Wood Work.

 "Is there a script?" - Edward D. Wood, Jr.

It's November. And that means the month of the turkey.  And while there will always be YouTube videos of Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes and bad movies with bad directors will continue to surface long after we're all gone, none will be as infamously known as Edward D. Wood, Jr.  and Tim Burton's masterpiece biopic, Ed Wood.

Ed Wood is hands down, Tim Burton's best film.  It is Johnny Depp's greatest performance (an Oscar nomination was due way before Jack Sparrow ever swashbuckled up on the screen).  For 17 years, Ed Wood has sort of sat dormant while Burton continues to capture his once bizarre and twisted magic within his filmography.

He hasn't done it.  No movie that Burton has ever made since 1994 has even come close to the brilliance of Ed Wood, even though this blogger has thoroughly enjoyed his later films.  So why praise Ed Wood so much?  Because its element of ridiculousness is the key.  Ed Wood was a clueless idiot who loved film so much but yet had no idea how to even conceive making one.  His ineptitude is what made him a legend.  If Burton had approached the film with a serious tone, it wouldn't have worked.  The element here is that the "cheesy" and campy nature within all of Wood's films is present within Burton's film, being played out superbly by professional actors.  Sure, Burton could've used a bunch of no-name novices for the picture, and perhaps it would've worked, but the fact that the performances of his cast is so amazing (particularly an Oscar-winning Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi) shows that Burton can exhibit himself as a gifted director.

We all know by now that Johnny Depp and Tim Burton share the same brain, but this was only Depp's second collaboration with Burton after Edward Scissorhands, so their approach still appeared fresh and original.  Depp plays the role of Ed completely over-the-top which is exactly what we would expect from a director who gave us such garbage masterpieces as Plan 9 From Outer Space and Bride Of The Monster.  The essence that is remarkable about Depp's performance is that he stays in a mood of complete positive thinking throughout 95% of the movie.  He's somebody that won't ever give up.  

And yet, he's also clueless.  He doesn't have a single idea about how to make a movie, but that's really not the point.  He's passionate about the filmmaking process itself, regardless if he knows anything about it.  And it some strange way, we cheer him on all the way through the film and want him to succeed.  And when the story takes the bizarre turn and we find out Ed's secret of dressing in women's clothing (with a severe fetish for angora sweaters), well...it just adds to the campiness that his films so greatly resonate.

Burton also gets fine performances from his supporting cast, with Bill Murray, Jeffrey Jones, Sarah Jessica Parker, Patricia Arquette, and an absolutely brilliant Martin Landau so perfect as horror legend Lugosi.  Landau's interpretation of a sad, washed-up, drug addled has-been is played to the hilt, with amazing comedic timing and bizarre nuances as evidenced in the following scene:

It's scenes like this that are present throughout the whole picture and make the film such a treasure.  And while some people may find the movie not to their tastes because of the severe absurdity of it all, those familiar with auteur Wood's filmography will be endlessly entertained.

This blogger never saw Ed Wood in the theater, and it's a deep regret.  This biography of the original "midnight movie man" is an amazing display of filmmaking, and something that Tim Burton has never recaptured.  Unless you count the Planet Of The Apes remake, which this blogger found entertaining in a "so-bad-it's-good" way.  I guess Wood was whispering ideas into Burton's dark, demented subconscious while he was filming that simian disaster.  

Damn him all to hell.

Ed Wood, (1994), Directed by Tim Burton

Grade: A+

State And Maim.

"Do I fear God? You better believe I fear God." - Pastor Abin Cooper

Thus begins the chilling first act of Kevin Smith's Red State.  Here's a film that was purported as Smith's departure from his norm, as he put it: "a nasty-ass $4 million horror flick with few (if any) redeeming characters."

Well, sorta.  I liked this movie a lot, but I wouldn't say that it's a TRUE horror movie.  Yes, there are horror elements in it, and there are scenes that perhaps would make a novice viewer of this sort of material cringe, but the terror really bookends the movie, leaving the middle open for some stylized action and Smith's trademark brand of humor.

The film is a thinly disguised interpretation of the Westboro Baptist "Church" and its so-called "preacher", Fred Phelps.  If you aren't familiar with these people, be glad that you're not.

Basically Smith's vision depicts that evil can exist in any form, and that's certainly true here.  

When the trailer was first seen for this movie, this blogger was expecting gritty horror, something along the lines of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre or even more recently Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects.  And for parts of the film, it stays true to that aspect.

First, let's make something clear: this movie would not have worked at all without the tour-de-force performance of Michael Parks.  (Smith has said in interviews that had Parks not agreed to do the movie, then he would have dropped the project entirely.)

Parks has been a Tarantino staple over the years, with bit parts in From Dusk Till Dawn to Kill Bill, and also appearing in several 70's television series.  Here he displays his all-out gift for being creepy and fascinating to watch at the same time.  His Pastor Cooper is the epitome of psychotic, particularly in his character introduction and the speech that he gives to his congregation.  Smith makes it evident that the audience is in for some disturbing stuff.

It does seem refreshing to see Smith do something different here.  After beating us all over the head for 12 years with super-stoners Jay and Silent Bob, it IS a welcome change to witness something more original from this director.  (This blogger never saw Jersey Girl or Zack And Miri Make A Porno).  The set-up here for the evil personification of Cooper, his church, and its followers make for an interesting collective of false prophets and crazed individuals.

As the movie progresses, the horror element seems to take a back-seat and more instances of drama and action surface.  While this is not a bad thing, it seems like a misleading tactic seeing how the movie was marketed as a horror flick, but then that's not to say one can't have some dramatic intensity in a horror movie.  Also, there are some instances of comic relief that seem out of place for a movie like this.  With the marketing done for the film, it's almost seems like what would've happened if Leatherface had been a stand-up comedian and told jokes before he sliced somebody's limbs off, with a "wink-wink, nudge-nudge" to the camera.

Perhaps though, that's not the point here.  For the most part, Smith gets fine performances from all his actors, particularly John Goodman who does some of his best work here since The Big Lebowski.  And the irony displayed as the movie comes to an end makes the viewer wonder what Smith exactly was trying to accomplish, but as mentioned earlier, it seems for the most part to display that evil lurks everywhere and for all of us to be cautious, whether it be on the religious front or elsewhere.

Is Red State a good movie?  Yes, it is.  Is it Kevin Smith's best film?  No, it isn't.  But it's also a fine example of rogue filmmaking, and what can be done on a low budget, with limited resources and a good script.  To be sure, the film's marketing campaign was a facade of sorts, giving audience the false hope of a retro-gritty horror story, but in the end, the movie is an interesting display of dread and fanaticism, without the Snooch to the Nooch.

Red State, (2011), Directed by Kevin Smith
Grade: B+

31 Days Of Horror: Day #31 - THE SHINING

"Wendy?? I'm home." - Jack Torrance

The Shining, (1980), Directed by Stanley Kubrick
Grade: A+

There is really nothing else to say about this film that hasn't already been said.  So, rather than go through a long, detailed review, all that can be stated aboutThe Shining is that it is the first horror movie this blogger ever saw, and the first movie that ever scared him.  (Ironically, it was the TELEVISION version.)  And it wasn't until several years later when he watched the full version, and has watched it dozens of times since.  There are those that will say it is too long, there are those that will say Jack Nicholson goes over-the-top, there will be those that say Kubrick has lost his ever-lovin' mind, and there will be those that just plain don't like it. (Including Stephen King himself.)

And that's great, but it won't change this blogger's opinion.  The scare factor may have gone down considerably over the years after constant viewings, but the beautiful filmmaking aspect that the movie displays has never changed.  Watch these two trailers and they will tell you all you need to know about the film.

The original theatrical trailer:



A fantastic fan-made trailer:



So thusly, Fed-Up Movie Reviews names The Shining as its favorite horror movie of all time.

And with that, this brings "31 Days Of Horror" to a close.  Thanks to all who read and put up with the constant tangents and ramblings.  I know a month of horror movie reviews can get tedious, but then, so can seven straight years of SAW movies.

Boo! And all that jazz.

31 Days Of Horror: - Day #30 - 1408

"Eight dollars for Beer Nuts? This room IS evil!" - Mike Enslin

1408, (2007), Directed by Mikael Hafstrom
Director's Cut - Grade: A -
Theatrical Cut - Grade: B -

This is an unusual pick for a Halloween list, but it's an excellent example of how a classy PG-13 psychological horror movie can be made, and also an example of how two different endings can make or break a movie.

I was hesitant to see this film because it was PG-13, meaning that perhaps the terror would have been restrained, to make it more "audience friendly".  This usually involves those crazy movie studios seeing rough cuts, and saying, "Nah, take that part out...we don't want to limit the audience to just adults, put something in there that the kids will like too."  Usually, I hate this.  It seems like lazy filmmaking being controlled by the powers-that-be. (But then, that's Hollywood.) However, this  blogger admits that he was wrong.  The movie works, and probably because almost 50% of the movie depends on the performance of John Cusack, who is excellent here and proves that quirky, romantic comedies aren't his only forte.

Cusack plays Mike Enslin, a struggling supernatural horror writer who makes his living writing about supposedly haunted vacation spots, even though he knows that they're all fake.  He is seeking solace from the death of his young daughter Katie.  His latest "investigation" leads him to the The Dolphin Hotel, after he receives a mysterious postcard from it claiming, "Don't enter 1408."  Enslin meets with the manager of the hotel, played by a deliciously still-channeling-Snakes On A Plane-and-Pulp Fiction alum Samuel L. Jackson, who continously pleads with him not to enter 1408, because it will just result in another "mess he has to clean up", and because nobody has ever lasted more than an hour in the room.

"Yeah, but at least MY cheesy airplane movie didn't have CGI snakes in it."

This setup seems tedious.  It feels like something that we've seen before.  "Oh, a haunted house movie, except now it's just a haunted HOTEL ROOM movie."  However, since this is based on Stephen King story, chances are it can be really good ala The Mist, or a real stinkburger like Graveyard Shift or Maximum Overdrive.

And for the most part, 1408 stays true to its roots.  The settings and the art direction is fantastic.  We can feel even before Cusack even enters the room that he seems to be engulfed by the hotel.  The long majestic tracking shots of the hallways and even the elevator door closing on Jackson while he looks at Cusack with his fed-up "You idiot" face makes the situation a creepy one.

Once Cusack enters 1408, director Mikael Hafstrom uses the opportunity to start things slowly.  We don't know what's going on yet, or how things will unfold, and in a sense, we're just a clueless as Cusack.  

But that all changes once we start hearing the blaring notes of "We've Only Just Begun" from the radio/alarm clock and then the alarm resets itself into a countdown clock of one hour.

"Arrgh! Something tells me I would just be BETTER OFF DEAD!"

For those who haven't seen the film yet, I don't want to give anymore away, but while the movie could have been just another tedious exercise in haunted places and their backstory, Cusack and Company make the movie seem fresh and original, all the while keeping us (lame cliched critic line coming)...on the edge of our seats.

However, there is the issue of the ending.  When this blogger first saw the movie, it was in the theater, and he saw it with a friend.  We both agreed that the original ending was not very good.  It seemed rushed and unoriginal.  Although, it was closer to the ending of the story.  When the movie was released on DVD a director's cut was contained,  and it was watched again.  

This ending was an improvement.  While this blogger had his own ideas about how the movie should really end, the director's cut actually made the movie better, and seemed more like the most "fitting" ending, while maintaining that level of psychological horror that the movie wanted to represent in the first place.  The theatrical ending seemed more like a cop-out.  The director's cut added closure.

So what does this all mean?  1408 is a great horror movie.  It's not a bloody gore picture at all, but in the traditional sense, it has its elements firmly planted in what makes a good horror picture work:  great performances, story, even a small throwback to The Shining (both films were shot at the same studio in London).  And it's a movie that could have taken the cheesy route and ended up being a throwaway picture, but it ends up being a superb piece of suspense and exhausting terror.

And finally, Cusack himself is a devoted Chicago Cubs fan, so of course, he's endured countless elements of horror over the years.  So he's treading on familiar territory here.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #29 - THE BIRDS

"Don't they ever stop migrating?" - Annie Hayworth

The Birds, (1963), Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Grade: A -

Vertigo is this blogger's favorite Hitchcock film.  Psycho is the movie most associated with horror when this director's name is mentioned.  However, The Birds holds a certain certain bizarreness that makes it a conversation piece and brashly gives new meaning to a horror film with its "(Wo)man vs. Nature " elements.

It's Hitchcock's monster movie.  Except there are thousands and thousands of monsters, all striving for the same goal, which is to kill.  And their reason for killing is left unexplained, which adds to the element of terror.  Do we have to be spoon-fed everything?  Not really, it's a known fact that Hitchcock liked to unnerve his audience.  He was once quoted, "I enjoy playing the audience like a piano."

For the uninformed, Melanie Griffith's mom Tippi Hedren takes over for Hitch's cool blonde actress extraordinaire Grace Kelly in the heroine role of Melanie Daniels, a socialite who follows young attorney Mitch Brenner to Bodega Bay, California and delivers his sister a pair of lovebirds.  Afterwards, unending attacks by seagulls, crows, and other ornithology specimens ensue.

While many may find The Birds a tedious exercise, (continuous attacks over and over) it is nevertheless one of Hitchcock's greatest achievements, both from technical and suspense standpoints.  Of course, this was all before CGI and Lucasfilm FX, so Hitch had to use storyboards and matte backgrounds to plan out the elaborated scenes of the town of Bodega Bay being overrun.  For its time, this was a masterful achievement, and one of the reasons the film works so well.  Hitch feeds on our emotions, not just with the birds themselves invoking fear into the stomachs of the townspeople and the movie audience, but also with the uneasiness of the human characters within the movie.  Rod Taylor's Mitch, Tippi's Melanie, and Jessica Tandy's Lydia all form an army of sorts against each other, with Lydia offended by the ever-beautiful Melanie, with fear that Melanie may take her son Mitch away from her and leave her as a scared, lonely old woman. Fear is also invoked within Mitch's younger sister (Veronica Cartwright) who perhaps does not understand the nature of the horror being played out in front of her, with the birds and her siblings. And then there's Annie Hayworth (Suzanne Pleshette), a schoolteacher with a crush on Mitch, who also becomes offended early on by Melanie's presence.

All this leads up to a climatic scene within the confines of the Brenner home, with the massive amount of birds evoking their mass havoc.  While Hitchcock certainly knows that at some point we've come to have some sympathy of sorts for these characters, his known sense of black humor, and unrelenting power to scare and unease comes to the forefronts within the film's final moments.

This blogger picked The Birds for today's post because of its undeniable scare factor (although many will disagree), but then sometimes the simplest of nature's creatures can have just as much impact as a maniac in a butcher apron and skin-mask wielding a chainsaw.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #28 - THE STRANGERS

The Strangers, (2008), Directed by Brian Bertino
Grade: A

*Mild spoilers follow*

Perhaps it's the simplicity, or the quiet mood, or the cameo of Dennis from It's Always Sunny. Whatever the reason, The Strangers is a great horror film and one of the best this blogger has seen in a long, long time.  The pacing, the performances, the unknown backstory, the long desolate shots....everything in this film is top-notch.

It was a sleeper hit when released, but was quickly dismissed afterwards and the backlash surfaced that it was "boring" and "nothing happens in it".   I guess when there's evil around and it's not explained, audiences tend to want answers.  But then, we go see haunted house movies and it's never explained why the residents won't do the most sensible thing and just leave the house.  And then of course 17 years ago, critics wondered why Keanu Reeves didn't just shoot the tires of the bus before it got up to 50 mph.  Well, here's the answer:

There would be no movie.

Film ain't reality.  It's an entertainment medium and art form.  Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad, but just remember you have to sit back and let it work its magic, or lack thereof.  So within that regard, that's what was done when I watched The Strangers.

The film opens in a very glib mood.  A young couple returns from a wedding reception (not their own) to a summer home where they are staying.  A woman obscured by the darkness comes to the door looking for someone and is told by the couple that she is at the wrong house. Afterwards, the couple kisses, words are exchanged, he leaves to go to the store (She needs cigarettes! That's real love!)  and while he is gone the strange woman returns and the terror begins, with ghoulish faces emerging from the shadows in masks, and conceived scenes of slow build-ups.

The Strangers is a basic home invasion movie, but done in the simplest of terms.  Like the classic In Cold Blood, the film relies on the lighting and it's eerie effects to establish it's mood, particularly the darkness and what emerges from it.  Although the movie formula of someone being in your house has been done to death, (sigh, I didn't even realize I did that) here, there's toying of the audiences emotions.  The sound design is carefully thought out.  We hear the noises of nature surrounding the woods, the skipping record player adds something that you might here in a nightmare.  And, in one of the film's best scenes, Bertino relies on nothing but camera space, staging, and the quiet.

"Yes, Dad...I told you.  You're too old to tour anymore."

The film continues its quiet sense of dread as the suspense builds, ultimately resulting in an outcome that leaves the door open for a sequel, but also with its last shot, closes the movie perfectly.  And of course, earlier in the film we see Glenn Howerton show up, and those who hate the show It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia will no doubt be standing up and cheering. 

"Arrgh! I've had enough of the yelling on EVERY Sunny episode!"

Roger Ebert didn't like this movie.  He HATED it and considered it a waste.  I don't know what he was expecting in a movie like this, as he says at the end of his review that the movie "does what it sets out to do".  So in that regard, I got my fix of masks, mayhem, and murder.
And now I'll shut up...because corny alliteration is a bad thing.

31 Days of Horror: Day #27 - SLEEPY HOLLOW

"I've discovered something." - Ichabod Crane

Sleepy Hollow, (1999), Directed by Tim Burton
Grade: A -

There are folks I know that don't like this movie, and that's fine.  I love it. So there.  While Tim Burton did screw up his career when he took on the Planet Of The Apes remake (I thought it wasn't that bad), he has for the most part, made tons of movies that I've liked.  I still haven't seen his Alice In Wonderland, but everybody has told me it's absolute garbage, so I've stayed away.

Anyway, on to the review...Washington Irving's classic story gets a delightful twist from Seven scribe Andrew Kevin Walker, and Francis Ford Coppola steps in to produce.  Johnny Depp's Ichabod Crane is changed from a school teacher to a forensics detective called in to investigate the murders caused by The Headless Horesman (played by a deliciously evil Christopher Walken).

What Burton's films have been criticized (a lot)  for is style and no substance.  While many may find Sleepy Hollow "pretty" to look at, this blogger feels that no impact of horror is left unturned.  This isn't full-blown horror 'n' gore, but as Burton described it, it's an homage to the Hammer Horror films of the 60's and 70's, which were also dark, foreboding, and had never-ending creepiness.  (The film also contains Hammer alum Christopher Lee, who would go on to star in other Burton films.)

 

Johnny Depp's Ichabod Crane is great, and played to the hilt with total cowardice and humor.  It's not Depp's best performance (that would be Ed Wood), but he works just fine here.

That is not to say that Sleepy Hollow is a perfect movie.  The backstory provided to explain the origins of the Headless Horseman seems unnecessary.  This blogger would have liked it better if we didn't know anything about the character, and his origins remained a mystery.  Christopher Nolan avoided this mistake in The Dark Knight by keeping the Joker's origins completely out of the film, so his character remained "absolute".

Then there's Christina Ricci, who is a wonderful actress, but she's not given much to do here, but wander around and looking eyebrow-less due to the fact that her light blonde hair is matched with her eyebrows, making her look somewhat mutated.   

Where'd they go?

But in the end, Burton's film works and I was delighted that he even added in sound effects from the classic Disney cartoon of Sleepy Hollow, which doesn't deter from anything in the picture, and make it seem "cutesy".   Plus, props to Burton for not holding back on the horror, and getting the film an R-rating.  I don't think I could see a movie about beheadings that was rated PG-13.  That's about as ridiculous as vampires that sparkle in the sunlight.

31 DAYS OF HORROR: DAY #25 - JOHN CARPENTER'S THE THING

"Nobody trusts anybody now.  And we're all very tired..." - R.J. MacReady

The Thing, (1982), Directed by John Carpenter
Grade: A

I am probably going to anger lots of people by saying this, but this is probably my favorite John Carpenter movie.  Yes, I think it's better than Halloween.  While Halloween most certainly is an important film in its own right in the horror genre, The Thing succeeds every possible way in making terror into an anonymity.  The premise of the film is so simple, it could be very easy to turn the movie into an unintentional laughfest.  (SAW is a great example of this.)

Plot: Twelve people at a research outpost station in Antarctica discover a parasitic alien being that has the ability to kill any living thing and then copy it perfectly.  While this sounds much like a version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers, the premise is handled very differently.

The main thing here (so to speak) that adds so much to the film is the snow, ice, and the cold.  It is a character in the film.  And Carpenter's camera that pans through the confined spaces and cramped quarters all add the deep, building terror.  Kurt Russell's R.J. MacReady leads the group head-on as one of our great "fed-up" actors, and delivers a performance of caliber and raw emotions.

 
What's great about the movie is that once the alien "thing" takes over, we're not sure who anyone is anymore.  I was halfway expecting "Who Are You?" to chime in at any minute over any given scene.  And also, Ennio Morricone's foreboding score fits so perfectly with the coldness and the dank interiors of the research station, that it almost feels like the music itself is stalking the characters.  The sound design of the outside wind, the rustling of plastic canopies over snow equipment, and even the moving air inside the rooms all make for incredible suspense.

Of course, this is a horror film, so once everything kicks into high gear, the blood and gore ensue.  Rob Bottin, the makeup artist, does an incredible job here.  It's hard to imagine how the creatures could have looked any other way, now with the advent of CGI (and this blogger has not seen the just-released prequel yet), but the creations that Bottin brings to the screen are just breathtaking and horrifying at the same time.

And who else do we have in the film but Mr. Quaker Oats himself, Wilford Brimley.  While his performance of Dr. Blair is subdued throughout most of the movie, once he discovers that the "Thing" can kill enough people to take over the world, he merges into a psychotic rage that would make any of his Liberty Medical commercials seem like pure normalcy.



The film ends on an ambiguous note, which might turn some viewers off, but after seeing what the characters have experienced and all the pieces have fallen into place, it does not seem like there could be any other ending possible.  (At least for it to be a satisfying one.)

When released in 1982, The Thing failed to find an audience and did poorly at the box office.  This was mostly due to the fact that another alien movie had been released that same summer, and was a smash hit, so therefore Carpenter's masterpiece got lost in the shuffle.

And Reason #32,788 for FUMoR to hate this waste of film.

No matter, Carpenter's vision is the vastly superior film, and that's someTHING I'll take to the grave with me. 

31 Days Of Horror: Day #24 - ROSEMARY'S BABY

"We're your friends, Rosemary!" - Mrs. Gilmore

Rosemary's Baby, (1968), Directed By Roman Polanski
Grade: A+

*This review contains minor spoilers*

Ah yes, the infamous film that is Rosemary's Baby.  While many may argue that the film has become a dated joke of what it once was, this blogger sees nothing in it but pure fright and downright terror-stricken symbolism.  The film bases its scares on the unseen, and in recent years audiences have become impatient with psychological terror of the mind and instead want immediate gratification with their horror movies.

Rosemary's Baby is all about the buildup, the countdown to the birth of the child.  And while this seems like a tedious set-up for a horror movie, it isn't.  (And if you have a short attention span, then just go watch Transformers 4: Revenge Of The Fallen Career Of Michael Bay Who Now Lives On The Dark Side Of The Moon.)

Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse move into a high rise apartment in New York, and become acquainted with the strange and mysterious neighbors that live there.  At first, they appear harmless, but....and this is where the terror starts to build....we soon realize that there is something quite "off" about these neighbors.

Then Rosemary (who is played to perfection by Mia Farrow) learns that she is pregnant, and what follows is a rollercoaster of psychological horror that only the director Roman Polanski could unfold upon the audience with such sincere yet maniacal prowess.

The superb Ruth Gordon (in an Oscar-winning performance) plays one of the seemingly normal neighbors.  At first, she appears to be like that sweet old lady neighbor who brings you cookies and cakes to welcome you to the complex, but then her appearances start to become more and more of an annoyance, until soon it becomes clear that she (and her friends) are definitely not what they seem.

But the key to whole film is Farrow.  There would be no movie without her.  And, in one of the most terrifying moments of the film, when she informs her husband, Guy (John Cassavetes) that "She feels the baby moving inside her" and starts crying tears of joy, brings forth a sense of such sheer creepiness that this blogger had to stop the movie for a second a take a breath before continuing.

When the outcome is finally revealed, Polanski does an interesting thing, which is to not show the baby after its birth.  To have done so would have lowered the psychological suspense and, in a way, cheated the audience.  While there may be lots of viewers who disagree, the film is really not about WHAT the baby is or what it looks like, but the effect it has on these characters.  Their reactions are far more stronger and eerie than showing a result of what the baby is or the ugliness of evil that it contains.  And in the end, Mia Farrow's final expression of when she realizes that above all, she is the baby's mother, brings the film to such a satisfying conclusion that you realize it could not have ended any other way.

Rosemary's Baby is one of my favorite horror movies, because it takes its time in its buildup.  We feel Polanski stretching our emotions to such strong limits, we are ready to snap at any second.  Of course, when showing the movie to a mainstream audience today, I seriously doubt its effect would be as powerful as it was 43 years ago.  But again, we've changed as a society, and this blogger seriously hopes that Hollywood will not turns its eye towards this Polanski masterpiece and do their evil bidding of a remake.

Yeah, right.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #22 - THE EXORCIST III: LEGION

"I have dreams... of a rose, and then of falling down a long flight of steps." - Patient X 

The Exorcist III: Legion, (1990), Directed by William Peter Blatty

Grade: A

Once again, General George S. Patton enters the realm of the supernatural and fights off demons.  Suffice to say, this blogger thinks this film is superior to The Exorcist.  Yes, that's a horror classic, but Exorcist III delves deeper into the subconscious, and provides numerous scares that are ultimately more terrifying.

First, we must forget about the laughfest that was Exorcist II.  That film was pure camp and actually if taken as a comedic exercise isn't that hard to sit through.  Exorcist III picks up fifteen years after the original Exorcist, with Lt. Kinderman (George C. Scott) investigating the murders of a serial killer that seem to have a dark, religious motive.

The events that take place soon bring forth demonic forces that were present in the original film, as the serial killer claims to be by the original demon that took over Regan MacNeil fifteen years earlier, exacting revenge by possessing patients in a psychiatric ward and having them commit murders. (Got all that?)

What follows is an exercise in cinematic scares, including a scene in the hospital which is so cleverly constructed and set up, and it builds and builds until.....well, watch the movie.

Exorcist III was written and directed by William Peter Blatty, the writer of the original novel and film, and is one of the reasons why the movie works so well.  Blatty's original source material is what allows Exorcist III to unfold so cleverly.  Blatty knows these characters better than anybody, so his vision makes for a satisfying horror film that wouldn't have worked with another director.  George C. Scott plays his part well, although some may argue echoes of Jack Nicholson's performance in The Shining, which was accused of being over-the-top.  No matter, Scott gives a well-rounded performance that works.  Scenes are eerily set up where we as the audience can feel the terror and experience the dread that is oozing out through each scene.

Of course, when released in 1990, the film was a critical flop and was quickly disregarded.  Also, certain scenes were dropped and the studio, after viewing Blatty's first cut, wanted a scene added involving an actual exorcism so as to market the film properly. (Originally, there was NOT one present in the first cut.)

This is a shame, because over time Exorcist III has become a cult classic of sorts, and has stayed within the horror oeuvre as a sort of a curiosity piece.  It's a movie that contains everything needed in a horror film, which allows for its audience to experience terror first-hand.  Sadly, Blatty's original version is said be lost, so we may never actually see what could have been.

But no matter, what remains is an excellent horror film and you get to see Patton face off against the voice of Chucky, so that's a winner in my book.

31 Days Of Horror: Day #21 - THE OMEN (1976)/(2006)

"Have no fear, little one...I am here to protect thee." - Mrs. Baylock

The Omen, (1976)/(2006), Directed by Richard Donner/John Moore
Both Films - Grade: A

There's always been a classy filmmaking aspect about The Omen that has made it one of my favorite horror films.  Perhaps it's the plotline about the existence of evil and how much power it has over the world if it is not fought against, or the presentation of Satan incarnate as a young child.

Whatever it is, the presentation given on film of The Omen makes for great horror cinema.  The set design, the cinematography, the eerie Oscar-winning music by Jerry Goldsmith, and all the performances contribute.  And strangely enough, as hard as it is for the blogger to admit, the 2006 remake of The Omen is just as well done as the original.

Robert Thorn and Katherine Thorn are the proud parents of a young baby boy.  The problem is, this boy is the son of Satan and has plans to take over the human race and unleash a never-ending reign of terror across the world.  With Robert Thorn as a U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, this adds an element of spookiness among the political world and the elements that surround it.

Both films use to an extent identical approaches.  Scenes are basically the same and the plot is the same.  However, while the original was a masterpiece, the 2006 version also establishes itself as the same, but without ruining any of the power the original had.  

As I've said, I hate it when remakes are just remakes for the sake of making a quick buck and trying to be "hip", and with the box-office failure of the 2006 Omen, I guess this is one instance where I'm glad it failed.  With a remake, all producers want to do is "make it cool" for the young crowd and draw in all the audiences they can.  While this is all well and good I guess for Hollywood, it diminishes from the quality, and usually we end up getting something that will easily be discarded as nothing.  (Psycho remake anyone?)

With The Omen, something different happened.  The remake was a flop, nobody saw it, and many critics continually bashed it.  And basically, if this had been the first time the film had been released and it wasn't remake, it probably would have been hailed as a great horror flick with tons of originality.

To be sure, that's the way I felt about the remake.  It's a great film.  Every little detail is handled carefully.  There are even some parts that are added that do not deter or ruin anything about the film, such as the still from the following scene:

Perhaps the case being that the camera does not linger on this image for very long, and it could very well be subliminal.  That's what makes the scene work.  It creeps into your mind and stays with you, all the while in front of you the movie continues to unfold on the screen.  It's little touches like this that make the remake just as memorable as the original.

While many may feel that screen legend Gregory Peck could not be replaced as Robert Thorn, Liev Schreiber does a commendable job and even evokes (in an eerie way), the persona of Peck.  Julia Stiles was criticized by many viewers as being too young for the part of Katherine.  I disagree.  While it would have been interesting to see what an actress such as say, Naomi Watts could have done with the role (and I wouldn't complain about that, and neither would Schreiber), Stiles' performance works very well, and exhibits all the inhibitions of a mother and a terrified woman on the brink of madness.

Then of course, there is Damien himself, played by two very different child actors (Harvey Stephens and Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick), but both performances are of equal, where both actors play Damien with a subtle wit and an unusual sense of silent malice.

The Omen films are classics.  I even liked the two sequels to the original.  And whereas I don't think we'll be getting a sequel to the remake any time soon, it's refreshing to know that there are some parts of the industry that want to retain filmmaking as a true art form and not just an excuse for a quick cash grab.  More recently, another remake that was every bit as good as the original was Let Me In, which you can read my review for here.

In the meantime, sit back and enjoy one of the greatest horror films ever made.  It's something scary that will give any episode of Toddlers And Tiaras a run for its money.

1976 Trailer:



2006 Teaser Trailer (which is actually Davey-Fitzpatrick's screen test):

31 Days Of Horror: Day #20 - PARANORMAL ACTIVITY/PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2

Paranormal Activity/Paranormal Activity 2, (2009)/(2010), Directed by Oren Peli/Tod Williams
Collective Grade: B+

Today, yours truly is fighting a massive cold/sore throat that was probably unleashed upon him by some spirits of the underworld.  As such, take in my past review of the Paranormal Activity movies to gear up for Part 3 which is released in the cineplexes tomorrow.

See you folks later.  Watch out for evil pool cleaners. (For the uninitiated, that's a reference to Part 2.)