Entity a good film. Its very nature as an Asylum production forbids it that distinction as does my integrity as a film critic, nay, a human being. It is, however, when viewed within the hermetically-sealed bubble Asylum has created with their direct-to-DVD ripoffs, a distinctly watchable and dare I say somewhat creepy little number that I didn’t absolutely hate or laugh at. Moreover, I’m genuinely impressed that they actually attempted to think outside the box, utilizing not one but three camera to show the haunting of the Finley family, as well as constructing their own basic back story involving the deceased father and a named incubus named Maron. As an added bonus, they make several references to sleep paralysis, namely something pressing on the chest of daughter Samantha and the aforementioned incubus. It figures the one time I get to see a direct reference to sleep paralysis in a horror movie and it’s a fucking Asylum film.

Asylum made a number of attempts to think outside the box, sometimes succeeding, usually failing, but in the end it’s still an Asylum film. As a result, a number of key scenes from PA were rehashed, either directly or in spirit. These include “Katie goes outside in a trance;” “Ouija board writes something on its own;’ “Parapsychologist tells them the evil entity is after Katie;” “Micah lays a trap to catch entity in the act;” “Micah goes to help Katie off screen then dies.” Unfortunately, none of the comparable scenes managed to capture the fear elicited by Oren Peli, though I would be lying if I said I wasn’t a little freaked out to go to sleep that night.

I think the one thing that makes Paranormal Entity work as a stand-alone film and not the bastard child of Paranormal Activity is its cinema verite approach. Even when serving as nothing more than a rehash of another film, the basic elements are there to scare you. TVs turn on, things make noises, etc, all punctuated by the exact same sound queue used in PA. Beyond this, the filmmakers attempt to make a few changes to their story, including three people instead of two, switching scenes around, and actually showing the aftermath of them trying to leave the fucking house instead of just talking about it. In short, if you like Paranormal Activity and it genuinely frightened you, there is no reason Paranormal Entity shouldn’t as well.

Bonus: In an interview with Obscure Horror, Erin Marie Hogan, who played Samantha, had this to say regarding reviews and skewed perceptions: “I want people to know that Paranormal Entity isn’t meant to be Gone with the Wind”….the idea obviously came from movies like The Blair Witch Project, and in that respect, a lot of people put the movie down without even watching it first.”

Really? Is that where the idea came from? It was at this moment Asylum became sentient. We are all screwed.

Coming soon we have…

- Ash Across America. Shit, the WORLD. The fucker went to Australia. Fucking Australia! Despite their crazy porn laws and the fact that it’s a haven for so many animals that want to fuck your shit up, they were fairly receptive to our bobble-headed friend making a special appearance. The name of the piece will remain Ash Across America, because the AAA them works, and it has yet to go anywhere outside of the states beside Australia.

- The first ever “I Love Horror Roundtable Discussion,” wherein myself, The Dive Mistress, CrwM and Count Vardulon discuss a variety of topics that plague the horror industry. Expect this within a day or two, provided the black hole of laziness doesn’t suck me in again.

- More reviews! I got some screeners to go through, as well as about a million back reviews to get through, so keep your eyes peeled.

- Original articles and shit! All up in your face.

-Fucking magnets, how do they work?

- Requests? Comments? Criticism? bmchargue@gmail.com is where I can be reached.

Seeing as how it was the first time I was seeing the film (I missed it when it played in December), I was convinced it couldn’t possibly live up to the hype surrounding it. Apparently others were curious as well, as more people showed up for this screening than any other Watching Hour screening I have attended, which typically has no more than 15-20 people in attendance. Speaking with Keith beforehand revealed that the previous night’s showing had approximately 140 attendees, which is absolutely mind-blowing. Never underestimate the power of surreal Japanese horror from the seventies.

Prior to the film were five old school Japanese trailers, with only one or two containing subtitles. As part of the promotion for the film (which was held in conjunction with Denver Film’s spotlight on Japanese cinema), Hausu t-shirts were being sold in the lobby. Down to one adult men’s medium, a contest was held to see which lucky fan would own a garish yet awesome t-shirt featuring a giant grinning cat. Much like the contest held during the screening of Bitch Slap, which required you to name five Russ Meyer films that aren’t Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, I was unable to name the films advertised beforehand. One was The Happiness of the Katakuris. And something involving a very prevalent and tattooed Japanese pair of breasts.

Once the film started, I settled in for what I hoped would be a live action Salvador Dali painting. I was not disappointed. Hausu is so fucking surreal laughter gives way to abject confusion at the absurdity that unfolds on the screen. Unfortunately, no one told the two rows behind us, who felt that 95% of the film was worthy of raucous laughter, punctuated by unnecessary clapping and ridiculous comments declaring the level of hilarity that was unfolding on the screen. I wouldn’t have minded had it been the entire theater,  but it was just these two rows. I can concede to some of the scenes, but for the love of Christ, a completely innocuous and normal song playing over a ten-second shot of one of the characters smiling and laughing is not. that. funny. I understand the concept of residual laughter. I once laughed for five minutes straight at a picture of Ronald McDonald being stalked by a vampire, but for the love of God, exercise some self-control for the sake of the audience seated in your general vicinity.

Then the film ended and I pigged out at Denny’s with some friends. Moral of the story: if someone behind you is laughing like an idiot, be sure to blog about it.

Director: Joel Anderson
Year: 2008
Country: Australia

After Dark’s “8 Films to Die For” program is has been up to this point in time a horrible misnomer. Save for Frontière(s), which was never released in theaters with the other films, and Zombies of Mass Destruction, which was pretty terrible but awfully funny, the films that consider themselves lucky enough to be included under the After Dark moniker are fairly awful or forgettable. I was thus surprised when I heard Lake Mungo, one of the films slated for the 2010 line-up, was actually really good. Several reviews have been positive, with a couple of horror bloggers declaring it an excellent film. Given its cinema verite approach, I was intrigued to see if it could live up to the hype. I was weary, given the tendency for hype to spoil many films for me (Grace, anyone?), but in the case of this Australian pseudo-doc, expectations were exceeded, with writer/director Joel Anderson delivering on Hell of an effective horror film.

Presented as a documentary, the film explores the disappearance and death of 16-year old Alice Palmer, who disappeared while swimming in a local dam with her family. Shortly after her body is recovered from the dam, a series of bizarre events typical of a haunting are experienced by the Palmer family. Noises, shadows, and the like, primarily centered in or around Alice’s bedroom, make the grieving process all the more difficult. Eventually, her brother, who possesses a keen interest in photography, reveals photographs that seem to contain the ghost of Alice. As time passes, the family consults a parapsychologist, learns of Alice’s secret double life, and discovers the importance of the dry Lake Mungo.

The primary focus of the film is not on the ghostly presence of Alice, but her family’s reactions to her disappearance, death and subsequent information concerning her life. The “haunting” aspect is downplayed, with Anderson preferring to allude to it instead of show it outright. The result is a slow burn, with the family’s shock of learning each new bit of information complementing the viewer’s. The film’s primary attempt at frightening the viewer is subtle, employing a brief shot of a photograph or video footage showing what appears to be a ghost or otherwise disturbing anomaly and zooming in to bring it to detail. This gives the viewer the opportunity to inspect it, much like the family would, and realize the definable features of what is presumed to be Alice. Video footage is presented in much the same way, save for a climactic scene at the end of the film that is ambiguous yet decidedly haunting.

The big “twist” comes about two-thirds of the way through the film, and serves as an attempt to explain Alice’s increasing distance from her mother as the months leading up to her disappearance progress. At first I felt it was incidental to the bigger picture, but recent reflections on its overall purpose has made me reconsider. Sparing you any chance of learning the twist before viewing the film, it comes as a major shock to the both the family and the viewer, which is yet another example of how Anderson manages to parlay the film’s realism onto the audience. The result is a greater understanding of the nature of Alice’s disappearance, which culminates in a trip to the titular lake and a terrifying discovery.

Lake Mungo is a terrifyingly real representation of the mechanics of love, loss and grief, all while convincingly including a healthy dose of the supernatural. Bolstered by a superb story, solid acting, and a haunting score, Lake Mungo can be seen as After Dark’s savior, the single film that proves a hitherto horrible film series can have at least one respectable film among the rejects.

Over at my other haunt Horror Squad we’ve slowly started rolling out a number of unique (and quasi-unique) features all four of you might get a kick out of.

Horror Squad Movie Club – Each Friday a member of the Squad picks a horror flick available online and gives a brief intro, explaining why they chose it and why they feel others should see it. Over the weekend your task, should you choose to accept it, is to watch the film. Simple, right? Come Monday, a more detailed post and discussion will follow, allowing everyone who watched a chance to jump in on the fun.

Chats! - Although in the natal stages, the two chats Horror Squad has held have been a great success. The first one was a discussion on slasher films, though that managed to degrade into arguments over whose beard is best (I technically won, despite what others might tell you). The second was associated with Luke Mullen’s Movie Club pick, the fantastic thriller The Signal, and included two of the film’s stars, the bearded wonder A. J. “Lewis Denton” Bowen, and Scott “Clark” Poythress giving us some unique insight into the making of the film.

I Would Have Saved/Killed – Taking a cue from the inimitable blogger Arbogast on Film, we’ve started doing a weekly series wherein a Squad member picks a character they wish would have kicked the bucket or been spared a horrific end. Our inaugural entry kicked off with Peter Hall discussing a major character in the recent hit Trick ‘r Treat, who meets a horrific end at the hand of some sexy werewolves.

What We’re Watching – Although not a new column, it’s going to be a more regular feature, highlighting what recent horror films Squad members have been viewing over the past week or so. The most recent entry, by Squad newcomer Jacob Hall (no relation to Associate Editor Peter Hall), includes Candyman, The Changeling, and The House Where Evil Dwells. I presume we’re looking for horror films, so I may need to rethink my Bring It On marathon come my turn to contribute.

Blog Spotlight – Given how much of a supporter I am for horror blogs that aren’t mired in adolescent feuds and piss poor writing, I’ll be holding a weekly spotlight of blogs that deserve some serious recognition. The first official spotlight started with And Now the Screaming Starts, which can be found here, and next week shall see John Morehead’s wonderful blog Theofantastique receiving the royal treatment. Have any recommendations? Shoot me an e-mail at bmchargue@gmail.com.

Keep checking back for sporadic updates, or just visit the damned site.

This is Alex. As he goes through each chapter of the book, this 20-year old Brit adds a humorous mix of commentary and statements of utter shock over how this dreck could be published. it is, in short, fucking hysterical, due in no small part to his accent.

Because come on, British people are always funnier.

Ash is one of those bobbleheads that doesn’t like to be tied down. Confined to my desk for a number of years, he has served his purpose as Grand Overseer of my procrastination, keeping an ever vigilant eye on everything I did. Kinda creepy if you think about it. As a result I felt it was time to send him on his merry way. Travel the countryside! See the sights!

After making a trip from Florida to Colorado, Ash was placed in a tiny little box and shipped about a thousand miles south to Austin, Texas, where one Peter S. Hall, who not only runs the fantastic blog Horror’s Not Dead, but serves as Associate Editor for Horror Squad and SciFi Squad, and writes for Cinematical and Hollywood.com. The fucker’s prolific, lemme tell ya. Since it’s been awhile, I’d place the date this photo was taken around mid-July, and as you can see, it was a hot one in Texas that day.

So far Ash has been all around the country, and I bet he’s achin’ to come to yours. If you’d like to receive Ash, shoot me an e-mail and we can work out the details.

A few months back my friends Dan of Castle Vardulon and Rachel of Zombots!!! decided to hold a little drinking game set to Twilight. In the end I learned I have a horrible speaking voice, Rachel laughs at everything I say, and Dan is probably ashamed to know me.

Ignore the holiday and timely references, for I have been incredibly lazy and only slightly afraid of having people hear my shrill voice quickly degrade into incoherent and offensive ramblings, which I blame on the alcohol. Really, I’m only funny in print. The real stars of this show are Dan, Rachel, and the awkward feelings my inappropriate and poorly timed comments elicit throughout. The first few minutes are introduction, as well as timing cues, a rundown of the rules, and other unnecessary jibber jabber, but some of it is pretty funny and worth a listen.

The rules are as follows:

Take a sip…

-Whenever Edward or Bella attempts to express an emotion
-Whenever they use slo-mo
-Whenever a scary musical sting tries to shock us
-Whenever you see a male vampire shirtless
-Whenever Bella does something clumsy
-Whenever someone says the word “vampire”
-Whenever someone compliments Bella or the vampire family, take a sip
-Whenever vampires have a reflection

Finish your drink…

-Whenever a vampire sparkles in the sunlight

Go easy. My bottle of wine was gone by the halfway point, and I Love Horror, Castle Vardulon, and Zombots!!! accept no responsibility for your inability to handle your liquor, you fucking newbs. Now crack open the booze and enjoy the festivities. Thanks to Comixed.com for the image.

For much of the 1980s, the horror industry was dominated by the Friday the 13th franchise, an unstoppable machine fueled by blood and driven by everyone’s favorite hockey mask-wearing and machete-wielding psychopath, the inimitable Jason Voorhees. Spanning eleven original films, one remake, and countless other mediums, Victor Miller’s story of a killer “motivated by the love for her child” set off a chain of events that led to the creation and cultivation of one of horror’s most beloved characters and franchises.

While the Friday the 13th franchise was exceedingly popular during the eighties, its looming presence on the horror landscape and financial success tapered off over time. With a film being released roughly every year from 1980 to 1989 (’83 and ‘87 being the only exceptions), only one was released in the 90’s (1993’s Jason Goes to Hell), and Jason X, which sought to update the character for the future, was released in 2002. Neither of these films contained the original title of Friday the 13th, and we wouldn’t see it again until Platinum Dunes’ remake / re-imagining was released in 2009. Even though Jason faded into relative obscurity and the popularity of the franchise waned, his presence remained a fixture of the horror industry, proving his status as bonafide horror icon and the series as an indispensable horror mainstay.

While it can be argued that Friday the 13th was an essential aspect of the horror industry in the eighties and nineties, there is no debate that the first decade of the twenty-first century is characterized by the Saw franchise. The film has received its fair share of criticism, especially among the horror community, yet has picked up the slack left by Friday the 13th, serving as not only a means of introducing Generation Z and the tail end of Generation Y to horror, but also by reinvigorating the popularity and importance of the horror franchise. The Saw franchise can then be considered the Friday the 13th of the new millennium, sharing a number of similarities that go beyond their impact on the industry.

As I highlighted above, eight Friday the 13th films were released in the eighties before the output declined drastically over the next twenty years. With its nascent stages long gone, the Saw franchise has released a new film every October since 2004. Saw VI was released on October 23rd of this year, and Saw VII has already been greenlit. Given the sheer number of films made in each franchise, keeping the momentum alive is difficult. A franchise can run out of steam, or in essence “jump the shark” by changing the formula that made it so popular in an attempt to take the series in another direction. This could be due to a perceived lack of interest, a bored executive who like screwing with the fans, or just a genuine desire to keep the series from becoming stale. It happened with Halloween III: Season of the Witch, which had nothing to do with the prior too films and was suspiciously devoid of Michael Myers. Following this, Michael was reintroduced in the next film. While the circumstances regarding the decisions to do so remain unclear, both Friday the 13 and Saw are guilty of this transgression.

A common bone of contention among fans of Friday the 13th is the “death” of Jason in part four and the attempt to take the series in a new direction with part five, subtitled “A New Beginning.” This was met with backlash from fans, resulting in Jason’s return in part six to hack and slash his way through sexy co-eds, only this time in full-on zombie mode. In the end, that’s all the fans wanted to see: their now iconic antagonist fuckin’ some serious shit up. No need for story, no need for emotion. Just murder, mayhem, and occasionally some tits for good measure. The damage, however, had been done, and while part six remains a fan favorite and received favorable reviews, the popularity and financial success of the series began a slow decline.

A loose parallel can be found in the Saw franchise, particularly in part three which concluded with the death of the infamous Jigsaw himself, John Kramer. With part four, much like in the fifth Friday the 13th installment, we’re introduced to a new, replacement killer, with hints and allusions to the original found throughout. Is it any coincidence that both films were some of the franchises’ most poorly received? The appeal of the first film, and by extension Saws II and III wasn’t just in its clever traps, it was the attempt of the filmmakers to inject a story amidst the chaos. Kramer is made to be a highly sympathetic, albeit psychotic, character, with his traps serving as a metaphor for the path his victims have chosen in life. The death of John was the death of the motivation behind the entire series, and thus dooming the series to mindless repetition. This sentiment was expressed by Elizabeth Weizman of the New York Daily News, who considered the conspicuous absence of Tobin Bell from the fifth film to be its biggest drawback, cheapening the series and allowing it to fall into a state of convention. Unfortunately, while Friday the 13th realized the error of its ways and attempted to bring back the original formula, Saw is too grounded in reality to do such a thing.

This brings us to the characters proper. Although widely divergent in terms of personality, Jason Voorhees and John Kramer share a common bond. Let’s begin with Jason. A highly sympathetic character, he was left to drown by the promiscuous camp counselors, and, ignoring the inherent gaps in logic that surround his death and subsequent reappearance, grew up to be nothing more than a deformed, hydrocephalic man-child driven by revenge to exact punishment on those who murdered his mother. His malformed brain knows little more than to seek out and kill everyone he comes across, whether or not they had anything to do with his mother’s death.1 The love for his mother is exemplified in part two, when it is revealed that Jason kept his mother’s decapitated head, its new resting place a crudely constructed shrine.

Compare this with Kramer. In Saw II we’re introduced to John Kramer, a dying man desperate to get his message out to the masses before he dies. We also learn after his death that his lapse into madness is the direct result of two things: the cancer eating away at his brain and the unintentional miscarriage of his unborn child, the latter of which was caused by a drug addict his wife Jill had attempted to help on numerous occasions. By revealing the impetus for his actions, Kramer’s character and motives are given credence. The miscarriage caused John and his wife to grow apart, ultimately ending in divorce. A short time thereafter he gets cancer and begins his killing spree with whom he feels is the catalyst for his unhappiness: the man who has squandered his life with drugs and whose actions led to the loss of his child who never even had the option. It is then in this way Jason Voorhees and John Kramer are kindred souls: motivated by love – Jason for his mother and Kramer for his unborn daughter – and driven by revenge.

Saw and Friday the 13th possess a unique, if relatively incongruent relationship. Their primary antagonists are paradoxical, designed to draw the ire of the audience yet remaining highly sympathetic, and their deaths signify the decline of the franchises in terms of their popularity among the fans and financial success. The sheer frequency at which the films have been released is astounding, while their impact and prevalence has helped to define a generation of horror fans. While it’s safe to say that Friday the 13th has done all it can do, the legacy of the Saw franchise is up for debate. Will the filmmakers find a way to bring back Jigsaw, or will it continue on, hoping to buck the trend and rejuvenate the series with a new Jigsaw and unexpected twists? Only time will tell.

^{1 A glimpse of humanity, however, is found when he spares a cabin full of children in Friday the 13th Part VI, proving that though mindless he may be, he still harbors a sense of right and wrong in that shriveled brain of his.}

I don’t generally find children to be scary. I know, weird. So I don’t often watch movies that feature bad seed, because, well, that shit is kind of cheesy. But recently I gave in to some preternatural whim (I am a physicalist after all) and sat down to watch Christian Alvart’s Case 39. More than anything, I think Ian McShane did it. I blame him. I was hoping that Swearengen was going to break through at some point and there’d be at least one scene where, amidst sloppy fellatio, he’d give in to some monologizing impulse and talk about his abusive childhood, and headless heathens, liberally applying “fuck”, “shit” and “cocksucker” with Victorian eloquence and felicity. I was disappointed.

I’m not really interested in talking about the movie. I’m far more interested in trying to work out just why there have been so many of these films recently. Aeons ago, I think one could argue that it was due to the shock of encasing so much evil in something that is so benign, innocent and small. Much of horror, after all, is based on perversion. I consulted with my pastor and he said that the last time this opinion was valid was roughly 5,000 years ago, when the world was yet young and man was knocking about with the dinosaurs. I’m willing to admit that an irregular, timid movie-going crowd may still feel same faint pulse from the evil’s corporeal form, but surely this can’t be enough to justify a slew of films.

I’m of the opinion that we are culturally susceptible to a fear of children now, more than ever before and that this is a mental prison of our own social construct. Films like Case 39 have at root more in common with Law Abiding Citizen than with their horror brothers and sisters. This is why: The fear we are exposed to in these cases is not a fear of the unknown, or of evil incarnate, instead, it is a fear of systemic paralysis or injustice.

There are generally four kinds of peril one encounters in a horror film – existential, moral, asset and legal. Existential terror is a terror that menaces the continuity of life, the end result of which is death. Moral terror jeopardizes sanity and souls (a fate worse than death). Asset terror robs us of the things that enrich our lives (imagine an unknown assassin intent on rubbing out everyone you love while leaving you unharmed). Legal terror mitigates protagonist actions, and is a consequence of how we relate and ultimately deal with other terrors. In traditional horror, the legal aspect is light, if not altogether absent. Very rarely do we have protagonists in the midst of crises stop to ask the always germane, “What are we going to do about all of these bodies?” If the protagonist is responsible for a death, he/she is always vindicated through defense, and the Dead Thing is either a thing or another adult human. The legal threat is distant, especially in light of everything else they’ve been through.

This framework is inverted in the bad seed story. There is existential, potentially even moral terror, but the greatest terror is one of paralysis, especially for the parent. A parent is responsible for their child for eighteen years. They are legally bonded, and the welfare of their child is a legal obligation. Failure to meet such obligation is loaded with all sorts of unsavory, punitive checks (prison, loss of employment, loss of standing, prison, prison, prison rape, social stigma, damages, lawyer fees, loss of livelihood, prison, prison rape, loss of autonomy, etc.) – in short, failure to meet such obligations will really muck up one’s pretty, considered little life.

It wasn’t very long ago that children were chattel property to be done with as we pleased. Child labor laws have been present for a scant century, mandatory education even less so, and discipline was something enforced with a belt, a switch, and a fist. Now we fret over what we feed them, what activities they engage in, what they watch, the languages they’re exposed to, and whether or not the people who tend over them while we work actually have three-dimensional lives (Do they drink, do they sometimes think about sex, are they on occasion unhappy with their existence?) because everything and anything that hints at the darker aspects of our psyche will surely lead to rape in sadistic cult rituals serving to strengthen the rule of Satan on this Earth (mid-eighties to early nineties, I’m looking at you). Only virginal sentinels will do when it comes to the care of our children. And this paranoid, shadow-McCarthyism that sees every adult (especially males) as potential killers, kidnappers, and rapists, has lead to an unforgiving gallows-structure of laws, laws that we demand in the protection of our children. These laws find their most visible expression in a bulging, useless sex offender registry that destroys countless, nameless lives while offering up an illusion of security that is shattered again and again every single day.

Why have we built this system? Because we live in a country where gen Xers and Yers are attempting to atone for the sins of their absent parents and broken homes, trying to be some ridiculous paragon of paranoid love, and manifesting their disappointments and their fears within the confines of the justice system. Poorly conceived and even more poorly understood, they never imagined that the system of protection they cried for could turn on them, could see them as the child murderer, the abuser, the neglecter. Or maybe as a culture, we have some tenuous conception of just how easy it is to pass from one side of the line to the other. Maybe that’s the source of the anxiety, the fear that has given rise to so many renditions and explorations of the same paralyzing theme: What if our children spoil, go rotten? What if they are bad to the core; evil genetically, shade-bound spiritually? I’m sure such thoughts flash-fire from peripheral neuron to peripheral neuron as parents encounter those moments when child cruelty passes into the terrain of the incomprehensibly absurd, or the way a child can manifest their superiority over a pet in an instance of abuse. What’s hiding behind those eyes, behind that face?

The product: Our interactions with children are moderated by the state, by the system we have built. It is very hard to convince agents of the state that what they perceive as infanticide was actually an act of heroic self-defense against the ancient half-fish goddess Atargatis in the form of an eight year old girl. Crazy, I know. So that even though mounting evidence tells us KILL IT WITH FIRE, the protagonist constantly has to justify their inaction with – This is a child, do you know what they do with child murderers in the slammer? And so the horror is given ground, is nurtured, is allowed to grow until it finally culminates into a moment of absolute moral crisis where the protagonist allows themselves to die, or transgresses the line and kills a child (and the evil within it). This is the moment where legally, the character has joined the ranks of countless child murderers to be dealt with an iron fist. The supernatural may have passed, but the Kafkaesque horror of the system we’ve built lies ahead.

That’s the best I can do. That’s why I think we find children scary. Because we’ve disempowered ourselves by valuing them too highly; by infantilizing children (making them more innocent, more “child-like” than they may actually be) we’ve built our cage. Or, infantilizing is inadequate and absurd. What we’ve done to children is this: We’ve dehumanized them.

I may try to throw something else together for you cats. While I busy myself with that, here’s your line of contemplation for the week: Why are homeless people so into Jesus?

Adios!

Is there a standard to which horror bloggers must live up to, or is it solely about the love of the genre? I admire anyone who can spend countless thankless hours churning out content simply because they love horror films, but at some point it becomes mere muscle memory. My viewpoint is clearly biased, grounded firmly in my academic background and inability to tolerate mediocrity in all its facets.  When I started I Love Horror, I was impressed with the sheer quality of many of the horror bloggers out there. They were frequently mentioned and discussed among what was a modest but respectable group of bloggers, but over time, and in spite of churning out quality content on a consistent basis, they have been overshadowed by shock-and-awe marketing campaigns and link whoring. As it stands, I’ve become utterly sickened at what has come to pass for respectable writing.

Sucking the SEO Dick

Horror blogging has become nothing more than a loose collection of sycophantic link whores. The love and appreciation for the craft of writing is mostly gone. In its place a giant self-congratulatory circle jerk, the credo of which has become “quantity over quality,” with a number of so-called writers churning out post after post of laughably bad content in order to reach the top of a largely worthless rating system. Content designed to draw readers has been replaced by quick updates featuring the most banal of material, lacking anything that can be considered depth or intelligence. Quickie top ten lists, interviews with other bloggers and the like are nothing more than excuses to churn out a new post every day at the expense of quality.

Of course, not every site does this. The sites I love and respect are still there, creating great content, and there are a handful of new sites out there that have impressed me with their ability to remain consistent without sacrificing quality. But those guilty of such indiscretions do it egregiously and without shame, thinking that this is expected of them. In the end, they receive the recognition while good, honest writers get left in the dust. Yes, they are not entirely free of blame. You can’t be seen unless you do a modicum of self-promotion, but there has been a marked difference in the level of exposure these blogs have seen since I first started blogging and now. I refuse to believe this is a coincidence. As a result, these newer bloggers are missing out on some top quality writing.

You Scratch My Back, I’ll Scratch Yours

One of things I love(d) most about horror blogging was the sense of community. When someone wrote a piece worthy of mention, others picked up on it, promoted it, showcased it, and even provided rebuttals to it. These days are mostly gone now, replaced by fucking STUPID awards created ex nihilo simply for the sake of receiving a fucking link. The awards, which are seemingly created every other fucking week, are almost always given to the same set of sites, with bloggers truly deserving of recognition being left in the dust for whichever blogs are sucking the most dick. Recently I was given an award by Max the Drunken Severed Head, and while I appreciate the gesture good sir, I refused to follow suit. Yes, I’ll mention it, and I’ll give my thanks, but that’s about it.

Much of the inspiration for this article has to do with this. I don’t give a shit if you’re nominated for an award. Stop pandering for votes and write. Write because you love to write, not because you feel it’s expected of you because you have a blog. Therein lies the problem. Blogging is nothing more than an outlet for creative expressionism, and you’re fucking diluting this by spewing out shit on a daily basis as if you have a quota to make. Fucking stop it.

Will this piss people off? Well, if it doesn’t then either more people agreed with me than I thought or I did something wrong. Do I care? Fuck no. You know why? Because I write for no one else but me.

Know what’s great, though? That rare breed of filmmaker who sees a popular trend and warps it into something genuinely unique. Here’s a list of those films, even I did hate some of them. Know of any I forgot? E-mail me.

Pontypool Well this is just obvious, given my love for the film, but one can’t deny this clever spin on the zombie trope by making the source of infection the English language and by replacing their lust for human flesh with the desire to “chew their way through the mouth of another person” as a means of escape. Director Bruce McDonad even went so far as to make the claim that the infected individuals in the film were not zombies, preferring instead to call them “Conversationalists.” While they are clearly not zombies due to them, you know, being alive and all, one could easily make the claim that Pontypool is indeed a pseduo-zombie film, and one of the most clever ones I have ever seen.

Les Revenants A couple of years back there was a pilot for a show called Babylon Fields that was never picked up. The premise behind the show was that the dead have risen from their graves and, instead of seeking human flesh, simply want to be reintegrated into society. Three years prior a little French film called Les Revenants utilized this theme, and in turn created a wonderful dramatic thriller that made me deathly afraid of old people. More of a drama than a thriller, Les Revenants focuses both on how this small French town is dealing with this unexpected wave of visitors and just what exactly they’re up to. It’s a slow burn, errs more on the side of drama, and features a relatively ambiguous ending that keeps you guessing.

Deadgirl I hated this movie. Most films that feature necrophilia are tongue-in-cheek, or at the very least simply implied. This one isn’t. A couple of teens decide to skip school and, naturally, make their way to an abandoned hospital to drink, smoke and be stereotypical hooligans. Throughout the course of their exploration they come across a girl tied to a table. Presumably dead, they fuck it. Then they shoot it. Then they learn she’s not really dead, but in fact something that resembles what we would consider a zombie. They fuck it some more. Then when she dries up (as even the pseudo-dead are wont to do), they fuck the bullet hole. Absolute revulsion ensues. My distaste for damn near everything in the film aside, I can’t help but admire the unique spin the obviously fucked-in-the-head filmmakers put on a common trope.

The Revenant (review) I caught this film first at Fantastic Fest then at the Denver Film Festival. I’m fairly certain writer/director D. Kerry Prior was drunk during the former’s Q&A. The Revenant centers around war vet Bart who, despite being killed in the Middle East can’t seem to stay dead. During the day he “passes out,” and at night he is reanimated. When awake, he must drink blood or he becomes incredibly weak. A key moment in the film involves a discussion with his best friend Joey over what exactly he is. The terms zombie and vampire are thrown around until they settle upon a Revenant, an amalgamation of the two. Despite being a bit on the long side and going from buddy horror/comedy to a more serious film, Prior made a darkly funny movie that poked a bit of fun at the living dead.

Make Out With Violence (review) If you read my review you will see I was not too fond of this film. Way too long, and more or less a giant music video, it deals with the disappearance and discovery of young Gwendolyn Hearst, who has for reasons unexplained in the film been tied to a tree and reanimated as a zombie. Two brothers who were friends with her when she was alive find her and take her home, and as the story progresses we’re treated to what can only be described as a coming-of-age teen comedy that deals with life, love and the living dead. Although not technically a zombie film in, well, any sense of the word, it manages to take a common theme found in movies – teenage love, friendship, etc – and center it around one of the brother’s lingering affections for Gwendolyn when she was alive. My personal distaste for the film aside, I admire the scope of the film and what it attempted to do, I just felt it wasn’t executed in the right way.

The schedule is as follows.

13-Feb   HOUSE OF WAX

20-Feb   THE AMITYVILLE HORROR

27-Feb   LAND OF THE DEAD

6-Mar   THE HILLS HAVE EYES

13-Mar  SLITHER

20-Mar  DEEP BLUE SEA

26-Mar  HOUSE OF THE DEVIL

Working under the presumption that the first two and fourth film are the remakes, the inclusion of Land of the Dead, Slither, Deep Blue Sea, and especially House of the Devil actually make me grin a shifty grin of amusement. I would have expected films like Prom Night, or Sorority Row, to appeal to the base demographic of the channel. Which is fine. They have a job to do and appealing to dyed-in-the-wool horror fans is probably not on their list of things to do. But they threw me for a loop, throwing in a mix of gory remakes, cheesy zombie flicks, comedies, pseudo-cult classics, and a new and incredibly well-received bonafide horror film.

Whether or not the films will be edited to appease the parents of MTV’s core demographic is anyone’s case, though one can easily be led to believe they won’t be, as this promo demonstrates. It features scenes from House of Wax, they’re graphic, and it opens with Paris Hilton gettin’ all stabbed and shit.

Someone at MTV has the right idea. Kudos. Tune in, especially if you haven’t seen House of the Devil. I wasn’t too fond of it, but no self-respecting horror fan should go without seeing it.

MTV, if you’re listening, here are some recommendations for your next horror installment, should you choose to do so. Whether or not you can acquire the rights to air any of these films is none of my concern. Just do it. For the fans. And for me. ‘Cause I asked politely. Kinda.

The Burrowers (review)
Session 9 (review)
[REC]
Pontypool

Just a thought.

Director: Rick Jacobson
Year: 2009
Country: USA

I am not familiar with exploitation films. My modus operandi is the cinematic output of the past decade or so, with a few older films sneaking in from time to time to remind me just why I got into horror in the first place. As a result, I am unable to compare Bitch Slap, the throwback to said films by Rick Jacobson. Jacobson brings with him years of experience directing schlock, with shows such as Baywatch, Xena: Warrior Princess, and movies such as Bloodsport VI and VIII taking up a noticeable chunk of space on his curriculum vitae. As such, I have no basis of comparison for his cleavage laden foray into 70s nostalgia. This is probably a good thing, as I was able to eschew constant comparisons to classic exploitation films and just lose myself in breasts, bad acting and sexual euphemisms.

Bitch Slap follows three sexy femme fatales as they seek to recover $200 million dollars in diamonds from a drug kingpin that have been stashed in a remote area of the desert. There’s Hel, the self-imposed leader of the group; Camero, the bad ass with severe trust issues; and Trixie, the naive stripper brought along for the ride by Hel, much to Camero’s chagrin. Their little desert adventure is made all the more tumultuous by the intrusions of a nosy local cop, the very likely possibility that they’re being hunted by several drug kingpins, Camero’s desire to kill Trixie every five minutes, and the fact that they don’t know where the diamonds are actually hidden. As the sun beats down, alliances shift and harsh truths are revealed, resulting in one Hell of a wild ride. And cleavage. Lots and lots of cleavage.

The beauty of Bitch Slap lies not in its bevy of buxom beauties bouncing around in almost no clothes, but in the fact that it actually sports something that resembles a coherent plot. The story is intricate enough to keep your attention, providing enough back story, albeit in a fairly convoluted manner, to make the actions and progression of the story more than just an excuse to show skin. It certainly took me by surprise, and actually caused me to overlook the dreadful acting from time to time. Sort of. The abundance of tits might have helped as well.

Shockingly enough, there were only a few brief moments of exposed cleavage, mostly relegated to strippers, with the main characters remaining PG-13 for the duration of the film. That’s not to say these three lassies, one of which resembled a dude in the right light and another who is a bonafide cougar,  didn’t put on a show. Much of the action in the film was spent stroking the hypersexualized mind of the male audience, with scenes that included fights with seemingly bottomless buckets of cold water and making out with each other in scenes that could rival the softcore porn you might find on late night Cinemax. In between this was rapid-fire dialogue so loaded with euphemisms you’re likely to let slip during a heated moment with your significant other and call her vagina an axe wound.

Is Bitch Slap a good movie? No. Is it a fun movie? Shit yes. The almost-cartoonish gore, relatively engaging plot that keeps you guessing, and hilarious dialogue spouted by laughably bad actors results in two hours of mind-numbing enjoyment on par with one of the better Roland Emmerich films, like Independence Day.

]]> http://www.ilovehorror.net/2010/02/08/review-bitch-slap/feed/ 2 http://www.ilovehorror.net/2010/02/07/review-frozen/ http://www.ilovehorror.net/2010/02/07/review-frozen/#comments Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:35:39 +0000 bmchargue http://www.ilovehorror.net/?p=2100

Director: Adam Green
Year: 2010
Country: USA

I was not a fan of Hatchet, Adam Green’s debut horror film. While being touted as a return to old-school American horror, it managed to do nothing to distinguish itself from other contemporary slasher flicks. The characters were contrived, the plot cliche and the gore unimpressive. My experience with Green’s first horror film notwithstanding, I was excited for his next horror film, the “stuck on a ski lift” thriller Frozen. My interest in the film grew as many lauded the film’s ability to invoke levels of tension unheard of in contemporary horror, and while I still had the dreadful Hatchet burned in the back of my head, I kept an open mind and went in expecting a solid thriller. Sadly, the hype got the best of me, and Frozen proved to be obscenely mediocre.

(Read the rest of the review at Horror Squad)

]]> http://www.ilovehorror.net/2010/02/07/review-frozen/feed/ 1 http://www.ilovehorror.net/2010/02/06/review-house-of-the-devil/ http://www.ilovehorror.net/2010/02/06/review-house-of-the-devil/#comments Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:14:09 +0000 bmchargue http://www.ilovehorror.net/?p=1986

Director: Ti West
Year: 2009
Country: USA

Ti West is an intriguing fellow. Bursting onto the scene with Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever and the controversy surrounding its hijacking by the studio and his subsequent disowning of the film (I hear the Alan Smithee title was hoped for, but to no avail), he made a name for himself with The House of the Devil, a tension-filled throwback to “satanic panic” films of the late seventies and early eighties featuring a young college student unwittingly taking a babysitting job that proves to be far more sinister than an easy night of eating pizza and watching TV.

Many consider The House of the Devil to be a homage to 80’s Satanic Panic films, but I feel this to be a great disservice to what West truly intended with his film. It is an 80’s Satanic Panic film.  The attention to detail is impeccable, from the retro opening down to the film’s graininess, the latter of which is the result of West shooting the film entirely on 16mm. Sparing no expense, West sought to give the audience a truly unique experience, adding to the suspense and the retro feel with the inclusion of the soft-spoken yet ominous Tom Noonan, who plays the sinister patriarch of the diabolical house, and Mary Woronov, who plays his wife.

The rest of the cast pulls off impressive performances, with Jocelin Donahue, who portrays the unwitting babysitter Samantha Hughes, giving us the right mix of unabashed cuteness and naivete. AJ Bowen, whose impressive performance in The Signal sold me on his ability to be eternally creepy while remaining completely stoic and stone-faced, was criminally underused but managed to provide an impressive performance as the son of the elderly satanic couple. Simply put, there was not one miscast in the bunch.

Despite my praise for the several aspects of the film, the film lacked substance. Almost nothing happened throughout a majority of the film’s ninety-five minute running time. West deserves praise for the sound design, as Samantha’s incredibly long exploration of the house was a nightmare in of itself. Every creak, every groan of the house that permeated the silence was impeccably placed, keeping the audience on the edge of the seat. But again, this did little to offset the fact that it all happened throughout her simply canvassing the house not once, but twice. After awhile, it just became tiring. When something finally did happen, however, it failed to serve as an adequate payoff for the near non-existent plot.

The heaps and heaps of accolades West has received for The House of the Devil are mostly warranted. The film is a monumental achievement of retro film-making, surpassing all the expectations anyone might have. Sadly, my dislike of the film’s plot, or significant lack thereof, can be the result of my own personal bias against films of its ilk. I do possess an  unabashed love for contemporary horror and an unfortunate indifference toward most horror films of the eighties and early nineties, and as such this might have swayed my opinion a little. In the end, I appreciate everything Ti West did with the film, but unfortunately it did absolutely nothing for me in terms of story.

Whether you want to admit it or not, zombie movies are becoming passe. Animated zombies films, however, are still pretty cool. If you need evidence of this, scoot on over to Zombie Info for a bunch of hi-res images and an exclusive interview with the creators, who hope to turn the awesome trailer below in a feature length film

The animation looks fucking sick. It’s dark, gritty, and heavily stylized, and the zombies have that emaciated, freshly-risen-from-the-grave-and-ready-to-eat-some-humans looks about them that is criminally underutilized in live-action zombie films. The beauty of this is that animation opens up so many more doors in terms of what can logistically be done with the way the zombies look without compromising the overall look of the movie (i.e. shit CGI).

When asked what my favorite horror film I always say without missing a beat, “Session 9″ (review). There was a brief period a couple of months ago where Paranormal Activity (review) took the top spot, but careful reflection brought me back to Earth and to peddling the Brad Anderson-directed psychological thriller starring David fucking Caruso to anyone foolish enough to engage me in a discussion on horror movies.

It should be known that my love of this film borders on the extreme. The banner of I Love Horror is modeled after it (for now), and in addition to owning the DVD (natch) and a poster (true dat), I almost when so far as to buy a t-shirt featuring the film’s box art and final line of the movie, but was stopped when it was confirmed whoever made the shirt is lazy and printed them all with a crooked image.

But I digress.

When I first saw the film, I was confused. While not egregiously convoluted (like Primer), the confluence of events that lead up to the final line of the movie, which attempts to reveal why everything happened, does make one tend to scratch their head. There are little nuances and subtleties that have a tendency to be overlooked and picked up on only during second viewing. One of the aspects of the film that kept people guessing was Simon. Who is he? First some background.

In Session 9, a crew of asbestos abatement professionals are hired to  clean out the Danvers State Mental Hospital. Gordon, the Scottish and  likable leader of the crew, is showing signs of stress, brought about by  the birth of his daughter Emma and the apparent lack of work he and his  team has been receiving. Once inside, the cracks begin to show, and the building’s horrific past begins to reflect on the actions of the crew. One of  the workers eventually discovers a set of tapes that reveal a series of  interviews between a psychologist and a patient, Mary Hobbes.  Committed to the hospital for killing her brother and parents, it is revealed that Mary suffers from multiple personality disorder. In addition to the Princess and Billy, one of  the personalities is Simon, who is revealed to have introduced herself to  Mary when she fell upon a china doll she received as a gift, cutting her chest up and leaving her horrifically scarred. Simon tells Mary to kill, resulting in her incarceration.

Several theories have been put forth concerning Simon’s nature and his relationship to the events of the film, one of which I would like to discuss in greater detail. Ellen Datlow, in a book co-written by Terri Windling, postulates that Simon is a “malignant genius loci,” as opposed to Mary’s alternate personality. For those who didn’t waste $45,000 on Classics degree, a genius loci is a spirit from Roman mythology that dwells within a specific place, often serving as a protector. If used in a contemporary manner, it is often considered the atmosphere of a location as opposed to an incorporeal being, serving as a major principle of the New Rationalism architectural movement. Placed within the context of what happens to Gordon, this place is clearly the human mind.

<sidenote> When writing this article I took Datlow’s interpretation of “genius loci” to refer to the hospital itself. When watching the film again and coming up with my argument, it became clear the place she was referring to is the human mind. However, if my initial assumptions are indeed true, then Datlow’s interpretation is very, very wrong. </sidenote>

Throughout the film Simon’s voice is heard, typically in situations where Gordon’s sanity is revealed to be on shaky ground. The first instance occurs when Simon and Phil are making their initial inspections of Danvers. In an intensely creepy scene that sets the mood for the film, Simon introduces himself to Gordon by simply saying “Hello, Gordon” and forgoing any pleasantries. It should be known that at this point the audience is completely unaware of who – or what – Simon is.

Later that evening Gordon heads home to celebrate the winning bid with his wife and inadvertently causes a pot of boiling water to spill on his leg. Now, any normal individual, that is, one not affected by a failing career, the stress of a new daughter, and internal strife among his close friends and employees, would simply deal with the excruciating pain and move on. As we come to learn, it is this event that allowed Simon to exert his influence upon the already weakened Gordon (”Do it, Gordon”), resulting in the death of his wife, daughter, and dog (fucker wouldn’t stop barking).

The argument that Simon can be considered an alternate personality is given ample evidence with his appearance through the mouth of Mary following the utter breakdown of her other two personalities. With Gordon, we’re never given any indication that he is in any way apart of him. However, one of Mary’s alternate’s, Princess, claims to be unaware of Simon’s presence, something that is not entirely common in cases of multiple personality disorder. Billy, however, is perfectly aware of Simon, and at one point in the film states that he is “asleep” and that he would not wake him for Mary’s sake.

From this it can be rationalized that Simon is indeed a malevolent force that lies dormant in the mind waiting for the opportunity to introduce himself and exert his influence over the individual.  Billy’s awareness of Simon, as well as Simon’s introduction via Mary may lend credence to the notion that he is an alternate, though given the events that surround his introduction to Mary and Gordon this argument loses a modicum of credibility. To reconcile this, I posit that Simon is an inherent personality trait, or to extend this even further a distinct emotion, that manifested itself as an alternate personality in Mary, and although not expressly stated, an alternate of Gordon whose presence is kept secret and seen only when Gordon enters his dissociative state. I would thus agree with Datlow’s principle argument, though feel the dismissal of Simon as an alternate fails to take into account several key aspects of the film.

Although Mary and Gordon are similar, their primary difference lies in the fact that Mary, as far as we know, exhibited no signs of stress, anxiety or mental weakness before falling on the China doll. Simon utilized Gordon’s weakness by introducing himself earlier on (”Hello Gordon, do you know who I am?”), whereas with Mary he waited for an opportunity, though perhaps her other multiple personalities presented themselves before Simon made his appearance.

Any confusion regarding Simon’s true nature is summed up in the final line of the film: “I live in the weak and the wounded, doc.”

Special thanks to Corey from Evil on Two Legs for helping out a CSS newb.

Bloody Disgusting’s little horror contest to spite Total Film is up and running. I’m not going to tell you to vote for me, because pandering for votes is pathetic. I won’t place this all over Facebook, or Twitter, and I certainly won’t e-mail everyone, because no one wants to be bothered with that. All I ask is that you vote for me if you truly feel I Love Horror is worthy of your vote. There are a lot of great blogs on the list, as well as a lot of shitty blogs, so do them – and yourself – a favor by not voting for your friends but for the individual or individuals you feel are truly deserving of being named the Best Horror Blog.

Don’t make this shit a popularity contest.

This trailer is just too fucking excellent, and completely belies the film’s meager $50,000 budget.

I recently became interested in Stumbleupon as a means of site promotion. In discovering this site I also learned that people are apparently fans of I Love Horror. Conversely, I also discovered people don’t understand the concept of opinion and subjectivity.

“Praises hacks, criticises films made by real film-makers. Typical modern horror fan.” – AYBGerrardo

Regarding my Best/Worst of the year list:

“This list fails! This person has obviously never seen Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead trilogy. That and the best of list is terrible and can be done way better.” – Lepur

“How can you say you like horror and put Paranormal Activity on this list?” – 2c-e

“Zombieland was mediocre, Paranormal Activity was a total bore and anyone who slams Wes Craven over his superior Last House version has zero cred.” – ChristopherLo

“Why the fuck do people think that paranormal activity was a good film? It was long, boring, predictable, and they gave away the “best” scene in the fucking trailer.” – danstg0721

A little good amongst the bad:

“I normally don’t like blogs. I like this one. I like how he shares his opinion and doesn’t state it as fact. It’s just another point of view without being treated as if it’s factual.” – beckysue2009

What have I learned from all of this?

People are fucking stupid. Very, very stupid.

Recently, Total Film released their list of nominees for Best Horror Blog. Although featuring some top quality websites, one would be hard pressed to accurately deem any of them blogs. Only one, The Obscure Hollow, has been considered an appropriate entry among the five websites that were chosen, and those who make their principle online home the horror blogosphere snapped back.

Horror bloggers are a tight knit group, and over the past week, they have banded together to cry foul over what many feel is Total Film’s misinterpretation of what a blog really is. All semantics arguments aside, one would not be too far off the mark to deem sites such as Dread Central and Shock Till You Drop news sites before blogs. When taking into consideration the overwhelming number of horror blogs circulating the internet, one has to wonder just what Total Film was thinking. One blogger, The Dive Mistress, took Total Film to task and made an inquiry regarding this whole fiasco. Their response was contradictory, to say the least, and just a little too self-serving to paint them in a respectable light. Several aspects of their e-mail stand out as cringe-worthy:

The motivation behind the awards is to say thank you to the sites we have used over the past year, who may or may not be professional, but are nonetheless passionate, hard working and very good at what they do.

Glad to know you’re being objective.

This reveals that Total Film, in what everyone just hoped was a glaring misinterpretation of what a blog really is, has their lips planted firmly on the posteriors of the nominees. Absolutely no disrespect to Shock Till You Drop, Dread Central, Bloody Disgusting, and for some reason Upcoming Horror Movies, but dismissing the many fine horror blogs floating around in favor of sycophantic posturing is fucking low.

But what of The Obscure Hollow?

In considering nominations we looked not just at sites we have used, but sites our readers are most likely to use.

While I have never personally read Obscure Hollow (shit, I had never even heard of it before this), I find it hard to believe that readers of Total Film will flock in droves to a personal blog about “the love of haunted film decor and more” when they need a news fix. Like the others, I mean no disrespect to the proprietor of Obscure Hollow, but its inclusion among the list of nominees is nothing more than Total Film’s attempt to retain a shred of credibility in what I hope they have since realized is a lack of integrity.

One of the nominees, however grateful they may be, have called Total Film out in their own, less hate-filled way. In response to Total Film’s blunder, Bloody Disgusting and its eponymous founder have decided to create the Bloody Disgusting Horror Blog Awards as a way of giving true thanks to the horror bloggers who spend countless hours writing bullshit only a small handful of people will read (much like this!). From Mr. Disgusting:

As some of you know Total Film nominated Bloody Disgusting for best horror blog. It’s a great honor, but seriously folks, we’re not really a blog — and I think that the hard working horror bloggers out there would agree. So here’s the deal, we’d like to take some time out to recognize the folks who put their heart and soul into helping the horror genre thrive with their own personal blogs. The only rule is that it cannot be an actual full-blown website, it needs to be a personal BLOG that is run by you and maybe a few friends.

Thanks to Corey over at Evil on Two Legs, I was nominated, and people have been nominating blogs left and right since Mr. D brought this to our attention earlier today. Several of my good friends have been nominated, as has Horror Squad, the Cinematical offshoot I call my other home. In the end I don’t care if I win, as the very fact that I was nominated is enough tomake everything I’ve done since I started I Love Horror almost a year and a half ago worthwhile.

Best of luck to everyone who gets nominated.

“Zombies don’t run.”

Well, why the fuck not?

With Zack Snyder’s plot-hole ridden and downright hilarious re-imagining of Romero’s Dawn of the Dead, convention was turned upside down and the commonly accepted notion of the slow zombie was thrown to the wind. Fast zombies, heretofore relegated to more comedy-themed horror films such as Return of the Living Dead and Dead Alive, became a brute force within the horror genre. Zombies were now coked-up speed demons after a bender on Red Bull, and the only thing that could stop them was a bullet to the brain. Or a door, I suppose.

As the decade progressed, factions were born. Some accepted fast zombies with open arms, while others remained steadfast in their devotion to Romero’s creation. There’s even a blog devoted to the supposed “classic” zombie called Zombies Don’t Run. The heart of the argument lies in the notion that Romero created the modern conception of the zombie, and to deviate from the mythology that made zombies one of the most beloved creatures in film is a sin akin to blasphemy. But Romero didn’t create the zombie, and for us to consider the shiftless flesh eaters sacred is to laugh at progression and to spit in the face of evolution.

Nothing is sacred in film.

Whether zombies run, walk, or do the fucking Charleston as they seek their next meal, it’s simply the natural order of things. In film, zombies started out as a Vodou creation, making their first appearances in films such as White Zombie and I Walked With A Zombie. Then in 1968 the tides changed and we were introduced to the zombie everyone knows and loves. His interpretation and restructuring of their mythology, advanced over 40 plus years and six films culminated with zombies learning the ability to use firearms (Diary of the Dead and Survival of the Dead are essentially prequels) for Christ’s sake. To make a fuss over zombies running is a God damned waste of time.

We could get into an argument over Romero’s zombies not being the first zombies in film, but even I can concede to the notion that he is responsible for zombies as we know it. Throwing upon him the same claims supporters of slow zombies foist upon Snyder’s creation is a foolish endeavor. In the end, fast zombies haven’t done anything to sully the good name of slow zombies, they just opened new avenues to explore in horror movies.

Embrace change. Nothing is sacred, nor should it be. Without change, we would not have Romero’s zombies, and none of these stupid arguments would even be taking place.

Of course, these might just be empty promises.

I have apparently been given a couple of awards. The first was the Zombie Chicken Award, and while I’m unaware of its purpose, I want to give a special thanks to The Dive Mistress of the fantastic blog Zombots! for bestowing upon me what my ego is going to presume the highest honor anyone can receive in the history of ever. After that (or before, I can’t quite recall), I was given another award (I think) by someone else, though I can’t remember who (assuming I was given an award in the first place).

Most recently I was given a Fantastically Frightening Award by Brittney-Jade over at Day of the Woman, who called me the best hairy dude who hates everything and likes cute animals. Or something. I don’t really, as I’m too lazy to double check. But thanks just the same.

I think the rules dictate I give these awards out to people in return, but I don’t really want to single anyone out and I hate rules. You all do wonderful jobs writing words about things, and you should keep this up until you’re recognized for the fantastic writers you all are.

So I give an award to all of you. The….Awesome Award for Writing About Things. There’s no picture to go along with it because I suck at Photoshop.

Director: D. Kerry Prior
Year: 2009
Country: USA

The Revenant is not a zombie movie. A half hour in you might be tempted to think it’s a vampire movie, but that notion gets thrown out the window in favor of a little used word used to describe a corporeal being that has risen from the dead yet needs blood to survive. This allows writer/director/producer Kerry Prior to construct his own mythology regarding those nefarious of nightwalkers, which he does so with glee.

The eponymous character is Bart, a soldier killed in a gunfight in Iraq who left behind a devoted girlfriend Janet and best friend Joey, rises from the dead. Dealing with death every sunrise and the uncontrollable urge to projectile vomit black bile, Bart and Joey try to make sense of the situation and figure out just what the Hell is going on, all while enjoying the benefits that come with being unable to die. Chris Wylde looking like a Matrix reject ensures.

(Read the rest of the review at Horror Squad)

———————————

A few months back I, a horror-lovin’ film fan sequestered in the Mile High City, was lucky enough to attend Fantastic Fest in Austin, an eight-day event filled with nothing but crazy horror films, tense thrillers, and all manner of obscure something or others designed to confuse, confound and, of course, entertain. Sadly, Fantastic Fest is a once-a-year event, so for those who live outside the realm of the mecca of film that is Austin, us Denver-ites have to seek our dose of obscure indie thrillers and cult classics from other avenues.

Enter Keith Garcia and The Watching Hour.

The Watching Hour, which had its start at the 29th Starz Denver Film Festival in 2006 with films such as Pan’s Labyrinth and The Host, is a block of programming devoted to showcasing “films that other theaters are too afraid to show.” With first showings airing at midnight and subsequent showings cropping up throughout the festival, recent showings included the horror comedy The Revenant, esoteric sci-fi thriller Truffles, and the fantastic documentaries Cropsey and Best Worst Movie (review). This small block of programming serves as a wonderful way to introduce the masses, especially those who wouldn’t otherwise see a horror film, to unique films from across the world.

Although beginning in 2006, Keith has been promoting horror and other obscure films for years before The Watching Hour became a regular fixture of the Starz Denver Film Festival. Getting his start in the local scene at the Landmark Mayan Theater, he began a program during the summer of 1997 aptly titled ‘Midnights at the Mayan.’ A dual summer series, appropriately titled ‘The Terror Train’ and ‘The Orient Express,’ brought classic horror and Asian films to the masses, allowing fans to watch on the big screen films they could once only enjoy from home. A year later the program expanded and became a year-long fare, branching out from these two genres and hosting thematic series’ every month, ranging from blaxploitation films to comic-book adaptations and everything in between.

In 2001, however, Keith decided to pursue other interests, including a career in film-making, and the new host of the midnight program became the Landmark Esquire. Keith now serves as the Programming Manager for the Denver Film Society, and not content with only offering horror once a year, he has brought The Watching Hour to the Starz Film Center in Denver as a weekly event, showcasing all manner of independent genre films and classics, such as Hausu, the 1977 Japanese horror comedy described by Keith as “the most insane thing you’ll ever see.” In the past he has also brought to the Watching Hour classics such as Black Christmas and Turkey Shoot, the latter of which he aired for Thanksgiving weekend, and an archival, Technicolor UK of Suspiria.

Given the ongoing success of the zombie genre, it’s only natural to think that some emphasis would be placed on the shuffling hordes of undead eager to eat our brains. Keith and The Watching Hour thus host “The Dead of Summer,” and event held during the summer months (naturally) that showcases zombie films old and new. This was extended, however tenuously, to the most recent Starz Denver Film Festival with screenings of indie horror-comedy The Revenant and one of the upcoming After Dark selections, Zombies of Mass Destruction (review).

“I’ve always wanted Denver audiences to experience a hotbed of genre film from the newest stuff that pops up in NY & LA and then never makes it out here to the great genre and grindhouse classics that are hard to find and essential to the film-going canon,” says Keith. “Providing a home on the big screen for films, both new and old, that otherwise become Netflix-only options is what I want to provide. There will always be someone playing the ’safe’ cult classics for audiences but I like things a little more dangerous. I like exposing folks to films they can talk about like Deadgirl and Grace and making them take a chance on films from places like Australia or Japan that they can’t find easily on DVD and presenting it to them in the way it was meant to be seen, on the big screen, with other people, and, hopefully via a really great archival 35mm print complete with a few scratches and splices and knowing that the audiences is feeling giddy at the opportunity to do so.”

Beyond introducing Denver locals and those who brave the cold to travel to the Mile High City, The Watching Hour serves as a wonderful treat for those Denver locals who enjoy a little madness and mayhem in their movies. Amidst the genre festivals such as Fantastic Fest, Scream Fest and the like, and despite being confined to the Denver area, we, as horror fans, should be thankful for Keith and The Watching Hour and his continued dedication to the preservation of horror, both old and new.

If you’re close to Denver or happen to reside in this lovely city, i strongly suggest you check out one of the many Watching Hour screenings. A list, along with other information concerning Denver Film and the Denver Film Festival, can be found at denverfilm.org. Look for reviews here of upcoming indie thrillers and other horror-related odds and ends that creep up as part of the Watching Hour.

Plainly spoken, Brad McHargue is one of the most intelligent and well-spoken horror bloggers you probably don’t read, but you should be, devoutly. I don’t say that to kiss this guys ass. He doesn’t need it, and I don’t need to do it. I say it because it’s true.

Here’s a choice encounter between myself and the guy behind ILoveHorror.net:

When Best Buy ran a special that allowed them to sell Blu-ray editions of Grace before its official release date I did what any good horror-loving fan would do… I stormed the castle to get me a copy. But, I was really on the fence about the film. Grace seemed like much ado about nothing and while a lot of horror fans seemed to love the film there were a few who didn’t like it. Among those in the minority were some opinions I really trusted. One of those folks was Brad.

So, pensively I stood outside of the Best Buy store and shot a tweet out into the Twitterverse and asked Brad to give me one really good reason why I SHOULDN’T go in and buy Grace. His answer? “Because I said so.” He continued that I would be better off buying myself a burrito and a beer. And you know what? That’s exactly what I did. I left the store and rented Grace (hated it by the way). And instead of pissing away my cash on a horrendous film I enjoyed a delicious beef burrito with all the fixins and topped it off with not one, but two Margaritas. Mmm. Mmmm…

Now I know you’re thinking this was probably a BAD example of why you should read his blog. (God forbid anyone go against the court of popular opinion) but actually I think quite the opposite. Brad has distinguished himself, as Brittany Jade-Colangelo of Day of the Woman blog referred to him by, as “the man who hates everything”. While the response via Twitter was “Because I said so”, you have to understand – he already had a quite intelligent review posted that went into his thoughts on WHY the film sucked so much. To me, I don’t care what your opinion is, but be ready to intelligently back it up. Brad is always ready to go toe-to-toe.

While Brad doesn’t post everyday you’re guaranteed a well written and thought out piece that entertains as much as it informs. As a bonus he writes on and off for HorrorSquad.com, a site managed by Scott Weinberg, who isn’t known to bring on chumps to write for him.

If you’re not sold yet on why you should make ILoveHorror.net a regular read then you just need to look at the guy. For Christsake – he looks like freakin’ Jesus Christ. And hey, if you can’t trust Jesus, then shame on you!

That’s right. This comes off the heels of some fan mail I received a few weeks back praising my writing and the fact that I “tell it like it is,” or some other generic description about how I won’t pander to filmmakers. I just like writing about horror movies, but I love how I’ve established some sort of persona.

I thank everyone not for just the kind words, but for helping me get where I am today.

Director: Dominic Perez
Year: 2009
Country: USA

It’s fairly disconcerting to see an envelope from the Department of Justice with the word CONFIDENTIAL stamped on it. A shock goes through your system and you think, “I’m careful with my piracy, how did they find out?” But glancing just below my name an address are the words, and I’m paraphrasing, “Please review the film on your site, imdb and YouTube.” I chuckled to myself and remember it was the DVD for Evil Things, an independent attempt at a cinema verite horror film that follows the basic premise of “friends go on vacation, film everything, disappear.” But I digress. Inside the envelope was a DVD for the film and a letter, both of which have the FBI logo plastered up at the top and signed by “the director” Dominic Perez. The letter states that my help is needed in discovering the whereabouts about the missing individuals by reviewing the enclosed film, which was presumably sent to the DOJ two months after their disappearance. I am a huge sucker for cinema verite films, and the obvious comparisons to The Blair Witch Project notwithstanding, I had high hopes for this film.

Evil Things follows five intrepid individuals, Miriam, Leo, Mark, Cassy and Tanya, as they traverse winding, snowy roads to celebrate the birthday of Miriam at her her Aunt Gail’s. Naturally, Leo is an aspiring filmmaker and determined to film everything. As they head up to the mountain a large van starts toying with them, preventing them from passing, flashing their brights, etc. As they continue on their way, stopping at a gas station and a diner, the van follows them, prompting Mark to go outside and attempt to confront the driver when he drives right by the window as they eat. They eventually leave and finally make it to the house. Once there, the requisite strange things start to happen: phone calls, weird noises, etc. A fun weekend in the mountains slowly turns to terror as they realize they’re not alone. Blah blah blah. Kinda trite, right?

The film is problematic on two fronts. It clearly follows the Blair Witch Project marketing gimmick in it attempt to lead people to believe the subjects of the film are in fact still missing. Unfortunately, there’s no follow through on the part of the filmmaker, as he prefers to end the film with a credit sequence that belies its verite nature. Even the website plays into the “missing persons” aspect, featuring interview with friends and family. They clearly wanted to emulate BWP , but in this they came up short. Second, it tries to allude to a supernatural cause, though this is relegated to one scene that results in a quizzical “What the fuck?” expression that takes away from the human element of the film. It also seems to be a blatant rip off of Paranormal Activity, though this is most likely due to the timing of its release.

In the end, I really wanted to hate this movie, but I simply couldn’t. For an amateur film featuring no-name actors, the acting is phenomenal and incredibly believable, as if they just gave them a camera, a basic plotline, and told them to just be real. Nothing seems forced, and the fear seems genuine. Although slow to start, it gives off a “slow burn” feeling, amping up the fear gradually and culminating in a genuinely terrifying ending, which managed to utilize some clever camera work and making full use of sound to convey a true sense of fear. In between the horror were ample bits of humor, including a horrible Jewish stereotype that had me laughing my ass off. The point was to place a group of friends in an incredibly terrifying situation, and in that Perez succeeded.

Evil Things is a solid attempt at cinema verite, however flawed it may appear to be in the end. In a year rife with disappointing indie screeners, Evil Things was a welcome change of pace, and my problems with the marketing gimmick aside, I wish nothing but future success for Dominic Perez. Much more can be said about the film, but it would delve too far into spoiler territory, so I invite you to seek out this film and make up your own mind.

Director: The Deagol Brothers
Year: 2009
Country: USA

Zombie films that portray zombies as more than just ambulatory, flesh-eating corpses are a unique breed of film that, unfortunately, are seen far less than one might hope. While the conventional “group of survivors trying to survive a zombie apocalypse” is all well and good, rarely is a unique enough spin placed upon it to make it stand out from the rest. Thankfully, Andy Duensing and Christopher Doyle, known also as the Deagol Brothers, are doing their part to buck the trend with their coming-of-age pseudo-zombie romantic comedy thriller hybrid Make-Out With Violence.

Two twin brothers, Patrick and the unfortunately named Carol, and their younger brother Beetle, are mourning the disappearance of their friend Wendy. Although all friends, Patrick feels affected the most due to his unrequited love for her. After an exhaustive search, she is presumed dead and an “empty casket” funeral is held so those who loved her, which includes her best friend Addy, boyfriend Brian and Addy’s friend Anne, could say their goodbyes. Shortly after the funeral, however, Carol and Beetle, exploring for cicadas in a field, stumble across an unexpected discovery: Wendy, tied to a tree, and seemingly neither alive nor dead. Instead of calling the authorities, they take her to the empty house of a friend and attempt to revive her through a number of natural and unnatural means. Awkward realizations and genre confusion ensue.

(Read the rest of the review at Horror Squad)

The Top 10 9 Horror Films of 2009

9. Zombieland I’m hesitant to include this on the list, as I don’t really feel it’s a horror movie, but a comedy with horror elements. It was also one of the funniest movies to come out all year, and it includes zombies, so it’s worthy of distinction. While most horror comedies tend to start off strong and then stray into serious territory, Zombieland managed to remain consistent, injecting plenty of humor throughout, even during the sentimental moments. I was grateful enough to catch a premiere screening at Fantastic Fest in Austin back in September, and hearing Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, and the hot chick from Superbad talk about their experience on the film and answer questions from the fans made me appreciate their performances that much more.  As soon as I’m no longer poor, the DVD will grace my shelf. So, you know, buy it for me.

8. Orphan I’m clearly in the minority among most of my friends, but I loved Orphan. It was creepy, suspenseful, and featured the adorable Arianna Engineer as Vera Farmiga’s youngest daughter. Isabelle Fuhrman played the titular character perfectly and was intensely creepy throughout, especially during the big twist ending. From my review, because I’m way too lazy to think of something new to type up: The fear didn’t come from fleeting scares like or a hackneyed score, but from pure, unbridled, nervous tension, an aspect lost on most contemporary thrillers.

7. Doghouse This film was unknown to me until I went to Fantastic Fest, where it screened twice with writer/director Jake West in attendance. Not only is he one of the nicest people I have ever met (he gave me boxing lessons before I got my ass beat by a black lesbian), but he made a fantastic horror comedy. Described in my review as “one of the most fun and engaging experiences you can have in a movie theater this year,” it seamlessly blended humor and horror, featured stellar zombie effects, and gave us another great UK flick with Danny Dyer. Whether or not this film will get a decent release is beyond me, but here’s hoping it gets a US DVD release soon (it was made available on October 9th in the UK).

6. Last House on the Left I hated the original Wes Craven classic. While indeed shocking, it was boring, drawn out, and featured the worst possible choices in music I have ever seen in a horror film. Taking this into account, and the fact that it’s a remake, I did not have high hopes for this one. Surprisingly, I found this redux to be incredibly brutal, with all the cheesiness that plagued the original stripped out in favor of all the tension and terror you would come to expect in a film about two girls viciously beaten and raped. Save for a slightly ridiculous yet delightfully bloody ending, it managed to restore my faith, however minor, in the state of horror remakes today. The very fact that a remake made this list surprised the shit out of me, but stranger things have happened.

5. Trick ‘r Treat I want to admit something to you: when I first saw Trick ‘r Treat at Fantastic Fest, I knew nothing about it. Given it’s title, I assumed it to be a slasher flick in the vein of Black Christmas or April Fool’s Day, and as a result was expecting the worst. Because of this, throughout a good portion of the movie I was REALLY FUCKING CONFUSED. Yes, it looks pretty, but what’s with the disjointed plot. Then it dawned on me that it was an anthology and I felt like an idiot. Once all the pieces fell into place, I realized how utterly original and brilliant the film was. The film had an even greater impact on me when writer/director Michael Dougherty spoke to the audience and revealed why he made the film. “True” Halloween movies are few and far between, but Dougherty got down to the nitty gritty and crafted an exceptional film, and one that will hopefully make the sack-headed “Sam” a new holiday icon.

4. Carriers This “under-the-radar” post-apocalyptic thriller probably had “zombie” written all over it, but looks can be deceiving. There was nary a zombie in the film, and while the film basically got fucked in terms of a release, it has managed to receive a bit a buzz, ensuring a solid return on DVD (at least among horror films). It managed to take the tired and often overbearing concept of a “group of people trying to survive….something” and make it into a solid, bleak and downright disturbing thriller. Word even has it that a limited edition German box set will be available sometime early next year, so keep your eyes open for that.

3. [REC]2 Everyone liked the first installment in this off-the-fucking-chain cinema verite powerhouse from Spain. I have a feeling that once the majority of people see [REC]2, they’ll be clamoring for a third one. I described it as “the best first person shooter I’ve ever seen,” as the impressive use of Heads Up Displays and picture-in-picture managed to make the film not only believable, but fucking exciting as all holy hell. You’re eventually treated to one hell of an ending that rivals the first in terms of fear and intensity. If you have the chance, be it through a screening or getting your hands on a copy of the DVD, see this movie.

2. Paranormal Activity Holy shit, this isn’t number one? You’d think with how much I touted this film as one of the best horror films of the decade that it would earn the number one spot. Paranormal Activity is still a phenomenal film, and manages to utilize cinema verite in a way that’s believable and non-vomit inducing, all while actually providing a heaping dose of fear. It proves that you don’t need a huge budget to make a great and terrifying horror film, just a an idea, some actors and a camera. In fact, Paranormal Activity spawned a horror movie of my own, which I working on with a fellow horror blogger. Here’s hoping Oren Peli can emulate the success of this film with Area 51.

…and the best horror film of the year is…

1. Pontypool Yes. Pontypool. This movie is one of the most original and highly engrossing horror films I have ever seen. The casting is perfect, with Stephen McHattie giving an outstanding performance as an opinionated on-air personality who starts reporting on a dangerous outbreak of bizarre behavior that is seemingly transmitted via speech. One of the things I absolutely love about the film is its dialogue: rapid-fire delivery that doesn’t miss a beat and manages to engross the viewer every step of the way. Unfortunately, the film will not be released for purchase until January of 2010, so I have about another month before I can get my hand on this wonderful piece of Canadian cinema.

The WORST Horror Movies of 2009

7. Antichrist I give props to Lars von Trier for crafting one of the most beautiful opening sequences of any film I have ever seen, but that does little to save the self-serving hour and a half that followed. I have no problem with genital mutilation per se, but its overuse was a major factor in my distaste for the film. It was made for von Trier and no one else, and despite the popularity of “Chaos Reigns” (I will admit that was a cool scene), Antichrist was nothing more than pompous bloviation.

6. The Haunting in Connecticut, or How to Overpopulate a Movie with Jump Scares. Also, why the fuck does Elias Koteas keep getting work? This movie was a major bore from start to finish, and I’m not ashamed to admit I was fooled by the trailer. What I hoped to be a taut psychological thriller ended up being mired in convention and featured a lackluster ending that did little to shock or even entertain.

5. The Uninvited Clearly A Tale of Two Sisters was better, but The Uninvited had the added bonus of featuring horrible acting, a hackneyed score and everything that made the original worth a damn. I was the only one in the theater when I went to see it. It had been out for about three days when I did. The only reason I didn’t leave the theater is because I paid for it, and it gave me a chance to pick my nose, an event that was far more entertaining than anything this movie promised. It was too bright and cheery for its subject matter, and who in their right mind thought Elizabeth Banks would be a good casting choice for a horror movie?

4. Grace I hate doing this because Grace this was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year, but Paul Solet’s undead-baby-thirsting-for-blood story of questionable parenting failed something fierce. It was fiercely misogynistic, and while it possessed the potential to be a solid thriller, it managed to get wrapped up in horrible cliches. Despite it, it was beautifully shot and featured great sound editing, but beyond that it was a wash.

3. Drag Me to Hell It’s 90+% rating on Rotten Tomatoes notwithstanding, it took a second viewing of this film to make realize just utterly retarded it really is. Too slapstick to be horror and too many moments of uninspired intensity to comedy, Sam Raimi’s “return to horror” is anything but. The story is weak and predictable, and Allison Lohman makes Paris Hilton look like an Oscar winner.

2. Jennifer’s Body How the fuck did Diablo Cody get so lucky? Juno irritated me because of the dialogue, but given the subject matter it had a quirky folksiness to it. This was just an unbelievable embarrassment. I’ll just let a quote from my review sum up why I hated it so much: This woman has absolutely no grasp on reality, convinced all teenagers live in their own self-involved world and communicating through a made up language indecipherable to anyone with a fully developed brain or lacking the latest book of Cody-speak. Every single line is peppered with faux-teenage slang, itself an affront to teenagers existing on this plane of existence, and spouted out by wooden characters.

…and the worst horror movie of the year is….

1. The Unborn Stick with Batman, David Goyer. Horrible acting, stock characters and a horribly convoluted and ridiculous story resulted in one of the worst movie-going experiences of the year. It was an utter train wreck from start to finish, and it should have never been made. The only saving grace was Odette Yustman’s ass and the guy who played Raiden in Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. And he was barely in it.

Coming soon…

In this I reveal my confession, one I am aware is nigh unforgivable to some: I had never seen Twilight prior to this viewing. I had made an attempt a couple of months back, but roughly thirty minutes in I became so bored and angry with the film I turned it off. This, of course, does not excuse my transgressions, found in the numerous posts in which I heaped a healthy dose of vitriolic scorn upon Stephenie Meyer, her pathetic excuse for literature and the vile movies they spawned.

So I decided to watch both of them, the most recent installment whilst in the company of a pretty young lady. Twilight is, as was expected, a chore to get through. A half hour of the film could have easily been cut out, and I spent most of my time coming up with clever drinking game rules to make the torture more bearable (take a shot every time Kristen Stewart shows anything that resembles emotion). To spare you another negative review, it is, in short, a HORRIBLE movie in every sense of the word. This brings us to New Moon.

First, a minor digression-cum-segue. Do you remember the acting of the children in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone? It was, to be blunt, awful. This is due primarily to the fact that the main child actors were inexperienced, yet we were lucky enough to have this offset by the exceptionally talented acting of Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, et al. With each subsequent movie, their skills improved, with said improvement being visible in the second film.

The same cannot be said for New Moon. Kristen Stewart is a block of wood. She is incapable of showing anything other than mild bewilderment to every situation, be it running into an old friend or being confronted with four werewolves ready to eat your face. Robert Pattinson is no better and manages to bring his special brand of brooding angst to the table. Taylor Lautner was decent, and certainly a better actor than Stewart or Pattinson, though that really isn’t saying much. The best actress was Ashley Greene, who played Edward’s sister Alice, but I may have been blind to her horrible acting because she’s just too fucking adorable. Beyond this, the plot was the mirror image of the first film, with werewolves taking the place of vampires and only a minor shift and an increase in action toward the end. Like the first film, it was entirely too long, plagued by ridiculous voice overs, horribly placed music and so much brooding angst I felt like I was back in high school. The whole thing was an embarrassment of film-making, and it should be wiped off the face of the earth.

But. Yes, but.

I can see why it’s so popular. In between chattering teeth due to the extreme cold front that fell upon Denver and copious amounts of laughter, my movie-going compatriot expressed to me how much she loved the film, despite her admittance that it was indeed a bad movie. When I asked her why, she responded with:

“What girl doesn’t want to be fought over by a sexy werewolf and vampire?”

To this I said,

“So it simply satisfies the 14-year old girl living inside every adult female?”

She thus confirmed my suspicions: the Twilight saga is nothing more than a 14-year old girls wet dream. With this realization (which is clearly not a new concept, but one I feel is overlooked by detractors), most problems that are often associated with the Twilight films can be summarily dismissed as the pompous bloviation of horror fans who fail to realize that the series is simply not made for them. Taking this into account, is it really that big of a deal that Meyer raped vampire lore by making her vampires sparkle in the daylight instead of dying?

If you’re a horror fan and you want to rip apart Twilight, do so because it’s just a bad movie, not because of anything you might perceive as an affront to vampires. It’s become a big deal within the horror community precisely because of this.

This is the problem with Twilight. In the end, all it does it feeds the flames, preventing it from fading into relative obscurity. If you’re going to hate Twilight, do so because it’s just a bad movie, and leave it at that.

As for the books, well, that’s a different story entirely. I’m also aware this might come off as slightly hypocritical, but opinions can change. For example, I used to hate all remakes. Now I hate all but one (Last House on the Left).

In what most sane people would consider an effort to shed light upon this often overlooked subset of horror bloggers, Brian Solomon of the Vault of Horror took it upon himself to create a contest affectionately known as the Ms. Horror Blogosphere, wherein a large handful of female horror bloggers submit their site, along with a photo, bio and the answers to some questions to be voted upon by the masses. The lure of good-natured competition and a modicum of exposure brought in twenty-one submissions, ranging from established bloggers such as BJ-C of Day of the Woman and Sarah Jahier of Fatally Yours to newcomers Rhonny Reaper of Dollar Bin Horror and Nicki Nix of Hey! Look Behind You!

What was intended to be a kind-hearted gesture of appreciation injected with a healthy dose of competition has become a source of much animosity for a number of individuals, most notably Heidi Martinuzzi of Pretty-Scary and Stacie Ponder of Final Girl. It began with a post by Heidi, who for all intents and purposes has built her career around her sexuality, decrying Brian’s contest as a “nauseating attempt at attention grabbing and women-judging” and a “popularity voting exploitationsplosion.” Stacie was a little more supportive, stating that “it’s commendable to draw attention to the fact that there are, indeed, plenty of women out there writing about horror movies,” but quickly slid into the negative and agreeing with what Martinuzzi said.

Much of the anger directed at Brian stems from his decision to include a picture of the writer and responses to a few questions that can, I will admit, be construed as sexist. Of the latter, these question included “Bang, Marry, Kill – Freddy, Jason and Michael” and “If you could have the baby of one figure in the world of horror, real or fictional, who would it be?” In his incredibly well thought out, articulate and most of all humble response to Heidi’s response to the content, Brian explains how they were simply added for the sake of levity and not to prevent it from becoming too “pretentious or heavy.”If the women involved honestly felt objectified by such a ridiculous series of questions, they would have refused to answer them.

Now the controversy surrounding the pictures. Much like Zombo’s Closet of Horror long-running Meet the Horror Bloggers, a picture was asked of the contestants to accompany their bio. Now, if we’re to believe Heidi’s stance on the matter, Brian’s sole intent was to pit these women against each other in a contest based primarily on looks as opposed to writing talent. A few other female writers and some men who are permanently lodged within Heidi’s vagina came to her aid, supporting her sad attempt at drawing attention to herself, presumably over a matter of jealousy. Last I checked Brian didn’t hold a gun to their head, and his request for a picture was simply to give everyone an idea of the woman behind the computer. If any of the contestants felt like including a picture designed to sway the vote, that’s their prerogative. Brian certainly didn’t force them to, and to assume that was his motive behind this entire contest is not only sexist and hypocritical, but a detriment to the good name Brian has made for himself as a solid writer and all-around good guy.

One commenter, who considered entering her own site for the contest, wrote:

“I figured that it was going to end up being a contest all about tits and I was pretty much on the money. I think it’s sad that some of the women in it think it’s okay to be purely judged on their tits rather than on their actual talent.”

Last I checked there wasn’t one pair of tits on display, and if there are, I have to reiterate the fact that the blogger in question chose to send in such a photograph of her own free will. Her entire comment is one born out of ignorance and the simple inability to make a concerted effort at understanding just what the fuck is going on. Is this a popularity contest? To some it might feel like it. BJ-C of Day of the Woman is clearly winning, and while some have alluded to the contest to being a set-up (DotW is the “sister blog” of Vault of Horror), her popularity could just as easily come from the fact that she’s a consistent updater and is passionate about what she writes about. Despite being a really good friend of mine, I did NOT vote for her, and instead gave my vote to The Dive Mistress, who runs the excellent blog Zombots! While some will be objective in their voting methods, others will surely vote for their friends as well, so to say it’s a popularity contest is a bit of a stretch. As with any competition there will be bias, but to degrade it into nothing more than a contest between who’s got a better set of tits is a slap in the face to bloggers everywhere.

Another commenter, this time on Ponder’s website, wrote:

“Pointing out female writers is fine if it’s about the actual writing, because in this case, horror is not always something traditionally associated with having a large female fan base.”

This once again brings up the assumption that the contest is littered with gratuitous tit shots, and that this was indeed the whole point of the contest. Last I checked a brief cleavage shot didn’t drip sexuality, and to be fair, the internet has so much fucking porn on it I don’t think that “a lot of male horror fans who still live in their parents basements” are going to get their rocks off on a poorly lit photo featuring half an inch of cleavage.

One of the things that drew me into horror blogging was the wonderful sense of community. I certainly wouldn’t be where I am today if it weren’t for Peter Hall of Horror’s Not Dead, and all that I can see here is one of the most popular horror blogs on the internet giving a chance, albeit with a slightly competitive spin, to the myriad of female bloggers out there today. If I go back to their site after the contest it will be because I enjoy their writing, not because of their sexuality. All Heidi is doing here is dragging a good man’s name through the mud and inadvertently trashing the very women she claims to support.

Stop being so damned sensitive.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Ms. Horror Blogosphere: An Explanation

Hey folks, B-Sol here with what I guess is an explanation of sorts, and one which I feel is important and necessary. Earlier today, The Vault of Horror’s Ms. Horror Blogosphere competition was the subject of a very angry post by Heidi Martinuzzi of Pretty-Scary.net, which is basically the epicenter of the female online horror world. I was taken aback and saddened a bit by this, and thus the need to explain myself.

Firstly and most importantly, I wish to humbly offer my sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offense at the contest or found it to be demeaning toward the contestants. Particularly the actual contestants, but also to readers in general, whether male or female–and also to those who declined participation, such as Bloofer Lady of the excellent blog Horror Crypt, a great writer who bowed out over some very valid concerns regarding this very issue.

In her post, “New Annoying and Unnecessary Women’s Contest”, Heidi described the competition as “a truly nauseating attempt at attention grabbing and women-judging.” She goes on to write, among other things, that “despite being a contest amongst bloggers, who are writers and journalists, each entry requires a photo of the lady and a bio. Which begs the question – why aren’t they just being judged on the quality of their blog and writing? Answer: because it is never too late to judge women based on their looks.”

Again, I’m saddened that my idea could be construed in this way by anyone, and it’s upsetting to think that this was the unwitting result on my part. This was the farthest from my intention–rather, my intention was to break up the boy’s club that online horror writing can very often be, and to bring some attention to a very talented group women bloggers and the sites they run. Simply put, I was trying to give props to these women, not tear them down, and it’s unfortunate that it would instead be taken in such a way. For this, once again, I apologize.

The bottom line is, that when it comes to online horror journalism from a female perspective, Pretty-Scary is basically the gold standard. And so to be judged so harshly from a source I so greatly respect, is quite a blow, I won’t lie. To be honest, I very much considered inviting Heidi herself to participate in the competition, but decided against it since her site is on a completely different level, and quite beyond the concept of a “horror blogosphere” in my opinion. Heidi and Pretty-Scary, quite simply, are much bigger than my little contest.

I have tremendous admiration for Heidi and Pretty-Scary. Thus it’s confusing to read, for example, on her Facebook page, when mentioning my contest: “While I hate promoting things I hate, I like to promote ‘hate’”–when my own intention was never to promote any kind of hate at all, but rather to give attention and credit to talented female bloggers.

I feel the need to address some specific concerns here. Firstly, it seems that much has been made of some of the questions I chose to include in the interviews, specificially the “Bang, Marry, Kill” question and the “Whose baby would you most want to have” question. These kinds of questions were included to add a little levity, and prevent things from being taken a little too seriously. After all, the spirit of the competition is fun, first and foremost, and I wanted to lighten things up so as to avoid the whole thing getting too pretentious or heavy. After all, this is a blogger competition; we are not selecting a new Pope here.

Further, very similar counterpart questions would certainly have been included by me should the contest have been among male bloggers. In fact, I should point out that the winner of the contest has the option of hosting a Mr. Horror Blogosphere competition, and should she choose to do so, I encourage her to include those very questions.

Again, I apologize if such questions were construed as sexist. I was a bit worried at first that some might think this, and I fully respect that opinion. My intention was only light-hearted fun to take the piss out of the proceedings a bit, but I fully concede I may have been a bit naive in this regard.

Now let’s talk about the whole “picture” issue. Yes, I asked participants to submit pictures of themselves to go with their interviews. Let me explain why. In putting this contest together, part of what I was trying to accomplish was to get each of these writers across as personalities, as people–quite literally, to put a face to the words. I did not ask the contestants to sex it up, or anything like that. All I did was ask for pictures they were comfortable using, and that’s what I was sent. My intention was never to objectify these woman, and quite frankly it does them all a disservice to suggest that simply by their posting pictures of themselves with their entries, it suddenly becomes some kind of meat market.

More to this point, Heidi specifically calls out one of the contestants, Aleata Illusion, for suggesting that sexuality and aesthetics may possibly play a role in the perception of female bloggers more than male: “Aleata,” she writes, “if you want anyone to take you seriously as a writer, it is a bad thing. If you want to be an Internet blog celebrity, which many people do, go right ahead. This will make it easier to separate the women from the girls when we get all that sorted out.” The validity of Aleata’s statement aside, I can’t help but feel that there is more demeaning going on in this comment than anything going on in the actual contest. Again, I only wanted to build these writers up, not tear them down.

Does sexuality play a part here? Are aesthetics involved to one degree or another in the proceedings? I’d be a patronizing liar if I said no. Of course they are, to a certain degree. Although the contest is about the women as bloggers first and foremost, yes, some voters may be motivated partly by appearance, and yes, some participants, to varying degrees, took advantage of their feminine sexuality to help add to their advantage.

But isn’t sexuality part of who are as human beings? And if women–or men–choose to play a bit with it, to have some fun with it, isn’t that their prerogative? Especially within this crazy genre we all love so much, in which sexuality plays such an undeniable role (hence the double meaning of the name “Pretty-Scary” itself)? But alas, these are questions that feminism itself has been struggling with for generations, and I have no illusions of being able to settle them here.

While my apology is sincere for those who have taken offense, I do not find the Ms. Horror Blogosphere competition to be sexist or demeaning. Nor do I find Pretty-Scary.net’s Scary Stud of the Year competition to be sexist or demeaning. It’s all in good fun, and helps bring attention to some talented individuals in the field.

The Scary Studs concept spotlights a different man in horror every month or so. At the end of the year, one of the men is selected as the “Scary Stud of the Year”. The participants come from all areas of horror, and although mainly focusing on those directly involved in the movie business, there are occasionally others like Shock Till You Drop writer Ryan “Rotten” Turek, the October 2008 Scary Stud.

Turek’s entry comes with photos, including this one, accompanied by the caption, “It’s all the heavy axe-wielding that gives his shoulders their excellent tone and musculature.”

Of Ryan, Heidi writes, “He’s super sexy and knows a bunch of stuff about horror films… Ryan proves that with a ‘can do’ attitude, any horror reporter can make the women swoon!… Whether he’s hosting a panel at a Fangoria Convention… or hanging out at local Los Angeles hot spots… he does it being Tall, Dark, and Handsome. Check out our awesome new Mr. October: Ryan Rotten Turek, who graces our site with his awesomely studly and genuinely enjoyable presence.”

Ryan is asked questions like, “What is your sexiest quality? Describe in detail…“; “What’s your workout routine? I.E. How did you get such nice arms?“; “People often speculate on your hair care activities. How long does it take you to do your hair, and in detail, can you describe for us what you do and any product you may use?“; “Say something totally nondescript and diplomatic about other major horror websites… with an underlying tension about how you really think your site is better than everyone else’s”; “When female horror fans see you, would you say there is more of a ‘weeping’ effect, or a ’screaming’ effect because of how much they love you?” and “What’s the sexiest thing a woman has ever done for you?” At the conclusion, she encourages readers to “Give Ryan some sugar, baby” at Shock Till You Drop, or his MySpace page.

Again, it’s all in good fun, and it helps give some exposure to a talented online horror writer. I do not take offense at this or any of the other entries for Scary Stud of the Year. I can only hope that the Mr. Horror Blogosphere competition, should it take place, will be anywhere near as cool.

In closing, I’d like to hear what you fine folks think of all this. Was this whole thing a colossal misstep on the part of ol’ B-Sol? Are you getting a kick out of discovering a bunch of great horror blogs, or getting sickened to your stomach? I sincerely hope it’s the former, as that was all it was intended to accomplish. Making it a contest only adds to the interest and draws even more potential readers to these sites, which was the idea all along. I hope it continues to happen , and again apologize for any offense caused.

Posted by B-Sol at 11:05 PM 9 comments Links to this post

Labels: contest, Hump-Day Harangue, Ms. Horror Blogosphere, Pretty-Scary, website

Boris Karloff’s 10 Best Roles, Besides You-Know-Who

Astute Vault-Dwellers (I know you’re out there) will note that I usually do top 10 lists on Tuesdays, not Thursdays. However, this is a special occasion–namely the Boris Karloff Blogathon, hosted by Pierre Fournier of Frankensteinia. And since I wasn’t able to do it on Tuesday due to Ms. Horror Blogosphere duties (polls now open, by the way, please vote), I’m breaking the rules and doing a Thursday Top 10.

You’re probably reading a lot of posts about Karloff’s portrayal of the Frankenstein Monster in James Whale’s 1931 masterpiece. And rightfully so, this being the week of Karloff’s birthday, and that being his most deservedly famous movie role. It made his career, and stands as perhaps the single greatest pantomime performance in the history of cinema. Yet Karloff was a fine actor who did so much more in later years, and that is why I’m dedicating this list to the “best of the rest” of his legendary career…

10. Gruesome
For someone with his “unique” look, it was only natural for Karloff to play one of Dick Tracy’s trademark rogue’s gallery, which he finally did in Dick Tracy Meets Gruesome (1947)–the fourth and final of RKO’s Dick Tracy movie series (and generally considered to be the best). While not one of his finest movies, it’s notable for the novelty of Karloff as a comic strip villain.

9. Prof. Morlant
The Ghoul (1933) is often referred to as the film that kicked off the British horror film tradition, and what better way to do so than with Karloff as a vengeful Egyptologist back from the dead. Amongst a stellar cast including Cedric Harwicke, Ernest “Dr. Pretorius” Thesiger and a young Ralph Richardson, Boris still stands out.

8. Dr. Fu-Manchu
Politically correct, shmolitically shmorrect. Karloff shines as the devious Mandarin mastermind in The Mask of Fu Manchu (1932). Unlike Christopher Lee, who played the part several times in the 1960s for Hammer, this was Karloff’s only appearance as the good doctor–Paramount’s answer to the successful early 1930s MGM series starring Warner Oland.

7. Master George Sims
For the last of his Val Lewton trilogy, Bedlam (1946), Karloff plays the corrupt, sniveling director of the titular mental institution. By turns sadistic, manipulative and cowardly, he excels as the true highlight of one of Lewton’s drier efforts. Plus, it’s just very cool to see him stomping around in 18th century garb.

6. Dr. Gustav Niemann
The least known and appreciated of Karloff’s parts for Universal’s monster series, which is unfortunate. As the proverbial “mad scientist” in House of Frankenstein (1944), Karloff is deliciously evil, proving–more than a dozen years after kicking off the series in the role of the Monster–that he still had it. He also gets a kick-ass hunchback assistant in J. Carrol Naish.

5. The Grinch
You had to know it was coming, and no, this is not a mere sentimental favorite from childhood. Anyone who’s seen Chuck Jones’ immortal animated TV special How the Grinch Stole Christmas (1966) can vouch for just how remarkable Karloff is as the voice of the green guy. So much so, that Jim Carrey hamfistedly aped him in the abysmal 2000 live action adaptation.

4. Hjalmar Poelzig
With a name like that, he better be good–and Karloff is much more than that in The Black Cat (1934) arguably the greatest of his team-ups with fellow monster legend Bela Lugosi. Boris plays a sinister Satan-worshipper (with a very rad haircut, I might add)–quite a daring part which would soon become dicier territory thanks to the rise of the Hays Committee.

3. Imhotep/Ardath Bay
Karloff’s “other” great Universal monster role, and you might be surprised that it’s not my number one here. As excellent as he is in the dual starring role of The Mummy (1932), I would argue that this particular Uni effort is one of the studio’s more overrated. In particular, there are two other Karloff roles I personally prefer. And they are…

2. Jonathan Brewster
This one’s kind of tricky. The unforgettable role was written for Karloff, who played it on Broadway in 1941 to rave reviews. Preferring to support the stage production, however, he declined to play the part in the film version. He did, however, play it in three different TV versions in 1949, 1955 and 1962. I love this character, and rank it high based on the legendary word-of-mouth regarding Karloff’s performance. Had I been fortunate enough to see it live, I would have easily placed it at number one.

1. Cabman John Gray
Having said that, the role I do choose for number one is this one, from the first of his Lewton films, The Body Snatcher. As I elaborated in my recent review of the movie, Karloff is simply awe-inspiring as the menacing John Gray. But this is no two-dimensional villain part–rather, it’s a complex and nuanced performance which Karloff digs into with great gusto. For my money, this is his finest hour outside of his iconic role as the Monster in the first three Frankenstein pictures. Simply puy, it is classic Karloff.

Posted by B-Sol at 12:29 PM 3 comments Links to this post

Labels: Boris Karloff, Boris Karloff Blogathon, list

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Ms. Horror Blogosphere 2009: Let the Voting Begin!!

After weeks of spotlighting the candidates, the time is finally here. Voting is now officially open for Ms. Horror Blogosphere! Please find the ballot containing all the nominees at the very top of the right-hand sidebar.

The voting period will be ten days, ending on Friday, December 4. Voters are limited to one vote apiece. The top five vote-getters will then advance to the next level of the contest. A new vote will then be held, lasting five days, after which the official winner of Ms. Horror Blogosphere 2009 will be announced.

For anyone who may be interested in directing voters to the poll from their own site, feel free to grab the official voting banner above the poll, and link it to The Vault of Horror (http://thevaultofhorror.net).

Also, I have an extra added incentive to announce. The winner of the contest not only gets bragging rights and the right to display the nifty Ms. Horror Blogosphere 2009 on her site–she will also get to choose an honest-to-goodnes prize. It will be her choice between the excellent coffee-table book Hammer Glamour, or the Max Brooks graphic novel The Zombie Survival Guide: Recorded Attacks.

Thanks again to all our very talented entrants, as well as to all you voters out there. Once again, here are the links to each of the nominated blogs are below. You can find the spotlight interview for each of the nominated bloggers by scrolling down to previous Vault posts…

• Aleata Illusion: GoreGoreDancer’s Movie Reviews
• Alison Nastasi: The Screamstress
• Andre Dumas: The Horror Digest
• B-Movie Becky: The Horror Effect
• BJ-C: Day of the Woman
• Chris Hadden: Fascination with Fear
• The Divemistress: Zombots!
• Emily I.: The Deadly Doll’s House of Horror Nonsense
• Heather Santrous: Mermaid Heather
• Jennifer Golden: Zombies Are Magic!
• Kitty LeClaw: Killer Kittens from Beyond the Grave
• Maweanne: The Spooky Brew
• Monster Scholar: Monster Land
• Ms. Harker: Musings Across a Continuum
• Nicki Nix: Hey! Look Behind You!
• Nos: Confessions of a Gore Whore
• Rhonny Reaper: Dollar Bin Horror
• Sarah Jahier: Fatally Yours
• Tara Judah: Midnight Movie Review
• Tenebrous Kate: Love Train for the Tenebrous Empire
• Wednesday’s Child: In It for the Kills

Posted by B-Sol at 1:38 PM 7 comments Links to this post

Labels: contest, Ms. Horror Blogosphere

Ms. Horror Blogosphere: Entry #21

Blogger: Jennifer Golden
Blog: Zombies Are Magic!

I’m a mild-mannered working girl (not that kind) from Palo Alto, California. I have loved horror since I was a little girl. My parents were horror fans, and I would throw a fit if they didn’t let me watch whatever nasty VHS they had brought home for the weekend. I grew up on Hellraiser, Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, and any zombie film my parents could get their hands on. Being a class-A scaredy cat I also had numerous dreams about these monsters I grew up with, especially Romero’s Zombies (hence the name of my blog: Zombies are Magic–because they are). Two discoveries let my inner horror geek blossom as an adult: Universal Monster Movies and the work of H.P. Lovecraft. Since then, I have started to embrace the monsters that once (and still do) haunt my dreams. When I grow up I want to be a horror writer, but for now I am content writing reviews for films like Cannibal Holocaust.

Are significant others generally freaked out or psyched by your horror proclivities?
My husband is very supportive, even though he doesn’t care for horror himself. Others are more surprised than freaked out, probably because I look like a librarian.

Why is it that there seems to be more female horror fans than ever before? Are more women watching horror, or are more women admitting to watching horror?
Women have always loved horror, but now that more of us are “out of the closet” so to speak, we are letting our horror freak flags fly. Horror lets people experience emotions that we normally wouldn’t. It’s exciting, and for me that is the appeal.

How would you best describe your blog?
Profanity-laden.

Is image more important for female horror bloggers than male? If so, why?
Only if you insist it be. I think it would be hard to tell if my blog was written by a man or woman if it wasn’t for the cat pictures or constant apologies to my husband.

If you could have the baby of one figure in the world of horror, real or fictional, who would it be? Not including Bruce Campbell/Ash…
David Cronenberg, Clive Barker, Sam Raimi, Joe Hill, Neil Gaiman, Dr. Frankenstein as played by Colin Clive… Obviously I have never thought about this before….

Why do all of you like Campbell so much, anyway?
Pretty simple. It’s the chin.

Posted by B-Sol at 7:43 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: contest, Ms. Horror Blogosphere, website

Monday, November 23, 2009

Ms. Horror Blogosphere: Entry #20

Blogger: Kitty LeClaw
Blog: Killer Kittens from Beyond the Grave

“A cat as black as blackest coal is out upon her midnight stroll. Her steps are soft, her walk is slow, her eyes are gold, they flash and glow. And so I run, and so I duck. I do not need her black-cat luck.”
KKFBTG is a sexy scream dream of horror hotness, chock-full of tasteful T&A and gore, movies, comics, poetry and more… a juicy blog for anyone possessing a serious taste for all things pussy gato.

What initially drew you to the horror genre?
I love the feeling of being scared. The rush of adrenaline, the pounding of the heart, the quickening of the breath–all of these are sensations which I have a profound level of appreciation for. I have never been particularly sporty, so I guess I need to get the blood pumping, somehow! I’ve always loved watching scary movies, and devoured books on the paranormal when I probably should have been reading Nancy Drew novels. It came as a complete surprise to me that not everyone shared my affinity for the things that go “bump!” in the night. I always took great pride in being the sort of kid who could outlast all her friends in a late-night horror movie marathon.

Are significant others generally freaked out or psyched by your horror proclivities?
I tend to discriminate against people (significant others included) who aren’t into horror, thus robbing them of the opportunity to discriminate against me because I am!
I guess you could say that I’m very “out” about my interests in the spooky stuff. My apartment is nowhere near child safe. It’s not even parent safe! Oh, all the unholy things my poor, Catholic parents have to see when they come for a visit! I have found that it’s not just my Mom and Dad who are a little freaked out by my horror sensibilities, but the general public, as well. The Repair Guy always has to make a rude comment before fixing the furnace…
As a rule, I don’t think that guys really like it when a girl is scarier than they are. Draw your own conclusions.

What made you decide to blog?
I love writing, and I love horror, so joining the “Blogosfear” was a good, natural fit for me. It’s definitely a step up from the horror/mystery novel I wrote out in longhand when I was 12! I churned out notebook after notebook of a scary story that I pretty much made up as I went along. A group of my friends were reading it as I wrote, so it was really great to get feedback while still in the writing/development process. In that respect, blogging is very similar. It’s the readership and feedback that bloggers crave. Otherwise, we’d all just keep our own, private diaries.

Who is your biggest inspiration?
In terms of me becoming a depraved gore junkie, I have to give my parents full credit. Having no idea what they were getting themselves into, they fostered my love of horror from an early age. I vividly recall watching the movie CARRIE with my Mother, who thought it was strange that the jolting final scene didn’t send me sobbing into her bosom. Over the next couple of weeks, she brought home all sorts of harrowing titles, in the hopes of achieving a “normal” reaction from her young daughter. By the time we watched THE EXORCIST, it was too late to turn back. I was hooked on horror.
(For the record, The Exorcist scared the living daylights out of me. I slept with a crucifix under my pillow for weeks, and couldn’t look up at a second storey window without feeling like I was going to puke.)

How would you best describe your blog?
My blog’s subheading is: “A kitten’s perspective on horror in film, music, art and literature,” and I think my blog provides precisely that–my perspective (meow!) Admittedly, I’m not keen enough to be hip to what’s happening in horror headlines most of the time. For the most part, I think my blog is like an esoteric ride down a slightly more demonic version of Willy Wonka’s chocolate river. I rarely plan posts in advance. I write ‘em up as I watch ‘em, and I call ‘em as I see ‘em.
I apologize to the English language for the final sentence of the above paragraph.

Bang, Marry or Kill: Freddy, Jason, Michael. Please explain your answer.
I’m only answering this question because it’s a bona fide FREDDY VS. JASON-style trivia question! I’d bang Freddy, because viciously tormenting people through their dreams is HOT. I’d marry Jason, because, of the three of them, I think he has the softest heart. I would kill Michael Myers, because it’s been a really long time since someone made a good HALLOWEEN movie, and it’s a shame, because it was once a proud continuing saga.

Posted by B-Sol at 8:34 PM 2 comments Links to this post

Labels: contest, Ms. Horror Blogosphere, website

Intrigued By Chemical 12-D? But It Now–One Week Only!

Several days ago, you may recall my review of the amazing little underground zombie short film Chemical 12-D, which I so blithely referred to as “Seven Minutes of Zombie Heaven”. The flick screened a little over a week ago at the Zombie Outbreak festival in Chicago, and the buzz has been growing ever since. It’s just now wrapping up a screening at the Tromadance festival in New Mexico.

And now, I’ve gotten word from the filmmaker, Mac Eldridge of Water Cooler Productions, that Chemical 12-D is on-sale beginning today on DVD, for just a one-week period. So if your interest was piqued by my review and you’ve been curious about seeing the movie for yourself, this is your chance. I’ve gotten lots of requests from people asking to find out how they can see it–well folks, now you can.

The DVD is being sold directly from the Water Cooler Productions website, so head over there if you’re so inclined and support this very rare gem, a low-budget indy horror short that is actually very good and made at mainstream professional standards. Reportedly, the proceeds from the sale will be used to help fund the boys’ next film–which sounds like a damn worthy cause to me.

Posted by B-Sol at 4:18 PM 1 comments Links to this post

Labels: Chemical 12-D, DVD, short subject, zombies

Ms. Horror Blogosphere: Entry #19

Blogger: Monster Scholar
Blog: Monster Land

I’m an aspiring Ph.D. student in English with a penchant for monsters and horror films. I wanted to be Anne Baxter as Nefertiri in the Ten Commandments when I grew up, but when that didn’t work out I turned to studying literature. I teach composition to college freshmen, and in my spare time I watch horror movies, blog, lurk and write seminar papers.

What initially drew you to the horror genre?
I’ve always been drawn to monsters ever since I was little and Where the Wild Things Are was one of my favorite books as a child. I began identifying with monsters in high school when the rigor of social pressure made me feel like an outcast. It wasn’t until later that I realized monsters are powerful in their difference. No one can stop Frankenstein, and the Phantom of the Opera will have his revenge. Monsters and horror helped me to see my own difference as a strength, and it’s something that has empowered me ever since.

Are significant others generally freaked out or psyched by your horror proclivities?
I am blessed with a husband who gets me and supports my fanaticism for the genre. After we started dating, he took a class with me on monsters in literature, which earned him brownie points from the beginning. We have an agreement: If he watches horror movies with me, I’ll watch kung fu movies with him.

What made you decide to blog?
I was doing research for a bibliography paper on Frankenstein when I stumbled across Pierre Fournier’s blog Frankensteinia. Before then, I thought blogs were for lonely people who wanted to update the world on what their cat had coughed up that morning. It wasn’t until I saw Frankensteinia that I realized a blog could be a medium for something more serious than the vagaries of day-to-day human existence. I blog about horror because it forces me to watch horror films and have an opinion about them. Also, there are few horror blogs that look at the genre from a critical and/or academic standpoint. Some that come to mind are I Love Horror, The Gore Gore Girl and the Tomb of the Headless Werewolf. I saw a niche where I could contribute my own point of view, and jumped at the chance.

Who is your biggest inspiration?
My best friend Stacy. We met when I was a senior in high school and she was in college during a production of Major Barbara. We were backstage and she was reading a copy of Poppy Z. Brite’s Lost Souls. The director of the play took an interest, and asked to see what she was reading. Stacy handed over the book, calm as anything, at a time when I was ashamed to be seen reading Laurell K. Hamilton in public. The director was promptly horrified at the detailed description of some guy’s throat being torn out, to which Stacy replied nonchalantly “Yeah, they’re vampires. It’s what they do.” She was so fearless, and that inspired me to be out in the open about my love of monsters.

How would you best describe your blog?
My blog is a critical examination of monsters with a feminist slant. I am by no means a feminazi, but I can’t ignore how being a woman affects my reading of horror texts. I’m primarily interested in how monsters function as an expression of society’s fears. Horror is a unique genre, because it embodies a return of what is consciously repressed in mainstream culture, from the sci-fi horror films of the 1950’s that represent fears of communism during the Red Scare, to the horrors of Vietnam represented in the monstrous family of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Bang, Marry or Kill: Freddy, Jason, Michael. Please explain your answer.
I would have to marry Freddy because he has the most personality of the bunch. I appreciate his flair for the theatrical, and I could see myself having long conversations with him about Freud and the meaning of dreams. I would kill Jason because he’s been brought back from the dead one too many times and he has mommy issues. That leaves Michael. He’s the strong silent type, and I think I could help him overcome his psycho-sexual issues with a little sexual healing.

Posted by B-Sol at 8:56 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: contest, Ms. Horror Blogosphere, website

Ms. Horror Blogosphere: Entry #18

Blogger: Tara Judah
Blog: Midnight Movie Reviews

I’m a film librarian at 20th Century Flicks in Bristol, UK and also a columnist (known as Videodrone) for DVD Snapshot, as well as a reviewer for The 405. I holds a BA in English Literature & Language with Film Studies, and a Masters degree in Contemporary Cinema Cultures (both from King’s College London). Prior to entering the world of academia, I tried my hand at acting and have appeared in a small number of shorts, features and television.

- Photo (c) Kelly Humphries -

What initially drew you to the horror genre? Though this may sound strange, it probably begins with gangster films. As a child I wasn’t allowed to watch horror films and, as a direct result of my parents’ paranoia, was too scared to watch them with my friends at sleepover parties. But as my love for film grew, I developed a small passion for American gangster films. After a while I decided that if I could enjoy watching that level of violence in the gangster genre without compromising my ability to disavow, then horror really couldn’t be all too different.

Are significant others generally freaked out or psyched by your horror proclivities? No, I don’t think so. I’m of the opinion that viewing is an active cognitive process, and as my significant other knows, it doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m personally interested in acting out any of the things I take pleasure in watching.

Why is it that there seems to be more female horror fans than ever before? Are more women watching horror, or are more women admitting to watching horror?
I don’t actually think that it’s specific to women. I think the overarching change is that the horror genre is enjoying a revival right now. Horror has a strange and complex history, and there have certainly been times when horror fit into a cult cinema category. But as the mainstream broadens its conditions and envelops much of what once was cult, people feel more at ease in enjoying, or perhaps just admitting to enjoying, what it has to offer. Similarly, as genres change and adapt to their audiences over time, crossing into genre hybridity, as we see with the emergence of many horror/comedies, horror/thrillers, horror/dramas and so on, it is only natural that horror would enjoy a wider and more popular reception–though I do think this is relevant to both male and female viewers.

What made you decide to blog? I was so enraged when I saw Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire at the cinema earlier this year that I felt the need to write it down. I had a lot of time on my hands, so I thought I might as well start up a blog and see what happened with it.

How does it feel to be a female horror blogger in a world where it seems necessary to have a beard to write about horror movies? Do you find that you’re not taken as seriously? I have no interest in writing for people who are concerned about my gender, or any other personal identity politics, for that matter. Assessment of written material should always be based on that which is written first and foremost, so if people don’t take me seriously because of my genitals or lack of facial hair, then I can’t say I’d be interested in how they might respond to my work anyway.

Is image more important for female horror bloggers than male? If so, why? I don’t think image is at all an important factor in blogging, though I imagine a great deal of other people do. Personally, I think the content is what matters.

Posted by B-Sol at 12:30 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: contest, Ms. Horror Blogosphere, website

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Ms. Horror Blogosphere: Entry #17

Blogger: Ms. Harker
Blog: Musings Across a Continuum

Who is Ms Harker? By day a professional bleeding heart, by night (and lets face it, that’s the only time that counts) a blooming blogger and horror enthusiast. How did this come to be? I have my Dad to thank for my macabre leanings. We used to sit up at night and watch Twin Peaks together. He indulged my love for all things Palmer, buying me Laura’s diary and the soundtrack. We had running jokes about the owls not being what they seem! He convinced me one night–I think I was about fourteen–to stay up with him to watch the Exorcist. And although I barely slept for a week afterwards, I had caught the horror bug. From there, I devoured the Anne Rice books and sought out vampires and ghosts where I could find them. However, I do have a particular weakness for Asian horror, and of course those of the fanged persuasion, as long as they don’t god damn sparkle in the sunlight!

What initially drew you to the horror genre?

It was a combination of David Lynch and Anne Rice. I was fascinated by Lynch’s ability to highlight the obscurity of daily life but also explore the darkness and sensuality of the ‘other’ and of evil. Anne Rice’s novels introduced me to the more gothic, supernatural side of horror. Although not as hardcore as, say, your Stephen Kings and Clive Barkers of the literary genre, the lure of the supernatural and the dynamics of Rice’s characters and their covens are responsible for my being the fangbanger I am today!

Why is it that there seems to be more female horror fans than ever before? Are more women watching horror, or are more women admitting to watching horror?
Interesting question. I could get all hairy legged feminist on you (by the way, I wax regularly) and say that women are increasingly doing a lot of things that are not typically seen as ‘female’ roles due to breaking through a variety of glass ceilings, shredding our heads in the process and emerging in bloody glory, pieces of skull showing, shaking off the penile oppression we have suffered for years. But I won’t. I have many female friends who have enjoyed horror from an early age and still do. Perhaps it’s a generational thing. Maybe its the phenomenon of blogging that has allowed women to have a voice on what has typically been a male domain. You have to admit that production companies are onto it–things like Twilight (disgustingly), The Vampire Diaries and True Blood are not pitched at the fellas!

Who is your biggest inspiration?
If we are talking graphic novels, it would have to be fellow Aussie Ben Templesmith. If we are talking writing, I still have a huge respect for Anne Rice despite her going into the light, shall we say. However, the obvious legend of all things fanged is Bram Stoker’s Dracula, of which I have one normal copy and one illustrated by the aforementioned Ben Templesmith! With films, it’s a tie between David Lynch and Tim Burton. All have created images and worlds of darkness, of the obscure or the supernatural; all in ways that have influenced what I read, watch and even how I write.

How would you best describe your blog?

My blog looks at whatever tickles my fancy or has me reaching for my smelling salts in the horror genre. It has at times a little bit of sass, a little bit of raunch, and sometimes it bites. Its a horror blog with a little bit of slap and tickle!

Is image more important for female horror bloggers than male? If so, why?

I think it is. However, if you don’t have the content, the horror knowledge and a well rounded argument to back up that ample bosom (placed in a tightly strung corset), then no matter how good your rack is, I don’t think the horror community will pay attention for long. Sex and horror have always been intertwined, so I don’t feel any need to justify the use of feminine wiles or sensuality, and would welcome those bloggers of the male gender to do the same, as long as it’s done tastefully and with class. Maybe trim the beard though… a little man-scaping never hurt anyone did it?

If you could have the baby of one figure in the world of horror, real or fictional, who would it be?

See, now this is a conundrum. I think there are two figures I would be caught between, or would like to be caught between–Johnny Depp and Eric Northman.

Even writing that, I need to take a minute!

However, I don’t really want a half-ling baby, so it would have to be Johnny Depp. Handsome, suave and a bit of a kook, what’s not to like?

Posted by B-Sol at 6:22 PM 3 comments Links to this post

Labels: contest, Ms. Horror Blogosphere, website

Ms. Horror Blogosphere: Entry #16

Blogger: Heather Santrous
Blog: Mermaid Heather

I’m 22 and fresh out of college. Ever since I took a chemistry class in high school, and discovered I was good at it, I have wanted to use it in forensic science. I don’t know if this is an extension of my love for horror movies or not. I do watch some films from this view point at times. Six months out of college, I have managed to find a job in a forensics lab at last. This has made me cut back on my blog some, but I am sure I will find the time again once I get into the swing of things. I have always been big into swimming–I know that “mermaid” is a cheesy nickname, but I have been called that for a long time now. It is often said I am the happiest when in the water, so I’m told I should have been a mermaid in life.

What initially drew you to the horror genre?
I can blame my dad. When I was little, I was too afraid to watch scary movies. I would try sometimes, but always chicken out at some point in the movie. I remember trying to watch The Shining on TV one day, but every time I thought something scary was about to happen, I would leave the room. Then one day, I think when I was around the age of 10, my dad wanted to watch a movie with me. He would not tell me anything about the movie, except that it was called Halloween. From the title alone, I had a feeling it was going to be scary, but I went with my dad to watch it anyway. I managed to sit through the whole movie for once, and we had a talk about it after that. Even though I would still get scared by horror movies, I was no longer afraid to watch them.

Why is it that there seems to be more female horror fans than ever before? Are more women watching horror, or are more women admitting to watching horror?
I think we have always been out there, but we are starting to let guys know that they aren’t the only ones that like the genre. That being said, I have never heard a guy refuse to watch a horror movie. I still run across some women that will say they can’t watch horror movies because they gives them nightmares. So there is still something of a gap there.

What made you decide to blog?
My blog actually started as a class project. In my freshman year of college, we were told to make a blog and write about anything we wanted. The purpose was to see how well we could write. I made “mermaid heather” right away, thinking that I would be writing about swimming. Swimming has always been my first love, so seemed like the best thing to write about. After I made the blog though, I got to thinking about it. I decided that writing about swimming would be rather boring. I had been reading the “Final Girl” blog before this, and I thought that horror was something that I loved as well. I figured I would try my hand at it, which didn’t start off so well, and see where it took me. I have been doing it ever since, heading into five years now.

Who is your biggest inspiration?
I don’t aspire to become an actress or anything like that, but if I had to pick one to look up to, I would have to choose Christina Ricci. She is just an awesome actress no matter which genre she is in. I think Stacie, the woman behind “Final Girl”, has inspired a lot of us, including myself.

Bang, Marry or Kill: Freddy, Jason, Michael. Please explain your answer.
Such an odd question. I think I would have to kill Freddy. He’d rather be in my dreams, so rather hard to have a sex life. I would have to kill Jason as well–he never sticks around except to kill. It also depends on which Jason, too. If we are talking the zombie Jason, then eww. Michael, on the other hand, will sometimes stand around being the silent type. I like that in a guy sometimes. The mask gives him an air of mystery, also. Mystery can be a lot of fun, so I can see myself wanting to marry him.

If you could have the baby of one figure in the world of horror, real or fictional, who would it be?
This is an easy question for me. I usually talk more about the women in the films I watch, instead of the guys. But there has been one guy though that really stands out to me, Shane Brolly. Shane plays Kraven in the Underworld films. I have thought of other actors as sexy before, but I have to say that Shane is the only one I would sleep with at the drop of a hat. He is just so sexy.

Posted by B-Sol at 12:00 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: contest, Ms. Horror Blogosphere, website

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Ms. Horror Blogosphere: Entry #15

Blogger: Sarah Jahier
Blog: Fatally Yours

Sarah took the horror world by storm back in 2005, when she debuted Fatally-Yours.com. It is now the go-to site for all things horror, covering everything from independent to mainstream horror films; from music and books to horror products and clothing companies, as well as featuring interviews with the big names and up-and-comers in horror.
Sarah prides herself on giving honest reviews for the genre she so loves. Everything is done “for the love of horror” (the motto and tagline of Fatally-Yours.com) and in an effort to truly represent all the great (and not-so-great) horror that is out there!
Sarah is also proud to represent a growing number of women who have taken up horror’s banner, and isn’t afraid to fight for the genre she is so obsessed about!

Are significant others generally freaked out or psyched by your horror proclivities?
Most people find it very unique and interesting, but I’ve definitely had my fair share of “you do what?!” conversations. I just have to explain to them that watching horror is such a cathartic experience where fear is felt in a safe environment, much like a rollercoaster. Through a controlled environment, you can get an adrenaline rush and run a gamut of emotions, but still know you are safe! My significant other has been very supportive of me and loves that I love horror and can school him any day!

Why is it that there seems to be more female horror fans than ever before? Are more women watching horror, or are more women admitting to watching horror?
Interesting question, but I think there have always been a large number of women who love horror, I just don’t think they were really given any attention by movie studios or the media in general. And now, of course, women have the ability to share their love of the genre online. I’ve seen such a wonderful increase in women writers writing about the genre we all love, which I think is just amazing!

Who is your biggest inspiration?
All the women horror bloggers that came before me, especially Heidi Martinuzzi of Pretty-Scary.net. She really emphasized that women in horror have been overlooked for a long time, and her site is all about showcasing the women in the genre. She is an amazing woman, and gave me an opportunity to write for Pretty-Scary, which gave me a lot of experience for running and writing for Fatally-Yours.

Is image more important for female horror bloggers than male? If so, why?
In a perfect world, a woman’s writing would speak for itself and image wouldn’t matter, but unfortunately, in our world, sex still sells. The image of female journalists matter to a certain extent, because it seems like the majority of horror fans are still male. But I suppose it all boils down to how a particular female writer wants to be viewed.
As for myself, I didn’t start Fatally-Yours with the intention to get famous, I just wanted an outlet where I could write about my passion, the horror genre. So I don’t place a big emphasis on image. Other writers place a large deal of emphasis on their image, but I think it all comes down to the writing and if it’s any good. If it’s good, people will keep coming back no matter your image! If it’s bad… well, then you won’t get much credibility. I definitely think your writing should come way ahead of your image.

If you could have the baby of one figure in the world of horror, real or fictional, who would it beains ho

Director: Kevin Hamedani
Year: 2009
Country: USA

Zombie comedies, heretofore known as “zombedy,” are all the rage these days. Zombieland tore up the box office and resulted in a weird cult of Woody Harrelson (I still say his best role is as Woody on Cheers), while Doghouse, though relatively unseen outside the festival circuit and the U.K., blew me away with its unique brand of humor that failed to miss a beat. Kicking off the new decade with a slot on After Dark’s 8 Films to Die For is Kevin Hamedani’s Zombies of Mass Destruction, a zombedy with a political bend it wears on its blood-soaked sleeve.

Zombies of Mass Destruction takes your standard “group of people trying to survive a zombie outbreak” trope and layers it with a heaping plate of social and political commentary. Iranian-American Frida has recently returned home from Princeton to only be met with ignorant yet neighborly racists and her devoted Muslim father. Meanwhile, couple Tom and Lance have arrived from the big city to reveal to Tom’s mother that he’s gay. To make matters worse, a zombie outbreak has inexplicably cropped up. As they struggle to survive, the zombies become the least of their worries as they face rampant racism and religious persecution that has come to typify the small town they tried to leave behind.

(Read the rest of the review at Horror Squad)

Wait, what?

Several days ago a debate raged on for approximately fifteen minutes on the Twitters over the destruction of vampire mythology in the Twilight series. This seemingly grievous sin, which seemed to be focused heavily on vampires that can traipse freely under the warm glow of the sun and, well, sparkle, is apparently worthy of the creation of a tenth circle of Hell. Much of this has been at the forefront of the anti-Twilight sentiment that has proliferated the interblags since a good Mormon woman threw caution into the wind and mashed the keys on her computer until something resembling literature – much like grunting resembles speech – appeared on her screen, and in a way I can get behind it all.

“A vampire without fangs that walks in the sunlight is just another kid at Hot Topic with a HIM album.” -BJ-C

The beauty of the horror genre is its ability to transcend convention. While common vampiric traits are found in all films featuring these creatures of the night, the decision to warp them to fit your own agenda is well within your right as an author or filmmaker. The fact that Twilight is not horror notwithstanding, Stephenie Meyer has done nothing wrong because its HER vision of vampirism and, in a startling revelation that seems to have slipped through the minds of most railing upon the film:

Twilight was not written for us. It was written for tweens and bored women with deluded notions of romanticism and chivalry, so our endless bitching over Meyer’s treatment of vampires is relatively pointless. My distaste for the novels lies in its affront to literature as a whole, and for the films in their utter mediocrity. I turned off Twilight twenty minutes in due to its inability to provoke a reaction that didn’t result in vomiting, and then there’s this post, which brought defenders of the phenomenon affectionately dubbed Twatlight by a baton-twirling beauty queen (irony is cute) out of the woodwork and criticizing me for criticizing Meyer and her work. Fun was had by all. But I digress.

I could really give a shit if vampire lore is toyed with. It certainly isn’t why Twilight sucks, and it certainly wouldn’t make an otherwise good film a bad one, especially if it was explained. If it can work with zombies (Les Revenants, Dawn of the Dead 2K4, etc), why can’t it work with vampires?

Director: Michael Stephenson
Year: 2009
Country: USA

Troll 2 is not a good movie. It’s not even a bad movie. It is an entity unto itself, a conundrum of film-making that rivals Plan 9 from Outer Space in terms of its ability to invoke unintentional laughter and unforgivable groans. No other film is worthy of the phrase “so good it’s bad” than Troll 2, so perhaps this is why it has become an unlikely cult phenomenon, attracting thousands of viewers to special screenings across the country nearly two decades later. This is what Michael Stephenson, child-actor and star of Troll 2, wanted to explore in his phenomenal documentary Best Worst Movie.

(Read the rest of the review at Horror Squad)

Should this project ever come back from the dead – and I hope it does – one can only hope it involves several musical numbers written by Elton John and Tim Rice and sung by Fabio himself. Queen Latifah and Eddie Murphy should play Huginn and Muninn, while Jim Carrey should voice Loki. Liam Neeson should serve as Odin, and to up the cheese factor use the thickest British accent he can muster.

The plot? Thor pisses off the gods for being a little bitch and abusing his powers so he’s forced to live on earth as a mortal boy. While there he discovers masturbation and Harlequin romance novels. Loki is sent to check on him but they become lovers.

I may have made some of that up.

I’m aware this isn’t horror related, I’m just bored and think it’s funny.

Director: Kevin Greutert
Year: 2009
Country: USA

I have yet to review any of the Saw films. As a whole I do not like them, as I feel they do nothing more than endlessly recycle the same basic premise without ever really accomplishing anything new. The stories being told in between the violence and gore get thinner as the series progresses, the disastrous result of the decision to kill off Jigsaw in the third installment, which is arguably the best of the series. Instead, the series continued, introducing new characters and a successor to Jigsaw, the motives of which are revealed in the fifth installment, considered the weakest entry in the franchise. After watching Saw VI however, the realization that all of this serves a purpose has come full circle, and fans of the franchise are given a stellar horror film and the first Saw film since part three where the plot, as opposed to the clever kills, is the most interesting aspect of the film.

Wrapped up in a not-so-subtle critique of the current state of the health care industry, Saw VI delves even deeper into the motives of John Kramer and this time centering the newest game around the V. P. of an insurance company whose formula to determine who gets coverage and who doesn’t. Without descending into spoiler territory, this naturally has negative effects on his overall wellbeing, as he is thrown into a deadly carnival of mayhem that has come to typify the new millennium’s latest horror franchise.

The success of this film relies heavily on past events, as it manages to wrap up every lingering detail in a tight-knit package without making the same mistakes the prior two entries in the franchise did. The story focuses heavily on Kramer, his motivations, and the role of his ex-wife Jill Tuck, who as largely been a very minor character throughout the series. Saw VI in many ways is analogous to Saw III in that it marks a point where one storyline ends and another begins. Most cried foul upon seeing installments IV and V, as the main antagonist of the film was gone and thus should signify the end of the series. Instead, they in many ways act as a second trilogy, involving new characters and new story lines without straying too far away from the overarching theme of the series. While Saws IV and V were undoubtedly the worst films in the franchise, they allowed all of the elements of the first three films to come together in a solid and entertaining way.

Like most Saw films (the original film is excluded, because that wasn’t acting, it was failing in motion), the acting is questionable but by no means bad. Costas Mandylor, who plays detective-cum-Jigsaw the Deuce, plays his role better in this film than the prior few in which he was a central part of the mayhem, though his face continues to be permanently locked in a grimace, which is appropriate for his character yet still mildly humorous. The editing is frenetic as usual but toned down given the nature of the traps, and of course we’re met with one Hell of a twist ending that would leave most shocked when it’s revealed.

Some have been saying Saw VI has “saved the franchise,” which is both a good and a bad thing, depending on your point of view. After part three, we were treated to two subpar sequels that some felt signalled the end of the franchise, only to be met with a supposed saving grace. While this is merely a reflection of cynical pessimism concerning the Saw franchise, the smart money is now on two more sequels that serve as an attempt to jump start a new storyline, only to have Saw IX in 2012 reconcile everything once again. The future of the franchise notwithstanding, however, Saw VI is a solid effort and a breath of fresh air, especially for those who have endured the first five films every October for the past five years. With luck, the momentum can continue and the series can eventually end on a high note.

Director: Lars von Trier
Year: 2009
Country: Denmark

The influence of Lars von Trier’s latest magnum opus Antichrist reaches far and wide. The overarching theme of the film, “chaos reigns,” became the unofficial slogan of Fantastic Fest, and although recently cancelled to legal issues, CHUD.com and IFC sponsored a “make your own Antichrist poster” contest so that similarly disturbed individuals could artistically express their love for what has come to be, for me, one of the worst horror films of the year.

This sort of reaction is not what I would have expected from such a brilliant filmmaker. My experience with the film prior to viewing it was simply reading the words, “Lars von Trier to make a horror film called Antichrist,” and that was all that was needed to get the anticipation flowing through my veins. What we have here, then, is another example of the hype machine working its magic, instilling in me expectations that can in no way be met or exceeded.

(Read the rest of the review at Horror Squad)

In 1982 a Florida clinic received a young man, age 29, who had been picked up by the police in a dazed and beaten condition. He had no ID and was acting in a quite bizarre manner. At the clinic the young man, named Eric, began talking to the doctors in two voices: the infantile rhythms of a young child and the measured tones of an adolescent or adult. According to the “older Eric,” after the death of his immigrant German parents, his stepfather and his mistress took him to a Florida drug dealer’s hideout, where he was rape3d several times and watched his stepfather murder two women.

Ultimately, Eric revealed 27 different personalities, including three females, one of whom was gay. The ages of these personalities ranged from a fetus to a sordid old man who wanted Eric to fight in Haiti as a mercenary. During one therapy session lasting an hour, Eric shifted personalities nine times. Most of the personalities interacted with one another. One personality named Cye was a religious mystic who left comforting notes for Eric. Michael, a pushy young man who loved rock music, hated Eric’s classical music so much that he tore out the wires to the stereo. One of the personalities was a librarian named Max who would signal an imminent personality changed by saying, “One of the books just fell off the shelf.”

Thanks to whatever site this is for introducing me to this.

To get straight to the point, I do not think this movie will be very good, but I do admire MTV for both abandoning their normal tripe and producing a horror film, the caliber of which is far beyond anything bullshit remake that has recently come out (read: anything by J.S. Cardone). The film is (obviously) a send up of that insipid My Super Sweet 16 show, which if the trailer is indication looks to be genuinely bloody and, dare I say, a damn good time. Plus, it’s directed by Jacob Gentry, who directed the second “transmission” of the beyond stellar thriller The Signal, so with luck the humor will be bloody dark and hilarious. Also, ignore the fact that it was written by two individuals whose writing credits are ironically mostly reality shows.

Bonus: the film stars Juliana Guill, who is banging hot and totally got naked in the Friday the 13th redux by Platinum Dunes.

1. If you have not been to Castle Vardulon, I suggest you drop what you’re doing right now and make way to this little corner of the internet post haste! The one and only Count Vardulon is a rare treat in that not only does he cover horror movies and literature, he also writes incredibly long yet hysterical reviews of episodes of popular TV shows such as CSI: Miami and Criminal Minds. Thrown into the mix are his hilarious Saturday Night RapeWatch columns and the weekly AVOD, the internet’s only audio-only video podcast. Run in tandem with the lovely Dive Mistress, herself a shining beacon on the horror blogging community, the AVOD is a hilarious podcast no horror fan should go without. This past week they invited me as a special guest to discuss my time spent at Fantastic Fest. I won’t post it here, but you should definitely go HERE and check it out for yourself.

2. Head on over to Horror Squad, where we’re unveiling the 31 Fates Worse Than Death and other wonderful things.

3. I received a bunch of new comics in the mail, so God willing I’ll be throwin’ some reviews of them within the next week or so. Life always seems to get in the way of what I want to do.

4. Here’s a picture. Enjoy.

Director: Jake West
Year: 2009
Country: United Kingdom

A plethora of zombie films have saturated the horror film landscape for almost a decade, drawing the ire of those who simply want something more than the same ol’ same ol’ out of the walking dead. Every so often, however, we’re given a unique zombie film, be it outright horror or the increasingly popular zombie-comedy (”zom-com”), to satisfy our lust for originality. Sadly, many of these fail to get the recognition they deserve and as such, they tend to make the rounds at film festivals and gain popularity through word-of-mouth before ultimately being released to DVD without so much as a limited theatrical release. With luck, Jake West will buck the trend, as his splatter zom-com Doghouse is a triumph of horror-comedy that takes basic zombie tropes and turns them every which way. The result is one of the most inventive and gut-busting horror comedies to be released in years

(Read the rest of the review at HorrorSquad)

Cabin Fever 2:  Spring Fever (4/10)
Van Diemen’s Land (3/10)
Gentlemen Broncos (3/10)
Solomon Kane (5/10)
Paranormal Activity (10/10)
Zombieland (10/10)
Trick ‘r Treat (8/10)
Morphine (5/10)
Under the Mountain (4/10)
Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant (7/10)
Survival of the Dead (5/10)
Buratino, Son of Pinocchio (6/10)
Rampage (8/10)
The Children (8/10)
REC2 (9/10)
Cropsey (6/10)
House of the Devil (4/10)
Salvage (2/10)
A Serious Man (9/10)
Doghouse (9/10)
The Revenant (7/10)
Daybreakers (8/10)

22 films? Is that it? Apparently you CAN get burnt out watching movies for eight days straight.

Arriving in Austin the night before the fest starts, I was taking straight from the airport to the  Alamo Drafthouse downtown by Peter Hall, wherein I was subjected to Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever, the sequel to Eli Roth’s splatter horror-comedy. Unlike most of those I saw the film with, I did not hate it, as there were some intriguing moments and some humorous dialogue, but I would have to be in agreement that it is most certainly not a good film. Some of the cast was there for a Q&A, which was the most awkward thing I have ever witnessed, as no one wanted to be there. Rider Strong himself actually commented, “I don’t know why I’m here, I was only in the film for forty seconds.”Later that night (I think it was that night), we all went to

Day 1

The next day I watched four films, with only one being classified as “worth a damn.” Van Diemen’s Land was a gorgeous film, yet dragged like no other. The story of the quickest turn to cannibalism in history (I believe it was three days) could not be saved by morbid depression and minute-long shots of a character’s face. Gentlemen Broncos, the new film by one-hit wonder Jared Hess, was pretty terrible, yet had a few humorous moments scattered throughout. Word on the street is that it was the worst of the Fest, though my vote goes to Salvage. Such unmitigated crap, it made me want to punch a baby. Solomon Kane was fun and reminded me of Van Helsing, but a little more intelligent and less vomit inducing. Later, I believe the next day, I was given the opportunity to interview the director, Michael J. Bassett, but passed because I did not like the film as much as my cohorts did. The night ended with Paranormal Activity and it was the best horror film I have ever seen. If you’re lucky enough to find it playing in your home town, take a date with you to see it. After watching it she’ll be so terrified she’ll practically beg you to stay the night. TRUTH!

Day 2

The next day we decided to forgo early screenings and made our first movie Zombieland which was perfect. It was consistently humorous and filled to the brim with delightful zombie action. If you miss it, well, Jesus hates you. The next showing was Trick ‘r Treat, which was a throwback to classic anthology movies such as Creepshow and excellent. The night ended with bullshitting with the director and others behind the Drafthouse. It was over a week ago, so I honestly have no idea what else happened that night.

Day 3

Photo courtesy of Paul Gandersman.

Four movies! The day started off with Morphine, and it being the first film of the day did not prevent my eyes from closing. A lot. While the film was good, it was, much like Van Diemen’s Land, very slow and drawn out. Following that was Under the Mountain a Disney-esque kids film by the director of Black Sheep, a film about zombified sheep. Yeah, I didn’t get the transition either. Sadly, I did not dig the film, and left before the Q&A started. After that, we left the Drafthouse to head to the Paramount downtown where I was privy to two featured screenings. Cirque du Freak was a fun fuckin’ film, yet featured some absolutely terrible acting on the part of the lead. John C. Reilly’s dialogue was incredibly flat, yet he managed to deliver some of the funniest lines of the film. After the film was Survival of the Dead, my review of which can be found here. Despite everyone’s opinion on the film, seeing George Romero speak and handle every retarded question thrown at him with grace and style was a treat. Following the film we headed to the Highball, the the new bar owned by Tim League, pugilist and owner of the Drafthouse, for the FantasticFeud. Hosted by the inimitable Scott Weinberg, the Feud pitted ten Americans against ten “terrorists,” as they were affectionately referred, in crazy horror trivia. Good times were had by all, and a drunk Paul McEvoy almost got beat down by Mr. Weinberg for being, well, a drunk Brit. I proceeded to get drunk and sing karaoke and booty dance behind the lovely Christine Hall as she belted out “Baby Got Back.”

Photo courtesy of Scott Weinberg.

Photo courtesy of Paul Gandersman.

Day 4

Day 4 was kind of weak, starting with Buratino: Son of Pinocchio a bizarre pseudo-musical about love and discovery and other weird shit that would have been awesome during an acid trip. It was followed up by Rampage, the new Uwe Boll movie, which was actually…well, good. Well, about as good as a movie about an upper-middle class white boy killing everyone he sees can be. Although I enjoyed it immensely, my cohorts felt it to be, well, lacking in substance, plot and underlying motivation. Afterward Boll held a Q&A where he rambled endlessly, presumably to hear himself talk. The night ended with a midnight showing of The Children, a spooky and taut thriller about kids who inexplicably decide killing their parents is more fun that making a snowman.

Day 5

Day 5 started off strong with a press screening of REC2. It was by far the best video game adaptation I have ever seen, and indeed a solid follow-up to REC. Following REC2 i saw Cropsey a documentary about a presumed serial killer from some time back. It was good, as far as documentaries go, but overall nothing to write home about. Following that was Ti West’s throwback to 80s horror flicks House of the Devil. Despite my objections to the overall plot and pacing of the film, show this film to someone who has been in a coma for the past thirty years and they’ll think it’s still the eighties. In that West succeeded admirably.

It should be noted now that the day before I volunteered to participate in the Fantastic Debates, a competition wherein two geeks are pitted against each other in both a verbal sparring match and a balls-to-the-wall boxing match, complete with gloves, headgear, and cup. It was revealed that I would be debating and fighting “Chivvon,” a black lesbian who works at the Highball. The topic: Are Vampires Gay? My position: Yes. I didn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of winning this debate. My original stance was the negative, and I had this huge spiel planned on how vampires aren’t gay, but alas, I was to be the sacrificial lamb and was asked to change my viewpoint. Eschewing proper preparation in favor of drinking, bowling and schmoozing with new friends. I stepped into the ring and was RAPED by Chivvon.

Photo courtesy of Paul Gandersman.

By the end, the whole crowd was calling me gay – not that there’s anything wrong that – and I was shamed. Then we boxed. Due to small headgear and a strap that wouldn’t fasten, my helmet flew off three times until I decided to leave it off. I am convinced that it was my defective headgear that caused the audience to think Chivvon won the fight, though word on the street (read: from three people) was that I got a bum rap and was actually the better fighter. It was eventually revealed to me that she was a boxer in the Air Force, meaning God hates me and wanted me to be humiliated. After the fight I spoke with the lead in Rampage, who genuinely thought I was going to kill her, prompting him to ask me if I pulled my punches.

Photo courtesy of Paul Gandersman.

I fucking won, bitches.

I went home tired as fuck and humiliated, but proud for being the only one to volunteer to jump into the ring and be called gay, a bigot and a pussy in one fell swoop.

Day 6

The next day started with Salvage a pathetic attempt at…something. The pain endured while watching the film was exacerbated by the fact that I was in severe pain from a full bladder. After the film I spent the majority of the day at the Highball doing work and bullshitting before the secret screening, which turned out to be A Serious Man, the new film by the Coen brothers. It was, in short, phenomenal, but highly depressing.

Day 7

The second-to-last day of the Fest I had four or five movies planned and I ended up only seeing one. Doghouse, the pseduo-zombie flick by Brit and Colin Hey-lookalike Jake West was excellent and the most fun I have had in a movie in a long day. I have no idea what happened beforehand, and I think I may be getting the events of the last day confused.

Day 8

Photo courtesy of Scott Weinberg.

Before kicking off the days films, we got BBQ at a place called Sam’s. It was awesome, and naturally we got a picture of it. The films today were The Revenant and Daybreakers, both solid films in their own right, despite The Revenant not being completed. The director was, as far as I could tell, drunk as shit during the Q&A. Prior to Daybreakers, Crow and Fox from Antichrist made an appearance on the stage, then ran around the theater as the audience shouted the new unofficial slogan of the Fest, Chaos Reigns. Video of the event can be found here. We were also served half-filled glasses of what was presumably sangria, which I opted out of drinking on account of it smelling like fermented piss. Daybreakers was excellent, and the Q&A with the Spierig bros. afterward made me respect the film even more. A solid follow-up to the relatively lackluster Undead. After the film we departed to the Highball where a vampire party was going on, and after having a beer and laughing at the hipsters dressed as vampires fondle each other (no joke!), we departed to a friend’s house where we caroused and chatted and I fell asleep several times.

Photo courtesy of Scott Weinberg.

I left the next day. The end.

A billion more pictures of the entirety of the Fest can be found at the website of Paul Gandersman. For those debating whether or not to attend the next festival, stop it and just buy your damned badge. I had a wonderful time, met some wonderful people, and you can bet your ass I’ll be returning next year.

I also want to give a special thanks to the following people for making my trip so memorable: Peter and Christine Hall, Brian Salisbury, Luke Mullen, Scott Weinberg, John Gholson, Maxim Pozderac, Toni Salisbury, Devin Steuerwald, Michelle “Last Name Unknown”, “DrewBlood,” Will Goss, Jenn Brown, Hallie “Last Name Unknown”, Dr. Cole Abaius, Rob Hunter, Jason Whyte, Chris Cargill, and anyone else I may be forgetting. I apologize if I did.

Keep rockin’.

Decide for yourself. Thoughts?

Director: George Romero
Year: 2009
Country: United States

The air was thick with anticipation for the North American premiere of Survival of the Dead, an event made all the more poignant by the appearance of George A. Romero himself. Given that his prior film, Diary of the Dead, was (in my opinion) a pathetic attempt at capitalizing on the cinema verite phenomenon and thus a giant middle finger to the horror fans, expectations for an improvement were low.

(Read the rest of the review at HorrorSquad)

Director: Orin Peli
Year: 2007/2009
Country: United States

When I was seventeen years old I saw a midnight screening of the The Blair Witch Project in Sarasota, Florida at a tiny indie theater downtown. After leaving the film I went home to a pitch-black, dead-silent house, terrified out of my mind. Although no doubt bolstered by my post-film living arrangements, much of the fear drawn from that film comes from the cinema verite style in which it is shot. Not only are the characters in the film, but you, the viewer are as well, acting as a part of the story by seeing the action unfold through their eyes. It is real horror, and it possesses all the elements to construct a truly terrifying story.

(Read the rest of the review at HorrorSquad)

Director: Michael Dougherty
Year: 2007 (2009 release)
Country: Canada.

Warning: Minor spoilers included within

I knew nothing about Trick ‘r Treat before viewing it, assuming that it was either a remake of an eighties slasher flick that slipped below my radar, so my enthusiasm for viewing it was based solely on A) its tumultuous history, to B) the incredibly widespread praise it has been receiving by the few lucky enough to see it. Originally slated for an early October 2007 theatrical, it made an appearance at a festival then disappeared, finally resurfacing with an October 6th, 2009 release date. Given the hype surrounding it, it had a tall order to fill, and it did with gangbusters.

Trick ‘r Treat is an anthology composed of four stories centered around Halloween and its various traditions: a principal with a murderous streak stalks young women at a local Halloween party; a group of kids head down to a local gorge to play tricks upon a seemingly unsuspecting savant; a young virgin is stalked by a masked assailant; and an angry old man learns the true meaning of Halloween. All four are tied together with the mystery of Sam, a little child with a huge head covered by a burlap sack mask.

Going into Trick ‘r Treat, the feature horror debut by X2 and Superman Returns scribe Michael Dougherty, I knew nothing of the film and was completely unaware that it was an anthology. As a result, my thoughts on the film centered on confusion and overall apathy, until I finally wised up and realized just what the Hell was going on. My giant gap in intelligence notwithstanding, much of this confusion can be contributed to the incredibly seamless interweaving of the four stories, alluding to one another in the subtlest of way, but just enough to keep me intrigued until the monumentally epic and hilariously grim payoff.

Despite suffering from a few moments of questionable acting that makes the 1980’s-inspired slasher title appropriate, the indivudal elements of this film all come together in a way that is wholly original, creative and engaging. The eerie effects of dozens of jack o’ lanterns leering at the unfortunate victims of the spirit of Halloween is outdone only by the creepy Michael Myers-esque apppearances of Sam. As the film nears its horrifying climax, you’re given the full scope of Dougherty’s vision, ranging from the ripping-off of skin to drowned children. He plays with light and dark, keeping most of the scary creatures shrouded in darkness until the very end, resulting in a darkly-humorous ending.

Trick ‘r Treat is destined to become a cult film, playing endlessly much like A Christmas Story is during the holiday season. It is delightfully subversive, entertaining throughout and providing one hundred minutes of spooky fun, gruesome gore and, best of all, reminding us of the true meaning of Halloween.

Director: Ti West
Year: 2009
Country: USA

Has Ti West heard of Alan Smithee?

Much of the hullabaloo surrounding the non-Eli Roth associated sequel to his horror film debut Cabin Fever is focused on Lionsgate’s recut of the film and West’s disowning of the final product. Apparently his cut is drastically different, possessing a much different tone in the vein of the black comedies of John Waters. While the first half of the film retains this sense of humor, the last half manages to become mired in blood and other bodily fluids, lacking the singular aspect that made the film worth watching in the first place.

Taking place mere moments after the events in the first film, a shipment of contaminated “Down Home Water” has found its way to a local high school where the students and faculty are gearing up for prom. John, who is in love with his friend Cassie, and Dane, his sarcastic, chubby and archetypal best friend make the decision to go to the dance, unbeknownst to them the horrors that await them. Deputy Winston, retaining his lecherous personality from the first film, attempts to flee the city while the students of the unfortunate high school are trapped with no where to go. Awkward scenes involving full-frontal male nudity ensue.

Cabin Fever 2 is wildly divergent in terms of tone and approach than the first film. While it retained the same level of humor, most of the horrorific aspects were gone, eschewing the gradual alleviation of tension in favor of one-half dark comedy and one-half unadulterated gore fest. Scenes were seemingly spliced together at random, drawing one movie-goer to espouse that it was nothing more than a loose amalgamation of four different films. The inclusion of Deputy Winston is incidental, as he served absolutely no real purpose in advancing the plot and acted as nothing more than a reminder that he is one of the most annoying characters in cinematic history. The rest of the cast is interchanageable, with top billing going to characters that are in the film for all of thirty seconds.

Dragging the film down even further was the use of extended animated sequences. While the sequence found at the beginning to set up the plot was humorous and bearable, due in no small part to the song that played over, the one found at the end was a cheap attempt at reintroducing the humor lost a half-hour before the film ended. It was unnecessary and a pathetic ploy at setting up a third film by detailing the spread of the condition outside the po-dunk city in which it was contained.

Cabin Fever 2 is by no means a good movie, but it is enjoyable on a level that requires the bare minimum of attention. Lowered expectations and a bizarre sense of humor are necessary to take away something resembling enjoyment. Unfortunately, the scenes involving gore were less enjoyable than the scenes without, resulting in a slippery and blood-soaked descent into mediocrity. Whether or not this is truly the result of Lionsgate’s interference is anyone’s guess; but to call the film utterly terrible is to discount the relatively humorous dialogue and completely random and vile scenes that pepper the film throughout.

]]> http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/24/review-cabin-fever-2-spring-fever/feed/ 3 http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/23/fantastic-fest-bound/ http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/23/fantastic-fest-bound/#comments Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:37:15 +0000 bmchargue http://www.ilovehorror.net/?p=1689 Updates might be sporadic over the next nine days or so as my eyeballs undergo the ultimate test of endurance at Fantastic Fest in Austin. If you’d like to contribute a guest post about, well, anything, send it to bmchargue@gmail.com. Beyond that, keep your eyes here for reviews and the like, as well as running commentary (if possible) of my first film fest experience.

Except this guy. I met him through his review, which featured the word fuck or its variations an astonishing 229 times, and decided to rebut. He counterpointed. I counterpointed his counterpoint. Fast forward months later. In between sporadic communication, I decided he’d be the ideal candidate with which to engage in intellectual debate over the film. Surprisingly, “fuck” was uttered only once or twice. By me. Naturally.

Vardulon knows his shit. So pop in the flick, crack open a beer and hit play.

Director: Karyn Kusama
Year: 2009
Country: USA

The first time I saw Juno I enjoyed it. It was quirky, fun and sported a solid cast that was in some way well-versed in the art of acting. Even (relative) newcomer Ellen Page was impressive, handling Diablo Cody’s incredibly modern and far from evergreen dialogue with panache, delivering each ridiculous line with a level of comfort that made her perfect for the role. Subsequent viewings were not so kind, as I began to grow bored with Cody’s attempts at being clever and for some reason thinking she knew how teenagers of the modern era acted and spoke. Her sophomore film, Jennifer’s Body, is more of the same yet conspicuously lacking the endearing plot and well-trained actors of Juno, replaced with the end result of a back alley abortion performed with a rusty clothes hangar.

Jennifer’s Body is the anti-male manifesto of Diablo Cody. Megan Fox plays Jennifer Check, a ridiculously named raven-haired bombshell who utilizes her sexuality to get what she wants, including the rights to seemingly have her asshole violated by a contemporary rock band after the bar in which they were playing burns down. After disappearing into the night, where we eventually learn she was sacrificed to the Devil for fame, fortune and a hit song that makes Nickelback look like The Beatles, she returns as a demon, because you can’t die if you’re the victim of a Satanic ritual and not a virgin. It’s in the fine print. She returns as a succubus, intent on eating all the males at her high school for no discernible reason while her nerdy best friend Anita “Needy” Lesnicky tries to stop her. One hundred and five minutes of how not to write a movie ensues.

While the plot certainly leaves something to be desired, nearly every problem associated with Jennifer’s Body can be directly contributed to Diablo Cody’s dialogue. This woman has absolutely no grasp on reality, convinced all teenagers live in their own self-involved world and communicating through a made up language indecipherable to anyone with a fully developed brain or lacking the latest book of Cody-speak. Every single line is peppered with faux-teenage slang, itself an affront to teenagers existing on this plane of existence, and spouted out by wooden characters. While Amanda Seyfriend is adorable, her pathetic voice overs and “good girl” persona is elevated to near Oscar-caliber when compared with that of Megan Fox, a vapid, shallow husk of an actress made all the more insufferable by Cody’s nonsense dialogue. I have seen better acting and more believable dialogue from characters in snuff films. The only tolerable acting in the film comes from veteran actor J. K. Simmons, who plays a nerdy teacher with a hook for a hand with awkward aplomb. Even the usually funny Amy Sedaris, whose role was relegated to a mere three minutes of screen time, was rendered useless by Cody’s stupid fucking dialogue.

The dialogue aside, the film barely stands on its own as nothing more than a loose collection of scenes designed to show off Megan Fox’s assets. Awkward sex scenes between Needy her boyfriend Chip and an extended lesbian make-out session complete with requisite close-ups of spit being swapped and skin being bared. By this point the film had eclipsed just being a “bad” film and is in the running for one of the worst films ever made. Not even lesbians can save it. Throughout the film we’re given a soundtrack hand picked by MTV to showcase just how in tune Cody is with high school students, with most songs appearing at inopportune times or were hardly appropriate for the scenes in which they appeared. Jennifer’s Body lacks anything that can be considered a redeeming quality.

Diablo Cody’s career is a Cinderella story: a writer-cum-stripper-cum-journalist-cum screenwriter who wowed audiences with her feature writing debut and even won and Oscar to boot. To think she could repeat the same success while learning from her mistakes is apparently wishful thinking, as Diablo Cody’s latest film is a pathetic attempt at cementing herself among those with the marked ability to write funny dialogue while still maintaining an air of credibility. In this she failed miserably, dragging the story, however thin it may have been, into the depths of Hell where Diablo Cody’s career belongs.

There is a fate worth than death, and it’s called Jennifer’s Body.

]]> http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/19/review-jennifers-body/feed/ 2 http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/16/bear-with-me/ http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/16/bear-with-me/#comments Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:02:16 +0000 bmchargue http://www.ilovehorror.net/?p=1673 …while I utterly fuck up the design of the site. Trying to make it more….website-y as opposed to blog-y, if that makes sense.

Enter Brian Solomon of The Vault of Horror. He loves Dawn of the Dead to the point where I wouldn’t be surprised if he owned bedsheets featuring the box art. Naturally, he would be the perfect individual with which to wax nerd poetic over static-y and lackluster technology.

A few notes before you listen, if you choose to do: Load up the movie before watching it. Obviously. Ignore my annoying, whiny and shrill voice. My internet cut out 25 minutes in, so I did my best to mix them properly. Brian was watching the Director’s Cut and I was watching the theatrical cut, so a few times throughout we had to re-sync our positions.

So without further adieu: two nerds bitching about Dawn of the Dead. Think of it as one part commentary, one part debate, ALL PARTS AWESOME!

Case in point: the following interview referenced in an interview with Mr. Roth wherein the controversial director defends his choices to that little imp Neil Cavuto.

While I agree wholeheartedly that horror movies can be seen as a means of escape and release, the notion that horror films are made specifically as a reaction to the current political climate is, to agree with Cavuto, a huge leap. Taking every opportunity he had to criticize Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, Roth makes the claim that the recent influx of popular horror films is a direct result of the actions of a few men, in what I can only see as thinly-veiled attempt to defend his own film. Eli Roth once proclaimed that his Hostel was a parallel to the atrocities committed as Abu Ghraib, a bold claim that is hard to clearly see in a defenseless Japanese girl getting her eyeball drilled out by a sociopathic American. When questioned by Cavuto over the political circumstances surrounding the release of Psycho, Roth incorrectly asserts that the film was an indictment of Ed Gein, which is no more true than saying the The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is an indictment of Black & Decker. But to defend the graphic depictions of torture in your films by saying they’re intended to make a point about the war is needless extrapolation to defend your terrible films.

Whatever happened to horror for the sake of horror? Not everything has to be a huge missive railing against something. While they do exist (Dawn of the Dead anyone?) I would have much more respect for Roth if he would just fucking admit his is not.

I consider Brad Anderson to be one of the finest working filmmakers in horror today. No one has a better grasp on how to truly convey fear, terror and emotion than he does, evident in his three horror/thriller features, Session 9, The Machinist and Transsiberian. His next feature is called The Vanishing on 7th Street, and while I’m deleriously excited for it, I am slightly worried, due primarily to the casting of Hayden Christensen as anything other than a stunt double.

I may be jumping the gun here. Anderson did make David Caruso tolerable in Session 9, a feat akin to convincing a birther Obama was born in the US, so there’s no reason to believe he can’t do the same with Anakin Skywalker. The presence of Leguizamo doesn’t bother me, as he can actually act when the script calls for it (he deserved a fucking Oscar for his role as Toulouse-Lautrec in Moulin Rouge!), and Thandie Newton is ismply Thandie Newton.

The synopsis of the film, as per that bastion of horror journalism Bloody-Disgusting, is as follows:

In an instant, Mankind disappears and in a matter of hours four remaining survivors are drawn together to try to figure a way out of the apparent apocalypse happening around them.

Although not written by Anderson, this sort of film lends itself to his particular area of expertise: conveying fear through human emotion and fragility of human nature. To think this won’t be anything short of remarkable is to cast doubt in the wake of a man whose career has been nothing short of remarkable.

But I’ve been wrong before. The Vanishing on 7th Street begins production on October 12th in Detroit, a suitable place to film the end of the world.

Writer: Jeff Lemire
Art: Jeff Lemire
Publisher: Vertigo

I am not an avid comic book reader. The last comic book I read was The Maxx, which I still consider to be one of the best comic books in existence, and that was years ago.  So when I was given the opportunity to read and review Sweet Tooth, the new comic from indie artist Jeff Lemire starring a little boy with antlers in a post-apocalyptic world ravaged by a mysterious pandemic, I jumped at the chance.

The plot of Sweet Tooth, paraphrased shamelessly from the words of Jeff Lemire himself, is as follows: America has become ravaged by a mysterious pandemic, and out of the ashes has arisen a new breed of man/animal hybrid, all of which are apparently unaffected by the infection. One such mutanimal is Gus, a shy boy living in the isolated Nebraska wilderness under the loving authority of his father, who is dying of the infection. After his father dies, Gus is alone, left to fend for himself in the wilderness from the beasts, both human and animal, that swell within. He meets a man named Jeppard, who promises to lead him to safety. Shotgun shells to the head and a bloody good time ensue.

This comic is excellent. While I’m resting precariously on the fence concerning the art – it’s quite good at times, at others uninspired – the writing is top notch, reflecting the naivete of children faced with adversity perfectly. Gus is a unique individual, speaking in double and triple negatives, indicative of his backwoods upbringing and possessing a curious innocence not unlike a fawn. This nearly gets him in trouble with a couple of hunters seeking a live hybrid until he is saved by the requisite “mysterious stranger” and his big shotgun.

Within the pages of the comic itself is a note from Jeff Lemire introducing himself and his comic to the reader. In it he laments the omnipresence of post-apocalyptic stories, yet states, “…there are no tired and played-out stories – just tired and played-out ways of telling them.” This sentiment couldn’t be more true, and intitial impressions are that Sweet Tooth is a perfect example of that. Elements of the The Road echo throughout, but with a twist. Our protagonist is, for lack of a better term, a mutant ten-year old boy with no knowledge of the outside world. He is ignorant, naive and completely reliant on the mysterious stranger who has appears out of the shadows to save his life.

Not much can be said about a single issue of what I hope is long and deeply emotional story. We’re given a basic introduction to the characters and the situation in which they have found themselves, and left with the desire for more. Sweet Tooth is gearing up to be something great, and I for one can’t wait to see how the story unfolds.

Director: David Moreau and Xavier Palud
Year: 2006
Country: France

When The Strangers, Bryan Bertino’s 2008 home invasion thriller, was released in 2008, immediate comparisons were drawn between it and Ils (Them), a little known French thriller released in the states a little over a year after it premiered in its native country. Much support was given to The Strangers, and although moderately popular among the horror community, it has received relatively negative reviews, sporting only a 44% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Burdened by a ridiculous back story, conventional jump scares, a less-than-subtle reveal and Liv Tyler, The Strangers remains the inferior product, while Ils eschews all that makes these films slide all too easily into convention, resulting in a well-crafted, brilliant thriller.

Ils is survival horror at its finest. A young couple, Clementine and Lucas, are preparing to spend a relaxing night with other in their secluded country home. As night descends, their idyllic night is interrupted by eerie phone calls and their car being stolen. After retiring to bed, they are set upon by hooded assailants, who chase them fervently in and around their home until there’s nowhere else to go.

The beauty of this film is in its minimalistic approach to survival horror. Bereft of hackneyed musical cues to warn the audience of imminent danger and stripping down the story to its most basic of elements, Ils relies heavily on the use of sound to convey tension so thick it’s palpable. The clicking noise made by the invaders (the source of which is revealed at the end of the film) and their terrifying bellows as they chase Clementine and Lucas through the woods is genuinely terrifying, forcing the viewer to cautiously peer over his or her shoulder just in case.

The direction and editing are slick, employing muted colors and subtle reveals to convey the notion that our unfortunate protagonists are not the victims of mere childhood pranks. This is supported by the solid performances of Olivia Bonham and Michael Cohen, who manage to display a sense of credibility to their actions by acting how most would in such a situation.  Logic and reason are characteristics not often found in horror films, but Moreau and Palud manage to instill in their characters a sense of believability that throws convention into the wind.

Ils is precisely what effective horror should be: raw, dark, and gritty, carried by the emotion of its characters and relying on a subtle approach to achieve its goal. With a true story as its inspiration, Moreau and Palud successfully translate the horror of reality into seventy-four minutes of brilliantly executed escalating tension, culminating in a twist that only serves to add to the abject horror of the situation. Ils is one of the best horror films of 2006, and it’s a shame it has not received the recognition it deserves.

]]> http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/06/review-ils-them/feed/ 3 http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/05/review-carriers/ http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/05/review-carriers/#comments Sat, 05 Sep 2009 06:00:31 +0000 bmchargue http://www.ilovehorror.net/?p=1626

Director: Alex and David Pastor
Year: 2007 (2009 release date)
Country: United States

Carriers has been the topic of much discussion for many months. Completed in 2007, it took nearly two years for Paramount to release it to theaters. As the trailer circulated the internet and the release date loomed, much was said concerning its PG-13 rating and whether or not it would prove to be a hindrance. Given the subject matter, one would think an R-rating would be necessary to establish its credibility within the horror genre. But gore and foul language are not required ingredients for a solid horror film, and Carriers manages to prove this in spades.

Opening in media res, Carriers finds four individuals driving down a desolate highway. Fleeing a pandemic that has killed much of humanity, the four run into a father and his virus-stricken daughter. Initially refusing to help, a lack of gas forces them to work together, albeit with much hesitation. As they travel they desolate wasteland, they fight infected, survivors and worst of all, each other.

Carriers is clearly influenced by post-apocalyptic pandemic films before it, namely 28 Days Later, of which several key aspects of the film were eerily reminiscent. As a result, the film lost some of its credibility, yet managed to stay afloat, due on no small part to its humanistic approach. With nary a zombie or crazy infected human in sight, the weight of the film rests square upon the shoulders of our four protagonists.

And they supported it well. Despite being, on the surface, your run-of-the-mill “pretty” characters, all but one managed to possess wholly unique personalities that adapted and evolved with each mounting hardship they faced.The sore thumb, however, was particularly loathsome, possessing a conflicting demeanor that ranged from elf-righteous to selfish, carrying only for himself and his immediate party. The infected were the enemy, and when it came down to follow the “rules” he set forth for survival, his adamant approach toward them fell to the wayside in favor of a dramatic finish. Beyond the four Christopher Meloni brought an air of sympathy to the cast as the father who would do anything keep his daughter alive. Sadly, he departed halfway through the film in a gut-wrenching scene topped only by the bleak and depressing climax.

The film is competently shot, and the tension provided by the characters is provided by an excellent score that lapses into convention only very rarely, providing a few expected jump scares. The bleakness of the film reached its apex during the final five minutes, as out remaining survivors reached their intended destination, itself a bittersweet beginning to the end of their world. They may have survived, but what do they have to look forward to?

Bereft of what makes these films slide ever so easily into convention, Carriers brings to the scene a unique approach to survival horror. The virus, although the catalyst for our protagonists’ journey, is merely secondary to what makes the movie so fascinating: real people in real situations being pushed to the limit. Despite a number of flaws, Carriers is a solid entry into the horror canon, and it’s a damned shame Paramount took so long to release it.

]]> http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/05/review-carriers/feed/ 3 http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/03/jennifers-lack-of-talent/ http://www.ilovehorror.net/2009/09/03/jennifers-lack-of-talent/#comments Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:55:14 +0000 bmchargue http://www.ilovehorror.net/?p=1620 The hullabaloo surrounding Jennifer’s Body is predicated upon two factors:

1. The success of Diablo Cody’s screenwriting debut Juno

and

2. Megan Fox

The first one is more or less a moot point. I enjoyed Juno the first time I saw it, then all subsequent viewings rendered me incapable of appreciating its zany dialogue, unbelievable characters and bizarre psuedo-pedophiliac subplot starring Jason Bateman. Despite this, there is nothing stopping everyone’s favorite stripper-cum-writer from banging out a solid comedic horror flick, no matter how ridiculous the plot may be.

And the plot is indeed ridiculous. Utilizing the same theme found in the far superior The Hottie and the Nottiei starring Paris Hilton and the tomboy from Step by Step, uber hot flag girl Jennifer Check, played by Megan Fox has a best friend named Anita “Needy” Lesnicky who is apparently the exact opposite of Jennifer. Unfortunately for Jennifer, she gets sacrificed to the Devil by a rock band looking to garner a record deal. This is totally normal and not retarded on the myriad of levels it seems to be. Unfortunately, high school students aren’t too adept at conducting sacrifical rituals, and Jennifer becomes possessed by a demon with the urge to eat the boys at her school. Anita must stop her best friend from killing all the boys in her school. Girl power!

The ridiculous plot and inane subtext notwithstanding, Megan Fox simply sucks. She is a poor man’s Jennifer Connolly, and she couldn’t act her way out of a paper bag. What are two prior credits? Both Transformers movies. Was she good in them? No. She was eye candy. And that’s all she’ll be in this film.

I’m aware of my cynicism, considering I haven’t even seen the film, but God dammit, I fucking hate Megan Fox. I hope I’m proven wrong, I really am, I just don’t have high hopes. Also, this picture is just ridiculous, and of the main reasons I think the movie will be stupid.

Other horror-themed mash-ups include Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, proving Jane Austen is only tolerable when it contains otherworldly creatures or cryptids; The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Zombie Jim, which appears to tackle the concept of slavery; and The War of the Worlds Plus Blood, Guts and Zombies, which really makes no sense to me ’cause War of the Worlds doesn’t really need the undead to make it more grueseome; Jane Bites Back, which depicts Ms. Austen as a vampire exacting revenge on those who have turned a profit from her work; and my personal favorite, Pride and Predator, a film adaptation produced by Elton John’s company Rocket Pictures, will feature a fresh dose of Predator kicking some 19th century British ass.

Finally, someone has decided to go against the grain and compose a mash-up that has absolutely nothing to with Jane Austen. Combining my love of history with horror is Queen Victoria: Demon Hunter, an upcoming novel depicting “Victorian London rife with demons and dark forces, and a Queen hell-bent on preventing a zombie apocalypse.” Gearing up for an October 2009 release date, U.K. based published Hodder and Stoughton Limited is holding a contest to promote the book, inviting fans to create short films or animations combining horror and history.

Details concerning the contest can be found at We Are Not Amused, which also gives you the added bonus of the first chapter of the novel. So head on over and get to reading and brainstormin’ and promotin’ unique horror literature!

Director: Roland Joffe
Year: 2007
Country: USA

The top ten things I would rather do than watch Captivity again:

1. Eat haggis….before it’s cooked.

2. Spend three hours pressed between the well-lubricated buttocks of two 600-pound Jamaican women while listening to reggae as sung by the Chipmunks.

3. Take a cheese grater soaked in vinegar and rub it vigorously against my manly parts for fifteen seconds.

4. Tell Nickelback – to their face – that they’re the greatest rock back in the history of music, which will not only compromise my integrity, but I’m fairly certain make me throw up violently.

5. Pull my toenails out with a pair of pliers – and eat them.

6. Take a warm bath in a vat filled with a woman’s monthly…visitor.

7. Wax off all the hair on my body.

8. Get a tattoo that says “I <3 Edward Cullen” right on my forehead.

9. Personally insert a candiru fish into my urethra.

10. Two words: gay orgy.

Captivity is one of the worst films in the history of cinema. Roland Joffe, you have given the world incontrovertible proof of the existence of a malevolent deity that wants nothing more than to melt out our eyeballs with the excrement you have foisted upon us in the guise of a “horror movie.” Captivity is nothing more than a vile exercise in torture porn, bereft of anything that resembles a coherent plot and devoid of a single redeeming quality. Shame on you, Mr. Joffe, for creating that which can only be considered an abomination unto mankind, and may God have mercy on your cold, black soul.

Director: Paul Solet
Year: 2009
Country: USA/Canada

*Warning: This review contains spoilers.*

Hype is a horror film’s worst enemy. I have had my finger on the pulse of Paul Solet’s auspicious debut since seeing the poster for the first time several months ago and have been chomping at the bit to see it. Solid reviews, including one that outright stated that “this is the film that the horror industry needs” (I’m paraphrasing of course), only served to whet my appetite even more. It’s success has been driven heavily by word-of-mouth support, and although beleaguered by a few negative reviews here and there, it boasts a 70% rating on Rotten Tomatoes at the time of this writing, which is a solid effort for a freshman writer/director in any genre, let alone horror. Grace, unfortunately, fails to live up to the hype, bogged down by poorly written characters and gaping holes in logic that do nothing more than cast a misogynistic shadow over the film’s lumbering eighty-five minute run time.

Grace opens with Madeline and her husband Michael attempting to conceive. Madeline is a health-centric vegan at odds with her mother-in-law, a prominent judge who disagrees with her decision to see a midwife as opposed to a family doctor during her pregnancy. The midwife herself, Dr. Lang, is an old friend of Madeline’s, whom we learn once shared a romance with some time in the past. After a scare that almost cost her the baby, tragedy strikes as Madeline and Michael get into a car accident. Michael is killed and the unborn child dies in utero. Despite objections from her mother-in-law, the baby is carried to term with the assistance of Dr. Lang, only to reveal that the now aptly named Grace is alive. Although relieved, Madeline soon learns Grace isn’t like other babies. She’s hungry, and not for milk.

Grace manages to wear its concept on its blood-soaked sleeve, eschewing subtlety in favor of explicit attempts at shock value before devolving into a mess of unnecessary violence. Although possessing a solid concept, most of the film’s faults are centered around the poorly written characters and the lack of logic involved in their decisions. Jordan Ladd’s portrayal of Madeline lacks the emotion one might expect from the discovery that your resurrected newborn has an unquenchable thirst for blood, and instead rolls over and simply accepts it. She is incredibly stubborn, and although hints are given in the beginning, from the presence of flies around Grace, her unusual smell and her core body temperature measuring five degrees lower than normal, she refuses proper medical help, instead preferring to repeatedly call Dr. Lang and never reaching her.

Eventually, the sudden realization that her baby is essentially a monster is met with little to no resistance, ultimately driving the film into blood-soaked convention. Madeline will do anything to feed her baby, even kill. As a result she’s seen as weak-willed, exacerbated by her refusal to see a doctor, an act that is in of itself a contradiction of her desire to help her baby. Her emotions control her throughout the film, defying logic and common sense at the expense of her health and the health of Grace. She literally allows Grace to suck the life out of her, and therein lies a major fault of the film. Despite all of this happening to her, she is well aware of the danger this imposes, making several unsuccessful attempts to contact Dr. Lang for help. Because of this, we’re given a conflict of emotions. Madeline’s descent into madness is suitable for psychological horror, yet her awareness of the gravity of the situation implies she’s not as crazy as Solet would like us to believe, which becomes evident in the gruesome climax.

The remaining cast does little to alleviate the misogynistic undertones. Dr. Lang’s supposed lingering romantic love serves almost no purpose in the film as a whole, while her assistant is there to simply continue the direction the story takes leading up to the climax by lying to her, presumably due to jealousy of her lingering romantic interest in Madeline. It’s never explained, and quickly forgotten. Madeline’s mother-in-law desires to protect Grace, yet simply presumes she’s an unfit mother based entirely on her refusal to see a doctor and her absolute trust in the abilities of Dr. Lang. Not unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination, yet nothing more than a weak set up for the climax of the film. Grace is entirely too self-aware of the direction it’s heading, falling into moments of utter predictability before lapsing into nothing more than a blood-soaked exercise in violence, which is the one thing it did not need.

Solet’s excellent direction and appropriate use of sound to elevate tension do little alleviate the glaring holes in logic and irrational actions of the characters. The thematic elements of the story are suitable for psychological horror, yet Solet favored a more linear approach, preferring shock value over an intelligent portrayal of one woman’s descent into madness surrounding the incredible circumstances surrounding the birth of her child. In the end, Grace is nothing more than wasted potential, its success on the indie circuit a sign of the overwhelming power of word-of-mouth.

So after showcasing my insanely large music collection to the inimitable Tenebrous Kate, we decided to send each other mix CDs filled to the brim with horror-themed music. Given my tendency to be lazy and forget things, I was reminded of our little exchange when her CD arrived in the mail a couple of days ago, and let me tell you my friends, it most certainly does not disappoint. Take a gander at this here track listing:

Toto Coelo – Dracula’s Tango
Monkey Farm Frankenstein – 05 Evil Dead
Alien Sex Fiend – Nightmare Zone
Fantomas – Spider Baby
Zombina & the Skeletones – Nobody Likes You When You’re dead
The Young Werewolves – Graveyard of Love
Penis Flytap – Cemetery Girl
Scarlet and the Spooky Spiders – Garbageman
Phantom Creeps – Voodoo Spell
The Ubangis – Sartana Surfs in Rome
Voodoo Church – Live With the Dead
45 Grave – Party Time
Groovy Ghoulies – Don’t Make Me Kill You Again
Gein and the Graverobbers – The Hungry Grave
Deadbolt – Crime Scene
Cult of the Psychic fetus – Coffin Beggar
The Crimson Ghosts – Halloween
Samhain – Archangel
The Ghastly Ones – Flying Saucers Over Van Nuys
Blitzkid – Pumkin Patch Murders
Pyschocharger – Return of the One Percenter
Crimson Ghost – Sons of the Zodiac
Bathory – Blood Fire Death

Given my competitive nature, I have to top this. And top it I shall!

Would anyone else like a copy of it once I’m done? Leave a message in the comments with your e-mail. Free music for everyone!

In the end, only a small handful of films have generally instilled in me a sense of fear. Whether it was due my incredibly young age or the fact that I’m a huge coward is beyond me, as none of these films have a single identifying characteristic that generally spooks me. This is an attempt to flesh it out.

5. Sleepaway Camp The general time period of viewing this classic has been forgotten (I may have been eight, but I think it was closer to twelve or so), but I distinctly remember losing sleep at night over the ending, which ranks in my mind as one of the most fucked up moments in all of horror. Oddly enough, it wasn’t the fact that Angela was revealed to be a transgendered male that terrified me – I don’t think my little brain even really comprehended what I was seeing – but the look on her face and the eerie amalgamation of hissing and growling that she was making as she stood there stark naked holding a knife in her hand. Here’s the video. Have a fresh pair of pants ready, ’cause this is surely shit inducing.

4. Event Horizon Despite being directed by Paul W. S. Anderson, whose modus operandi as of late seems to be bubble-gum action adventure tripe (I read his script for the Castlevania movie – utter hilarity), Event Horizon was scary as fuck, forcing me to sleep with music playing the night I saw it. Its method of conveying fear was seen in two ways: first, the idea of being trapped on the ship while hallucinating, compounded by the fact that Sam Neill’s scarred and burned face kept appearing out of nowhere; and second, the very concept of a place worse than Hell was absolutely terrifying to me. That, and the line “Where we’re going, we won’t need eyes to see.”

3. A Nightmare on Elm Street III: Dream Warriors I honestly have no idea why this film scared me, but I think it might have something to do with the fact that I was an eight-year old watching Freddy Krueger treating a man like a marionette with his veins. That’s enough to scar anyone, especially those with a fear of puppets. Nowadays I just kinda scoff at the fact that it actually scared me, but I was eight, and maybe I pushed it into my subconscious, but I have a huge scar on my left wrist from when I almost had a vein ripped open. Clearly the work of Freddy Krueger disguised as an eight year old girl. Or stigmata.

2. Session 9 I have long proclaimed that Session 9 is one of the best and most effective horror films ever made. This proclamation contains a hint of objectivity, as it genuinely freaked the shit out of me as I watched alone one night. The fact that my dad was in the other room and the kitchen light was on and I’m fairly certain my brother was about twenty feet away from did little to deter me from looking over my shoulder during the final twenty minutes. As Gordon is running through Danvers looking for the source of the noises and Phil explores the underground tunnels, we’re slowly given an explanation for the events that have occurred. The film ends with an allusion to the true reality of the situation, found in the final line, “I live in the weak and the wounded, Doc.” Not only did this film terrify me, but it inspired me to proudly call for horror movies that eschewed convention, preferring instead to focus on the people and mounting tension.

1. The Blair Witch Project Say what you will about this film, but cinema verite can be very effective, especially when you go home to a pitch black house at two in the morning all by yourself. I was but a wee lad of seventeen when I saw it, but its combination of supposedly real events and unique methods of conveying mounting tension resulted in a terrifying experience at the time. Looking back I was one of the few to actually support this film, but one can’t deny the impact it’s had on independent horror and the future of cinema verite film making as a whole. It allows the viewer to get up close and personal with the antagonists, and gives us a glimpse at expressions of fear not otherwise seen through standard film making.

What about you? What movies have actually scared you?

Whether we poke fun at Twilight or remakes or torture porn or whatever, it’s all part of being a critic, professional or amateur. I do my best to approach things objectively, but if a little bias slips in, so be it. Someone quoted Kevin Smith as saying, “If it gets people to read, what’s the harm?” (or something like that). Well, if Twilight gets people to write, then what’s the harm there? I at least try to be funny when I write about it.

I really could care less about the damned thing, I just wanted to be funny.

Comments very welcome.

These awards are largely ceremonial given their ex nihilo nature, yet they are more than simple ego boosters. They are a sign of the growth and overwhelming sense of community that pervades the blogging community, bringing together like-minded individuals who share a passion for all things horror. Constant interaction and the ability to bounce new ideas off of each other lead to new appreciation and understanding of the genre, as well as increased opportunities within the professional world. Without I Love Horror and the endless support of other horror bloggers, I never would have landed some of the writing gigs I have now, especially the one at Fangoria, and for that I am eternally grateful.

On that note, here’s my list of the ten blogs I feel deserve an award or two, complete with sarcastic commentary and hilariously insulting comments. I tease because I love. If I left anyone out it’s not because I don’t love you. I really do. It’s just that I can only include so many blogs and you’re all wonderful and I promise I’ll make it up to you. How ’bout dinner followed by a movie? Maybe followed by a little “just friends” spooning?

The Vault of Horror Brian Solomon is like a Cinderella story in the world of blogging, and if it weren’t for our collaborations and all the help and support he has given me over the past several months, I’d be doing everything in my power to steal that silver slipper. Try as you might, b_sol, I WILL VANQUISH YOU! After our Dawn of the Dead podcast, however.

Horror’s Not Dead Why no one has mentioned him yet is beyond me. I think I owe more to Peter Hall than I do any other blogger. Without him I wouldn’t have gotten into the LoTT D, and without him I never would have been able to set up my site without making a series of grievous errors. Beyond that he is a frequent collaborater, and has graciously and selflessly offered me a place to crash while I ham it up with fans and bigwigs at FantasticFest. Little does he realize that I plan on stealing all of his DVDs. He always has something to offer in the way of reviews, commentary, and sporadic shit you’d never think existed.

Evil on Two Legs Aside from his awesome banner, Corey of Eo2L runs a clean, comprehensive site that covers just about damned near everything. From DVD releases to going-ons in the horror blogging community, this LAMB award winner offers something new and exciting with each post. I don’t know him well enough to make a sarcastic jab at him, so I’ll just poke fun at him for having the same name as my sister.

Day of the Woman The sister blog of the Vault of Horror is one of the more well-known blogs for one reason: the easter egg link to her hidden porn site. Kidding. It’s because she’s damned awesome at what she does and does it with a passion that belies her 19-year old, baton-twirling persona. She throws convention into the wind and writes about the most random topics. Oddly enough why I’m so awesome has yet to be one of them.

And Now the Screaming Starts One of the earliest supporters of I Love Horror, CrWM is one of the best writers I have come across. Infusing every post with the most obscure and esoteric factoids and references, he waxes philosophic on every conceivable topic, composing eloquentdissertation-like articles that make me feel really, really stupid. He recently offered me the opportunity to contribute a guest post, and now I feel really shitty for taking so long to respond to his most recent e-mail. My bad, yo.

Castle Vardulon I first stumbled upon the Count’s blog during my research for the popular French flick À L’Intérieur. He HATED this movie. His review put my potty mouth to shame, as it contained more instances of the word “fuck” than I have ever seen in one piece of work. We began talking after I made a comment about how very wrong he is, and despite this I have enjoyed his blog ever since. Quality, in-depth analysis of films and television enhanced by him and The Dive Mistresses’ AVOD – the audio-only video podcast make his blog worthy of applause, and perhaps maybe a bouquet of roses, too.

The Dive Mistress The cleverly named Zombots is the vehicle for the Dive Mistress, Vardulon’ partner in crime and denizen of my former haunt for eight years. It’s a shame I learned this AFTER I moved two thousand miles away (by like two fucking weeks), ’cause she’s a top notch writer and I could have really used a single friend who actually enjoyed horror as much as I do.

Monster Land This blog is relatively new to me, and despite my disappointment upon learning it wasn’t for a kick ass new theme park, I have grown to love it. Why? Well, it’s really good. Isn’t that what these awards are about? She’s also an academic like me, and will hopefully not be forced to quit like I did after spending too much fucking money on a worthless Master’s degree. She also said I was “a repository of the very best in horror criticism.” Who am I to argue with the truth?

Planet of Terror Despite overlooking my genius and humility, the insanely clever Cortez the Killer and The Complaint Department serve up a unique combination of old school and new school reviews guaranteed to keep you entertained and laughing your happy little ass off. Plus, they’re tuned into the importance of the blogging community, and I can totally dig that.

Musings Across a Continuum The appropriately named Ms. Harker is a vampire-lovin’, wallaby-wranglin’ Aussie bringing us the latest in all-things vampire. Why she’s living in Australia is beyond me, but I’d love to hear her say vampire with what I hope is an uber-thick Aussie accent. Plus, she’s been a long-time supporter of I Love Horror and friended me on Facebook, making her my furthest friend in the world.

Kindertrauma Because FUCK TOP TENS. Kindertrauma fucking owns your face not for its unique content and establishment as one of the best horror blogs in existence, but because it rocks a pink background and does it with fucking PRIDE.

Now I suppose this is the point where I reveal ten things about myself, huh? This never ends well.

1. I have a Master’s degree from Florida State University in Classical Civilizations. I don’t recommend it.

2. I really do not like the original Dawn of the Dead. In fact, I think it’s pretty bad as far as horror goes.

3. My favorite horror movie is Session 9 and I’ve been doing everything in my power to get an interview with Brad Anderson. A million cool points if you can make this happen.

4. I’m a hypochondriac to the nth degree, and I’m convinced I’m going bald, the giant, thick mess of long hair on my head notwithstanding.

5. I lost my job in Florida because of Facebook. This was one of the best and worst things to happen to me.

6. I love Welsh Corgis and desire to own two. Oh, what fun we’ll, laughing and playing and galavanting around.

7. I have a twin brother. He’s incredibly smart and knows this. We’re not identical, and the only thing we have in common is our lack of compassion. He hates horror.

8. The view from my balcony in Denver is so incredibly beautiful that for a brief moment you’ll experience what it’s like to see God. The you’ll realize it’s just gas.

9. I started this blog with the intent of building a writing portfolio and somehow finding a way to get my work read. I now contribute articles to Fangoria.com, which is one step below my dream of writing for the magazine full time.

10. My am so afarid of heights I cling to the center pole in gondola rides at county fairs and theme parks like a little bitch.

It seems as of late that much criticism has been lobbied at those who have taken it upon themselves to spit hellfire in the face of Twilight and Stephanie Meyer. Apparently being a critic doesn’t give you the right to criticize things. Who knew? In the midst of my obsessive checking of my stats, I noticed a link to a screenwriting forum wherein I found the following remark regarding my recent post on Twilight and the Mormon Maniac:

I’m not a Twilight fan…
…so I found this extremely, pant-peeingly, funny!

I didn’t realize there were so many of us!!!!!

Warning. This blog is probably NC-17

Formatting retained for the fuck of it.

Three comments down there was a reply by a woman named Paula who felt that my vitriolic critique was attributed to….wait for it…

….

Jealousy.

Of course I’m jealous of the fact that she’s a millionaire, just as I’m jealous of anyone who has more than two months worth of rent in their saving account. MNy hatred for Twilight stems from the fact that it’s the lowest of the low when it comes to literature and film. Failing to realize that most of mankind, or in this case womankind, are brainless sacks of walking skin who will consume anything forced down their throats (see: anything by Dan Brown), she equates sales to talent, something a screenwriter (which I presume she is) should know is absolute bullshit.

She then goes on to reason away the shitty writing by placing it within the context of the teen genre, as if that is an excuse to write utter trash. Enjoying the story for “what it is” is difficult with prose like this:

He lay perfectly still in the grass, his shirt open over his sculpted, incandescent chest, his scintillating arms bare. His glistening, pale lavender lids were shut, though of course he didn’t sleep. A perfect statue, carved in some unknown stone, smooth like marble, glittering like crystal.

And then for some reason she thinks I’m James Wan, the director of the first Saw film:

Maybe James Wanker…. oops I mean James Wan – is particularly slow on the uptake and needs his choice of literature to have more pictures and less words?? Perhaps I could suggest ‘Cat in the Hat’?

The hilarity concludes with the complete dismissal of all ComicCon attendees – the same ComicCon where Twilight was a feature attraction – as “not living in the real world.” I don’t really know why she included that.

The point of being a movie critic is to objectively judge that in which most of us will never have an active, participating role. I hate Twilight and Stephanie Meyer for not only infecting the horror industry with mind-numbing pablum that does nothing but take up space, but for the fact that it’s encouraging people to read absolute tripe. Paula’s insinuation that my distaste for Twilight stems from the fact that I can’t read makes her nothing more than a hypocrite.

When I decided to put together my list of the Top 20 horror films of the past 20 years, I knew that just by being honest — sticking true to the movies I find most scary, spooky, disturbing, unsettling, scary-funny, or just plain horrifying — I would inevitably inspire catcalls of outrage, righteous denunciations, and cries for my critical head. It’s not only that lists like these are meant to be fought over and argued about (personally, I wouldn’t have it any other way). It’s also that this is…horror we’re talking about. Very visceral stuff. Opinions that people feel in their guts and their central nervous systems. If, like me, you happen to find The Blair Witch Project an original and terrifying experience, one that haunted your dreams for weeks, it’s doubtful that anyone who found it an overhyped dud (“Where’s the monster?”) full of nausea-incuding camerawork is ever going to be “convinced” that it should have frightened the bejesus out of them. Apart from comedy, nothing in movies is quite as subjective as what scares — or bores — us to death.

I agree with this completely. Fear is the most subjective of emotions, and as I detailed in my earlier post on his post, any Best of… list is inevitably going to draw the ire of someone. But there are certain things that need to be taken into consideration when you compile a list such as this, primarily the impact the film has had on the industry. You decided to eschew objective decision making in favor of biased bullshit.

That said, a number of you who posted comments about my list raised issues that I’d like to address. That includes some of the movies you felt I’d left out (we’ll get to that in a moment). First, though, I’d like to defend one aspect of the list that seemed to bother a great many people. Namely: Why did I choose a number of films, like The Sixth Sense or From Hell, that struck many of you as thrillers more than bona fide horror movies?

Because the two, in some ways, are interchangeable. One might be inclined to say that horror represents the object, while thrillers tend to represent the abject; with horror, however, the lines of genre are blurred so much, it all tends to get grouped under the umbrella of horror.

Well, first of all, I did it deliberately, not to be provocative or to “stretch” the definition of horror, but — quite the contrary — to return to an old-school, almost classical Hollywood notion of horror, one that includes films that inspire shock and awe from the inside, nibbling away at our anxieties. There was some debate, for instance, about whether The Sixth Sense is a “horror film” or a “supernatural thriller.” Well, by my lights, it’s about a dead guy who walks around and a kid who’s as creeped out by the otherworldly visions that confront him as the kid from The Shining was. Just because no one ends up swinging an ax doesn’t mean that you don’t get the heebie-jeebies.

Your use of the word “deliberately” does him zero favors, as it implies a haphazard attempt at injecting a controversial choice for the sake of being controversial. Beyond this, you also imply that visceral horror is the only way to frighten someone. Your understanding of fear is misguided. In horror movies, “axe murderers” and the like are exaggerated in terms of their actions and appearance, and as such dispel the notion that they can be frightening when on the big screen. If you wanted to make an “axe murderer” comparison, you should have gone with Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

Or take From Hell, the Hughes brothers’ splendid dark-side-of-the-soul mystery-thriller, with its flash-cut evocations of society’s first slasher, Jack the Ripper. (Yes, I know: You think that the Alan Moore graphic novel was better, more densely dazzling.) By what standard do one-dimensional bogeymen like Jason or Michael Myers, wielding their knives with videogame precision for the 10th or 20th time in a rigged contest of kill-the-next-idiot-who-gets-in-the-way-of-my weapon, somehow count as real live “horror movie” monsters, while the fascinatingly sick, Jekyll-and-Hyde human demon of From Hell doesn’t? Does the idea that the latter film actually has a good story somehow mean that it lacks the black-as-night resonance of a horror film? I tried to assemble this list so that horror meant more than mere sensation — so that it also meant things that could give your heart and your brain the shivers.

I’m one of the few who actually enjoyed From Hell, but your constant comparisons of standard slasher icons to genuine instigators of fear is getting tiresome and lowers your credibility. From Hell, while possessing an engaging story and some truly grisly scenes, was filmed in such a way that any ounce of tension or terror that might be gleaned from the film was lost.

Okay, but now we get to the good stuff — the movies you thought should have been on there. In almost every case, my honest response comes down to one word: Really? Let’s look at a few of those proposed alternate choices:

Wolf Creek
It’s cleverly staged, with a villain who’s like “Crocodile” Dundee with a loose screw. But really, it’s nothing more than another textbook Chainsaw ripoff.

I have no comments here, as I feel its exclusion was a good choice.

The films of Rob Zombie
No doubt about it, he’s a very bad boy, who revels in the shock theatrics of killers he treats like rock stars. But House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects are derivative, hit-or-miss in-your-face bloodbaths. I like their squeamish freak-out atmosphere. But Top 20? That’s too much love for a still-promising headbanger-turned-goremeister.

House of 1000 Corpses was nothing more than a “test the waters” film. An obvious homage to classic horror films, it was fucking practice. The Devil’s Rejects, however, was anything BUT derivative. Not top twenty material, but to laugh in the face of its intent and, dare I say, absolutely brilliant blending of 70’s bravado and visceral horror is a sin I cannot let slide.

High Tension
Illogical twists, and much brutal mayhem — but it’s French, so this tale of two young women stuck in a country house with a big, fat, grunting brute who’s got a thing for decapitation looks fancier than it is.

I’m sorry, I can’t hear you up there on your jingoistic pedestal. Some of the best horror films of the past decade have been French, and your exclusion of anything from that region makes me wonder just how many horror movies you actually watch.

The Hills Have Eyes
The 2006 version? Are you friggin’ kidding me? It’s a lavishly photographed gross-out message movie with very little of the skeezy, innovative rawness that gave the original its bad vibes.

14. Hostel 2. Credibility – gone.

Session 9
Brad Anderson’s mental-asylum thriller begins well, and it’s visually startling, but the story melts into half-hearted ghostly vagueness.

Despite my opinion that it’s one of the scariest, most effective horror films of the past decade, it’s too unknown, too critically derided to earn a spot on this list.

Finally, we come to the choice I made that seems to have irked the most people. To quote a message-board poster named Chris: “Anyone who says 28 Weeks Later is better than 28 Days Later should not be allowed to judge horror movies.”

Wow, Chris, that is harsh. You seem to speak for many, though, so let me just say that I dug 28 Days Later — I really did. Yet part of what accounts for its reputation, I think, was the sheer novelty of Danny Boyle reviving the zombie genre and adapting it to the immediacy of the digital-video age. (Okay, I know: they’re not “technically” zombies. But since they’re rabid and reptile-brained, and stalk around like the living dead, I’m going to call them zombies anyway.)

Again, you’re certainly not doing yourself any favors. Aside from completely misinterpreting the point of the infected in the films, you’re making terrible assumptions as to why a film is popular. Danny Boyle didn’t “revive” anything, and your gross disregard of the intent of the film shows just exactly how much you know not just about the film itself, but about horror in general.

And I really did think that the sequel went further into apocalyptic blood-orgy craziness. Feel free to disagree, of course. But for the debate about the relative quality of these two movies to have inspired this much hate…well, sorry, folks, but that’s a little scary.

One simply has to look at your comment about the relative success of 28 Days Later to prove how wrong you are. If you take into account the many factors that should go into making a list such as this then you clearly see why Days deserves a spot over Weeks. But, as you have proven throughout your inane ramblings and weak defense of your horrible decisions, objectivity – or common sense – isn’t your strong point.

In the end it all comes down to subjectivity, but to completely ignore intent and impact is to ignore what makes some horror movies so God damned special. As such, your list wasn’t as bad as it could have been, but the defense of your choices destroyed any credibility some of the more controversial choices might have had.

1. Audition
2. The Silence of the Lambs
3. The Blair Witch Project
4. Scream
5. 28 Weeks Later
6. What Lies Beneath
7. The Sixth Sense
8. Drag Me To Hell
9. Alien 3
10. Ringu
11. Planet Terror
12. From Hell
13. Misery
14. Hostel 2
15. Shaun of the Dead
16. The Descent
17. The Kingdom
18. Event Horizon
19. Darkman
20. Dead Alive

To properly critique a top ten list one must take into account the factors that went into the decision making process. On the one hand, to discount a film such as Hostel 2 would be to discount the controversy that surrounded it and the lasting impact it has had not only on the horror industry but the career of Eli Roth. On the other hand, however, it also assumes that the impact was great enough to allow the film precedence over several other movies that most certainly deserve a spot. If anything, its cousin Saw deserves a spot strictly for the sheer impact it has had.

Other films, though certainly great in their own right, have no business being on a horror top ten list. Event Horizon is definitive proof of the subjective nature of Best of… lists. While the film have enjoyed cult-like success among die-hard horror fans, it is critically reviled and was quickly forgotten. I still count it as one of my favorite horror films, and indeed one of the few horror films to genuinely frighten me, but would I include it on a list like this? Of course not.

Other films, such as The Silence of the Lambs and Darkman, are less horror than they are drama and action, and again, although great films, don’t belong on a horror list; the Lars von Trier-created Danish mini-series The Kingdom isn’t even a movie, and seems to be nothing more than a reason for Gleiberman to flex his Muscle of Pretention; What Lies Beneath is one film deserving of the title “thriller” instead of horror, yet it doesn’t belong on the list because it was total crap; and the relatively unpopular Alien 3 is more science fiction than it is horror.

Despite his grievous oversights and unsuitable inclusions, Gleiberman’s list includes several films that are certainly appropriate, such as The Blair Witch Project, Ringu, and Misery. I don’t need to explain why they’re appropriate, but even if I did, there would still be someone out there who feels I am wrong. Such is the problem associated with the inherent subjectivity of these lists. Bias is always a factor, and when given nothing that explains the motives behind his decisions, these lists will continue to draw the ire of horror fans everywhere.

But seriously, From Hell? Are you fucking kidding me?

I first saw Alive in Joburg, directed by Neill Blomkamp, about three years ago and was absolutely blown away by it creativity and originality. About a year back he was attached to direct the cinematic adaptation of Halo until funding issues got in the way. That was the last I heard of him until District 9 promos started appearing on TV. Those who were fortunate enough to see sneak previews of the film have raved about it, and it is shaping up to be one of the most highly anticipated films of the year.

Enjoy the short.

Director: Christopher Smith
Year: 2006
Country: United Kingdom

Shortly after the overwhelming success of 2004’s Shaun of the Dead, horror comedies have a tendency to gravitate toward the zombie-genre, with at least one new zombie comedy being released every year. Given the predilection for many filmmakers to follow this formula, it’s always refreshing to see a horror comedy that eschews zombie-themed imagery in favor of a more straightforward approach. Therein lies the appeal of Severance, the 2006 British horror-comedy helmed by Christopher Smith.

Possessing a modicum of political and ethical undertones, Severance follows the unfortunate outcome of a weekend team-building retreat for the European Sales division for weapons manufacturer Palisades Defense. With their bus driver refusing to take an alternate path around a blocked mountain road, the team winds up at a run-down “resort” located in an isolated forest. Unbeknownst to them, the surrounding trees harbor something, or someone, with a grudge against Palisades.

While calling Severance a horror-comedy would be accurate, it would not necessarily be appropriate. Opening with the intent to establish itself as comedy through the introduction of the characters, the film tends to err more on the side of horror as it progresses, eventually eschewing most comedic elements in favor of outright survival horror. The bulk of the humor comes from the wildly divergent personalities of the characters, which consist of a stoner tripping on shrooms, a perverted boss, and a brown-nosing nerd, among others.  As the characters begin to realize the danger they’re in, comedic dialogue begins to subside in favor of sporadic and dark situational humor that elicits nothing more than a slight chuckle as opposed to outright laughter.

Aside from the unique characters the main draw of the film are the clever ways in which they all meet their fate. The violence in the film is varied, from simple gun shots and stabbings to bear traps and decapitation, with a sprinkle of mutilation reminiscent of torture flicks thrown in for good measure.  The direction is respectable and at times a bit creative in the way Smith portrays the death scenes, twisting and turning to capture all aspects of the unfortunate’s death.

The serious tone found throughout the majority of Severance is the only thing keeping it from truly deserving the title of horror comedy. It finds itself only slightly behind films such as Dog Soldiers, another British horror “comedy” that keeps the humor flowing at an even pace throughout the course of the film while escalating the violence until the finale. A solid effort, but not as solid as it could be.

Take for example my request: Cthulhu, Medusa, and Cerberus playing poker with Tony Danza with Danza flashing four aces and saying “Who’s the Boss, bitches?”

And he fucking NAILED IT.

Visit his site Taking Requests and make a God damn request. You shan’t be disappointed.

Director: Marcus Dunston
Year: 2009
Country: USA

Picture the Saw films. Now strip away any semblance of plot until all that remains are the vestiges of a story supported by approximately one hour of excessive gore and torture. Now include a wildly divergent soundtrack, the overuse of filters, and the funniest use of the phrase “You faggot bitch” in cinematic history and you have a good idea of what to expect in Marcus Dunston’s directorial debut, The Collector.

This subversive home invasion flick focuses on a burglar named Arkin who attempts to rob the home of a wealthy diamond broker in order to pay off the loan sharks after his wife. Upon arriving at the house, however, he finds that someone beat him to it: The Collector, a masked man with a pedilection for booby-traps and sparking one victim, which he collects. Arkin must now save the very family he was intending to rob, all while trying to avoid becoming a victim in one of The Collector’s traps.

The Collector is a paradox. From the outside its sole redeeming quality is that what makes other films of its kind so deplorable: all gore, no plot. Once situated and introduced to the characters, however, its decline into convention is inhibited by the performance of Josh Stewart, who plays burglar-turned-hero Arkin. Managing to inject a modicum of emotion into a film that should be completely devoid of all feeling, his perfomance was actually one of the more enjoyable aspects of the film, hindered only by one or two moments of questionable acting. The rest of the cast was interchangeable and served as nothing more than a means to propel the lack of a plot.

Dunston’s direction deserves kudos, employing a number of unique shots designed to elevate tension, though these are often ruined through the use of filters in what I presume was an attempt to be edgy. The film was dark and gritty, however, owing to that as part of its appeal. It didn’t try to be anything more than eighty-five minutes of violence, gore, and tension, the latter of which only managed to be served up in sporadic doses. In that Dunston succeeded.

The Collector is nothing special, but then, it’s not trying to be. It’s level of violence surpasses anything found in Saw not in terms of gruesomeness or creativity, but in terms of distance. Without a plot or characters to genuinely care about, all we’re given is pure, unadulterated violence, and we know everyone is going to get the axe by the end of the film. And that’s enough for me. The film wasn’t perfect, and I wouldn’t go as far as to say I liked it, but I certainly didn’t hate it, and at this point that’s good enough for me.

“Renfield, you asshole.”

Everyone seems to be up in arms over Entertainment Weekly’s recent list of the Top 20 Vampires in film, the cover of which featured sparkly vampire Edward Cullen of Twilight. Here is the complete list:

1. Lestat, Interview with the Vampire
2. Christopher Lee’s Dracula
3. Bela Lugosi’s Dracula
4. Edward Cullen, Twilight
   
5. Bill and Eric, True Blood
   
6. Asa Vajda, 1960’s Black Sunday
7. Angel
8. Mr. Barlow, Salem’s Lot
9. Schuyler Van Alen, Melissa de la Cruz’s Blue Blood’s series
10. Gary Oldman’s Dracula
11. Klaus Kinski’s Dracula
12. Zoey Redbird, P.C. and Kristen Cast’s House of Night series
13. Jean-Claude, Laurel K. Hamilton’s Anita Blake, Vampire Hunter series
14. David, 1987’s Lost Boys
15. Miriam Blaylock and Sarah Robert’s, 1983’s The Hunger
16. Blade, the Blade trilogy
17. Eli, 2008’s Let the Right One In
18. Countess Bathory, 1971’s Daughter’s of Darkness
19. Selene, the Underworld trilogy
20. Caleb and Mae, 1987’s Near Dark

OK, now let’s dissect this. The list was obviously compiled based on a variety of factors, none of which took into account the contentious nature of the horror fan. Getting all up in arms over a list from a non-horror magazine that still manages to include some incredibly obscure vampires (some of which I’ve never even heard of) is counter-productive. I’ll start by countering a point made by a fellow blogger:

Where in God’s name is it acceptable to put Tom Cruise’s vampire above anything on this list?! – BJ-C

Given the tendency of the list to distinguish actor’s and their role (Gary Oldman, Christopher Lee, etc), the inclusion of Lestat refers to the character and not the actor who played him. Remember, it was a book before it was a movie. While I agree that he should not be at the top of the list, the relative popularity of the character in the mid-nineties is enough to secure him a spot somewhere on the list.

The inclusion of Edward Cullen was necessary, as the overwhelming success of the Twilight series is the impetus for the list. Does he deserve to be on there? Well, yes and no. No because he’s a fucking sparkly vampire whose sole appeal is aimed at pre-pubescent girls who have yet to experience the joy of masturbation, and yes because this renewed interested in vampires can, in part, be credited to Pattison’s sparkly vampire character. This extends to the popularity of the True Blood series, and even the once-popular Angel.

The biggest grievance that should be filed by EVERYONE is the conspicuous lack of Graf Orlock from F. W. Murnau’s Nosferatu. ALong with Lee’s and Lugosi’s Dracula, it deserve to be included in the top three for its sheer lasting popularity and the impact the character has had on the vampire genre.

I for one feel the list is about fifty percent on the money and fifty percent excuse to retain credibility among EW readers. However, in the spirit of giving, here is MY list of the top twenty vampires in film:

1. Graf Orlock, Nosferatu
2. Christopher Lee, Dracula
   
3. Bela Lugosi, Dracula
4. Leslie Nielsen, Dracula from Dracula: Dead and Loving It
5. The red-headed bride of Dracula from 2004’s Van Helsing
6. The Vampire Lanois, The Afghan Whig’s 1998 album 1965
7. Whichever vampire Corey Feldman played in The Lost Boys
8. Gary Oldman’s Dracula
9. Jan Valek from John Carpenter’s Vampires
10. Dracula from The Monster Squad
11. Amilyn, played by Paul Reubens in Buffy the Vampire Slayer
12. Blacula, Blacula
13. Viktor, the Underworld trilogy
14. Jeremy Capello, My Best Friend is a Vampire
15. Eli, Let the Right One In
16. Severen, played by Bill Paxton in Near Dark
17. Blade, the Blade trilogy
18. Any female vampire in any film that shows her boobs
19. Max Schrek, played by Willem Dafoe, because he’s ugly enough to need only minimal make-up
20. Edward Cullen’s mutilated corpse