Saturday, July 9, 2011

More Memorable Moments In Horror: Part 12

I told you there were more of these to come, and I (almost) always keep my word...

Instead of 'this Bud's for you'... this one's for you, Budd :)
(Willy Wonka's trip to hell)


Attic discoveries in The Others


I hate clowns.  I hate this one the most!
(Amusement)


Laura Palmer needs Crest Whitestrips
(Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me)







The aftermath of the blood-soaked bath
(I Spit on Your Grave/Day of the Woman)


Birthday party gone bad.  (The Omen)


Quint's gory demise  (Jaws)


A moment in the cemetery
(Let's Scare Jessica to Death)


There's not room in here for the two of us.  (Moon)


Get a load of the size of that thing!   (Rogue)

Thursday, July 7, 2011

More Memorable Moments In Horror: So This Would Be Part 11, Right?

About a year and a half ago I did a series on this blog called Memorable Moments in Horror.  I think in total I picked about a hundred or so moments within movies that resonate with me, freaked me out, and had me thinking about them long after.  Well it seems a hundred just isn't enough.  Between remembering bits in movies I forgot and adding new movies made within the last couple years, I came up with a whole slew of new ones. 
And once again, there will be several parts...

So here goes:


A glance across the lake (The Innocents)


Farmer Bill burns down the house with his wife & kids inside.
(The Crazies, 2010)


"What are you doing here?"  (Session 9)



The Reveal  (Rosemary's Baby)


...No Swimming  (Creepshow:  The Raft)


Beautiful death courtesy of Argento.   (Suspiria)


The only demonic rabbit I know.  (Donnie Darko)


Just an owl??  (The Fourth Kind)


A feast for the wolves   (Frozen)


Meeting the (scary-as-shit) Pale Man  (Pan's Labyrinth)

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Book Review: SHOCK VALUE: An Absolute Must-Read For All Horror Fans!

I'm a child of the 70's.  Of course I was born in the late 60's but what do you really know when you are two?
I grew up amidst of some of the greatest horror movies of our time.  Let it be known that I didn't actually watch any of these films until the 80's, as my parents were all stingy and didn't allow their six year old to go see Jaws with them. The nerve!  But even once the eighties and their run of slasher films started, I can say I was a 70's girl first and foremost.  Films like The Exorcist, Halloween, and the aforementioned Jaws have absolutely made me the horror fan I am today.
 
Finally, there is a book that has been written about the heydey of such films, and the writers, producers, and directors that made them possible.  SHOCK VALUE, by Jason Zinoman, is a new book from The Penguin Press that explores, recounts, and downright delves deep into the stories of these classic films.  With a keen eye to detail, he relates the stories of getting these movies made, the many political and social overtones of most of the films, and the nonconformist attitude of the directors.  As readers, we get to go behind the scenes of some of the greatest productions of that era. We also get an absorbing and comprehensive look into the lives and back stories of these men - these masters -  who shaped our love of horror.

I was so psyched to have been contacted to have an advance look at the book.  It had already landed on my Amazon wish list a while back, because there just aren't a lot of good books on horror in general, let alone one specifically covering my so-called 'golden-age' of the genre. 

So what can you expect from SHOCK VALUE?  I don't want to give too much away, but have to touch on a few things to give you some sense of anticipation...
Simply put, the titles of the chapters alone give you some idea of what you're in store for. 

For instance, chapter two is entitled The Problem with Psycho.  Now as anyone can tell you, I'm a huge (colossal) Psycho fan, and don't really tend to think there is anything wrong with it.  But what Zinoman is getting at here is that when Hitchcock revealed at the end of Psycho that there was a legitimate reason for the murders (ah! Norman was mentally unstable, he was the ultimate not-guilty by reason of insanity), he made everyone feel better.  Norman would get help. He didn't mean to do it. He just went a little mad.
But what the upcoming directors after Psycho did was up the ante:  they didn't comfort the audience with reasoning and hope.  They didn't make it all go away. They tore the moviegoers down, giving them films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, in which the family lives on out there in the middle of nowhere - even after the senseless slaughter of innocents.  Hell, they may still be there today!
Also mentioned in this chapter is the tiny-budget, genre-changing Night of the Living Dead, in which the hero shockingly dies in the end.  Just when you think all will be fine...bam!  But the political subtexts in that film - a black man is the hero!  He slaps a white woman!  The good-ol-boy dies at the gas pumps after an act of unexpected (?) stupidity!  The ghoulish little girl is eating her father! - they tell the tale of the era better than anything. 

In chapter four, Assaulting the Audience, we get serious insight into the making of the gritty and degrading film,  The Last House on the Left.  The violence within the movie turned many a critic's (and audience member's) stomach, and had people wondering if Wes Craven had went too far with his first film.  But Zinoman explains how this film - and many to follow - started a pattern of violence breeding violence.  In other words, how far do these characters go to get even for the wrongs they have been dealt?  Even though for me, the final scenes of Last House in which the Collingwoods exact their revenge was rather a sweet justice, it still makes you wonder just how far you'd go.  Taking the law into your own hands is risky.  Do you then become as uncivilized as the criminals?  Many films of the 70's take this approach (Straw Dogs and I Spit on Your Grave come immediately to mind) as do films today.  The trend started in the 70's continues, with passion.

In Shock or Awe (chapter five) much discussion is had regarding just how appalling The Exorcist actually is.  To read about how irritated writer William Peter Blatty was with director William Friedkin's take on his story was quite interesting.  Blatty thought the Devil and possession was frightening enough, but it seems Friedkin was more interested in the physical changes as well - the "gross-out factor" if you will.  Shocking the audience with things like the masturbation scene (originally cut from the screenplay by Blatty) and throwing a priest down a flight of stairs to his neck-breaking demise were things that grabbed movie-goers by the balls and said 'pay attention!". The two men coming to terms and making the film you know and love is a story all unto itself, and it's fascinating.

Chapter seven (The Dance of Death) gives us The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and its grunting anti-hero Leatherface. 
A grueling set in extreme Texas heat, shooting hour after hour of footage that was eventually molded into one of the most notorious horror films of all time - despite the fact that there is indeed, very little blood actually spilled.
Tobe Hooper and co. had a bit of difficulty getting a studio to pick it up, and Zinoman details the money issues, disappointments and eventual respect the film received. 

The Thing In-Between (chapter 9) is probably my favorite of the entire book simply because of the attention given to John Carpenter's Halloween and the director in general.  Learning the back story from early production to casting to Carpenter himself writing the score.  ("The music in Jaws told you something was coming.  The music in Halloween made it clear that it was never going away.")
The first scenes of the film set the standard for the killer's point of view, and in my opinion has probably never been done better.  Zinoman delves into whether or not Carpenter was making a statement about the dangers of pre-marital sex by killing off all but the strait-laced virgin, why Michael Myers isn't fond of just jumping into the shot with a knife and instead lurks, and just what makes Michael kill - if we can ever really know.  He also alludes to the imminent appearance of Jason Voorhees when he mentions Sean Cunningham wanting to "rip off" Halloween...

The Epilogue is interesting enough on its own, giving a synopsis akin to "where are they now".

What I am trying to point out is that every fan of horror needs to read this book.  It's well written, utterly engrossing, and a wealth of knowledge.  If you think you've heard it all, you haven't.  In-depth interviews with some of horror's greatest writing and directing minds gives us intriguing content that lends fascinating insight into some of our most treasured horror films.

The stories of John Carpenter, Brian DePalma, Tobe Hooper, George Romero, Dan O'Bannon, Wes Craven, Roman Polanski, and many others are like crack to fans like us. You won't be able to get enough.
In all honesty, I doubt I've read a more astute account of horror films and their makers, in general - regardless of era - in all my years.  If I was giving it stars, it would be a five out of five.  
SHOCK VALUE goes on sale July 7, 2011. 

A sampling of the films discussed: 

The Exorcist
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The Last House on the Left
Carrie
Dark Star
Jaws
Psycho
Dressed to Kill
Rosemary's Baby
Alien
Halloween

From the back book jacket:
*Jason Zinoman is a critic and reporter covering theater for The New York Times. He has also regularly written about movies, television, books and sports for such publications as Vanity Fair, The Guardian, The Economist, and Slate.  He was the chief theater critic for TimeOut New York before leaving to write the On Stage and Off column in the Weekend section of The New York Times.  He grew up in Washington, D.C., and now lives in Brooklyn.

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Sunday Bloody Sunday

Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer


Apartment 1303


Let Sleeping Corpses Lie


Slaughtered Vomit Dolls


Sweet Karma

Friday, July 1, 2011

Babysitter Wanted: "All I Wanted Was A Bed"

There's no doubt that when I slipped Babysitter Wanted into the DVD player that after about ten minutes it's fair to say I experienced some serious déjà vu.  I'd heard a lot about the 2008 film and was anxious to see it, but was faced with a 'haven't I already seen this before' attitude.  The plot, while relatively simple, mirrors 2009's House of the Devil - at least at first.  I assume neither film intentionally ripped the other off, as I've no idea which was actually in production first, but having seen HotD first, I will admit to being slightly bored throughout the beginning of Babysitter. That is not to say that the start of HotD wasn't snooze-worthy as well.

Angie (Sarah Thompson, looking a lot like Jennifer Garner) is off for her first real away-from-home experience: she's starting college. Straight off, she'd faced with a drugged-up, trashy roommate who nonchalantly points out that there is no bed for her - but she is welcome to use the (is that vomit or another bodily fluid?) stained-up couch until she gets one.

It's made blatantly obvious that Angie comes from a religious family by having her drop to her knees and pray before the first fifteen minutes are up.  Not sure if she was praying for her roommate and her pathetic boyfriend not to be too loud while hitting the bong and having sex or just praying for a bed to magically appear.  But when prayers don't work she starts looking into actually buying a bed, which in turn means she will need a part time job to acquire the money.  Ta-dah!  Premise unveiled.

Answering an ad for "babysitter wanted' (clever, eh?), she ends up out in the middle of nowhere at a large farmhouse.  She meets the Stanton family, who by all accounts seem perfectly normal.  Dad and Mom (Bruce Thomas and Kristen Dalton) are glad to hire her and make arrangements to have her sit that weekend with little Sam, who I would say is about 6 or 7 and mildly eccentric, even for a youngster. 

While awaiting the weekend, Angie has some unnerving moments at college when someone starts taping pics of missing girls on her dorm door and an ominous-looking, scarred-up bald guy shows up in the back of her classes and is seemingly following her on darkened streets.  Even though she calls the police and they promise to keep a look out, she's justifiably frightened.

In a tired plot device, Angie's car won't start the night of her first babysitting gig and she has her semi-quasi new boyfriend Rick (Matt Dallas) drive her out to the farm, effectively stranding her at the forboding residence.  Sam is already asleep when she arrives and the parents make a quick exit after giving her the required phone numbers and showing her where Sam's "special food" is located in the fridge.  Hmm...

Naturally, it's not long before she starts to hear some strange noises and gets a few eerie phone calls.  But she brushes off the bad vibes when Sam appears and tells her he's hungry.  When she opens one of his special containers of food I'm pretty sure that's when I would have called it a night, rang up the boyfriend, and settled in for a night of uninhibited sex in the back seat of a Ford Explorer.  But she obliges the creepy little tyke and is then momentarily distracted by another disturbing phone call.  When she comes back to the kitchen, Sam is gone and someone is rattling the front door knob to try to gain entry.

Obviously panic sets in and this is where the movie amps up some action, thank goodness.  And while Babysitter Wanted never drifts far from formulaic horror, it throws in a few surprises that differentiate it from House of the Devil and other films of its kind.

It seems like a bad idea to spill more plot details here, so I'll just suffice by saying it does veer off the likely track a bit and give us a bit of torture and gore, but still sits firmly in familiar territory.  Sometimes it seems like two separate films merged together, as the first and second acts are vastly contrasting. While it seems like it will be a When a Stranger Calls/Halloween-type film in the beginning, it contrasts quite a bit with the some of the Captivity/Hostel-like moves near the end.  I've also heard a few people call it funny, and while it did have a tad bit of black humor, I can't get behind folks calling it comical. 

We are also treated to a decent acting job by the central characters.  Imagine my delight when I saw Bill Moseley as the town sheriff.  Gives the film some street cred in my book right there.  Sarah Thompson is quite good as the devout babysitter who has to reach deep inside herself to escape a life-threatening situation.  And her boyfriend Rick - the aforementioned Dallas - is a guy whose acting talent really doesn't matter because you get lost in his piercing gray-green eyes.  Hot damn.

For a film that was made in '08 and not given a DVD release until just recently, one has to question just why that is.  I heard a lot of good things about it, so of course wanted to see it for myself - and while it's a decent little film, I can't say watching it prompted me to rush out and purchase it on DVD.   I do however, own House of the Devil.
Take from that what you will.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

PJ Soles Blogathon: I TOTALLY had to take part!

When I heard that BJ-C of Day of the Woman was having a P.J. Soles Blogathon, I knew I had to get in on that. 
Soles' role as Lynda van der Klok in one of my favorite films, Halloween (1978), is so iconic - I had to give it some due.  Likewise, her bitchy Norma Watson in 1976's Carrie really trips my hate-o-meter. 
Soles, while having acted in dozens of other films, graciously seems to embrace her cult status in these two horror classics by attending conventions and making her legions of fans happy. 

You know the sign of a great actor?  When they can make you love and hate them on equal grounds. While I love her over-sexed, cheerleading obnoxiousness in Halloween, I have equal amounts of hate for her catty, bullying tomboy character in Carrie.  For an actress to gain my eternal respect they have to show layers of talent, and be able to both piss me off and make me laugh.  P.J. absolutely does this.

*Lynda is such an airheaded floozy in Halloween.  Why is she a great character?  I'll tell you:

1) She's more concerned with getting into the boy's locker room than into college. 

2) Her mind is filled with nothing but thoughts of getting drunk and finding a place to have copious amounts of sex with her bespectacled boyfriend Bob. 

3) She doesn't think anything of getting laid in the bedroom of her best friend's babysitter's house.

4) She's a typical bad friend, not giving two shits that Laurie doesn't have a date to the dance. She's too worried about getting her hair done! I like a girl with principles.

5) She has three new cheers to learn by morning!  Ah, the woes of being a popular cheerleader.  My heart bleeds.

6) She orders Bob around like a drill sargeant.  Don't rip my blouse! Bring me a beer!  You go get it! You idiot! Being in charge is sexy!

7) She has no need for school books.  She never brings homework home.  (Apparently she's too busy learning the lyrics to Don't Fear the Reaper and buying rubbers. No wait...she makes BOB get the condoms.)

8) She's a typical tease.  "See anything you like?"  But at that point she'd already delivered the goods, so the teasing is kind of a moot point.

9) Her ponytails are totally rad.

10) She dies well.  The telephone cord?  Classic, iconic kill.  Totally!

*And why do I hate Norma Watson in Carrie?


1) She's the BFF of Chris Hargenson, and that chick is a royal effing bitch. 

2) She wears that goddamned baseball cap everywhere.

3) Her pigtail braids are wildly annoying.

4) She wears sneakers (and that fucking ball cap) to the prom!

5) She's the one who rigs the prom king and queen voting, making sure Carrie is bound to have a blood bath.

6) Though she's supposedly Chris's best friend, she doesn't support her by walking out of gym/detention with her.  She doesn't want to miss THE PROM!

7) She's a snide, hateful girl who nearly rivals Chris, in particular when throwing tampons.

8) Norma is one of the very first people to laugh at Carrie when dumped with blood at prom.

9) She got clocked with the wrath of the wildly spraying fire hose which, while preventing her escape, didn't seem like a violent enough death for the little snot.

10) Bib overhalls.  Really???

*As this is a horror blog, I've showcased my two favorite P.J. Soles horror roles.  But let it be known that I am an overwhelming fan of her work in Stripes as MP Stella. 

That's some funny stuff there!

Monday, June 27, 2011

Mindless Movie Monday: GROTESQUE: What The Hell Was That I Just Watched?

In the wake of so-called torture porn, there have been countless films showing unbearable, agonizing torture and death.  So much so that it has almost gotten redundant. Writers, directors and producers alike are always looking for the next great shock in horror.  This, my friends, is not shock.  It's not even schlock.
We have the Japanese to thank for the piece of refuse that is Grotesque.  Um, thanks Japan.  And to think I used to like you.

I can't actually say what prompted me to put this film in my Netflix queue, but the other day when it arrived, I got a feeling in my gut that it just wasn't going to light my fire.  Normally, I really dig foreign films.  Having just experienced the Korean beaut I Saw the Devil and deeming it fantastic, perhaps I was trying to catch lightning in a bottle again with another Asian movie.

HOWEVER.  Grotesque is pretty awful.  And I don't mean that in a good way. I suppose if you like nasty deaths that have no point whatsoever, or are turned on by movies deemed too violent or disgusting for ratings and are banned outright in several countries, then this film is going to be right up your alley. 
Essentially a "gorno" (apparently the Asian term for films of this 'nature'), it truly seems like nothing more than a (badder than usual) snuff film.

Aki and Kazuo (Tsugumi Nagasawa and Hiroaki Kawatsure) are a newly formed couple, just having left their very first date when they are struck on the head (a 'la Ted Bundy) by someone and kidnapped.
They wake to find themselves tied up in a frightful basement standing in for a torture chamber.  Without warning, a man (Shigeo Ōsako) appears who just starts randomly torturing them.  In all honesty it felt a bit like a couple teenagers got together and shot a film with the video feature on their phone.  It's not that the quality is all that bad - it's more like they gave no thought to having a point, getting the audience to relate to the characters, or introducing the sadistic madman set to make their lives a living hell.  Kind of felt like one of those really bad pornos, the kind that Jack and David are watching in An American Werewolf in London. 

Anyway, the man behind the misery is apparently a surgeon of some kind, and he sets about to use his "skills" to maim, hack, impair, cut, poke, slice, maul, disable, injure and mutilate our unlucky couple.  Before all the deprivation begins though, our menacing doctor decides to molest his victims.  In a display I seriously wish I hadn't seen, he hand-rapes the woman then jerks off the guy.  It's rather disturbing and sick.  And goddamned noisy. Ugh.  Made even more distressing by having the two watch each other while he forcibly gets them off, it's clear that this is what the surgeon is after.  Sexual gratification by way of harming and assaulting others.  Yuck.  Why did I rent this again? 

You know, it would have been (almost) tolerable if we'd have got to know either the couple or the sadist first, preferably both.  Without rhyme or reason and no discernible point, it meant nothing to me to have these poor souls have an arm chainsawed off, lose a nipple or two, be stuck with screwdrivers, or have an eye gouged out.   I didn't care about anyone, and I just felt dirty for watching the pornographic beginning prior to the slice and dice. 
Subtitles are kind of a moot point, as it was really unnecessary.  I could have watched the whole thing on mute - there wasn't a whole lot of story line to follow and what words were spoken I barely cared about. 

Near the end, they throw in what I assume they thought would be an analysis of the doctor's character - a reason for him to be such a sadistic pig.  But I found it utterly laughable and could only balk at the ridiculous notion presented.  The end just didn't justify the means.  Our maniacal surgeon really just seemed like a dirty little twirp.
And the final showdown?  Christ in a cartoon is it hilariously awful.  Get your warnings here, I'm begging you.

I've seen it written somewhere that this film raises the bar for cinematic violence.  While there is some ridiculous mayhem happening here, I've seen films just as violent that still managed to have a bit of plot to them.  There are absolutely no redeeming qualities to this movie at all.  I can't say I hated it, because to hate is to feel passion - and there is no passion here.

While I'm sure I've drove some to seek this film out by mention of all the foul sex and relentless brutality, I'd ask anyone who wishes to see this to think twice before doing so.  You just cannot get these 73 minutes back.
Oh, and male viewers beware: someone's Captain Winky is going to jump ship.