Night of the Living Dead (1968)

It was only a matter of time before I got to the zombie movies.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  George Romero
Studio:  Image Ten, Laurel Group, Market Square Productions
Starring:  Duane Jones, Judith O'Dea, Karl Hardman
Tagline:  They Won't Stay Dead
MPAA Rating:  NR
Genre:  black and white, horror, thriller, sci-fi, zombie
Scare score:  B
Rating:  A-

Plot overview:  While visiting their father’s grave in rural Pennsylvania, siblings Barbra (O'Dea) and Johnny (Russell Streiner) are accosted by a strange man who then kills Johnny.  Fleeing from the seen, Barbra comes across an old farmhouse and hides inside, in shock of the recent attack.  She is soon joined by Ben (Jones) who luckily has his senses about him and begins to board up the house while the number of bizarre assailants steadily increases outside.  Along with a scared young couple and a family in distress, the group learns via radio and TV broadcasts that the attacks are being committed nationwide by dead bodies who have been reanimated and now feed upon the flesh of the living.  Distraught with panic and protected only by the thin walls of the house, will the small group be able to survive the night of the living dead?

I have always loved this movie, and in my book it’s almost a perfect example of a horror film: somewhat far-fetched yet still acceptable plot; small group of survivors trapped as they fend off a very gripping and disturbing enemy; almost constant terror throughout; and no clear hope of survival.  To be perfectly honest, I’m not even that crazy about zombie movies (as zombies seem to be all the rage these last few years… though I have to chuckle at any creative work which mixes historical fiction with zombies), but with the debut of this film Romero truly started a new era in the horror movie business.

First of all, the plot is very sturdy (if you can accept the whole, you know, corpses returning to life as zombies due to freak radiation brought back from Venus).  When we hear the title, we know exactly what to expect: a night filled with dead people who are living.  The creative staff must have been all straight shooters because there is no random mystery, no missing clues or twists and turns as we see in so many modern horrors.  As you know I enjoy, this movie presents the viewers and its undeserving characters with almost inexplicable horror, without any reasons except that the zombie attack is happening and they must fight to survive.  Throughout the film we are given countless thrills and chills as the so-called “ghouls” make continuous attempts at breaking into the farmhouse as well as a dash of gore in any seen where the zombies are pigging out on human body parts.  Yum.  Furthermore, for a human touch, the protagonists must survive not only the zombie attacks, but they have to survive each other’s company as well.

The somewhat stock characters of this film are fun to follow throughout the ordeal.  O'Dea does a pretty good job as Barbra, which is a tough role insofar as you need to establish a good balance between a sweet blonde and then the victim in shock.  Obviously she couldn’t have controlled the script, so once she enters the house (and goes into shock) she had to rely on the few and far between scenes in which she has a dramatic outbreak in order to establish herself as a decent actress.  I read that more than a few of these scenes were ad-libbed, which makes sense in retrospect.  

I always liked Barbra as a kid even though I was aware of her almost absence due to her massive silence throughout the film.  Well I finally counted up how big a role Barbra actually has.  After coming off as a friendly, likeable young woman in the first few scenes, she dramatically changes following the first zombie attack in the cemetery.  At this point she enters what I like to call her “comatose stage” during which she speaks 4 times in 12 minutes.  At 31” into the film, Barbra and Ben exchange some much needed slaps, and then she remains silent until 67”.  She then says 6 words and remains silent again until 83”, and there’s not much talking on her part after that.  That being said, her job was a little difficult as an actress because she’s a bit annoying spending all that time in delirious shock.  Although we think she will be the film’s main protagonist, she ultimately becomes one of the most tragic figures in the movie.

Jones, while not the best actor/ line deliverer, is the character we find ourselves rooting for throughout the film (unless you’re on the zombies’ side).  The immediate contrast between his black skin and manly attitude against Barbra’s pale complexion and restrained femininity invokes commentary on both sexual and race relations.  I'm assuming that at the time of the film's release, black leading males were still not common.  Bravo to Romero, and also to the character Ben as we needed some stability in this movie.

Once Karl Hardman enters as Harry Cooper at 41 minutes into the film, we are presented with one of the most annoying characters of all time.  I hate how he speaks, how he argues, and how he plans on surviving the attack.  As his wife (one of my favorite characters, performed by Marilyn Eastman) points out in several undermining side comments, Harry is the type of man who needs to be right and who needs to establish his masculine authority.  While he presents the protagonists with internal, human drama throughout the film, he truly gets what was coming for him by the end.  More importantly, though, Mr. Cooper forces us to question ourselves: what would we do in this situation?  Would we stay hiding in the basement?  If we heard human screams would we try and help?  Is our family more important than the general public?  What would you risk your life for?  The film explores human isolation and selfishness, and even existentialism, largely through Mr. Cooper (as well as the zombies, of course).

Lastly, the young, all-American couple Tom and Judy are more reminiscent of the '50s instead of the rebellion we associate with the '60s.  They are clean cut, helpful, and especially Tom is oddly perky throughout.  Not a lot of depth here - except for some altruism they both demonstrate - and I can't help but laugh during their demise.  Did anyone order barbecue?  

More about that existentialism and the human question from before.  The small group of protagonists - easily representative of American society at the time (young, teenage, middle-aged, working class, middle class, black, white, male, female) - finds itself stuck in a small house in middle America, inside a  normal house just like any other, except that outside the reanimated corpses of what use to be people just like them are going wild, thirsting for flesh and blood.  Aside from the possible connection with the radioactive rocket the US Government wouldn't let return from Venus, there is no reason as to why they should have to fight for their lives and suffer so.  There is no purpose here.  As the night goes on, each character is more and more alone, even if they have a loved one nearby.  One of Barbra's random (ad-libbed) rambling moments expresses this existentialism really well, as she explains she and her brother were just going about their business when the unexplained terror simply began.  Why her?  Why Johnny?  Why any of them?  No easy answer, just terror.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I don't think the word zombie is ever used in this film, which is neat.  As much as I tried listening for it, I don't remember ever hearing it.  While this isn't the first zombie movie, it certainly changed the genre, welcoming an onslaught (pun!) of splatter style re-dead/ un-dead films throughout the following decades, a trend that is still immensely popular at the moment. 

I love the zombies in this movie.  Their makeup is simple for the most part, and then little by little we begin to see decaying faces and missing limbs.  The scenes in which the zombies are feasting upon their unfortunate victims are awesomely gory.  I specifically refer to after Tom and Judy's sudden deaths, when we see the hoard of zombies eating ham and entrails, I mean, limbs and intestines.  Chocolate sauce blood is convincing enough in black and white, and audience members are sure to squirm.

It's kind of sad that Barbra doesn't make it through the movie, especially because she comes so close.  Ben's unexpected death in the last scene further stresses the existential question in the film.  Johnny's iconic "They're coming to get you, Barbra" line in the very beginning is one of my absolute favorites that I reference pretty often in public and no one understands.  Lastly, who doesn't love Johnny's triumphant return during the film's final (and fantastic) 10 minutes?

These last 10 minutes have an awesome pulsing sound affect that adds a lot of terror to the footage we are also watching.  Honestly it's just creepy, so the aural input on top of the visual terror makes for a great climax as the night comes to a close.  The only other comment I have on the sound in this film is the rather trippy sequence that sounds during Mrs. Cooper's death.  It's not my favorite, but it is very '60s and a bit unnerving, if anything.

Final critique:  This is an awesome movie, especially because it's so easy to watch and it really delivers.  The last 10 minutes are specifically gross, scary, and dramatic, but we are dished a really pleasant amount of terror throughout.  Will they escape and survive, or have they made the farmhouse their own tomb?  The zombies are scary, and when there's gore, we feel it.  While I don't think this is the best acting we've seen in the horror genre, it doesn't really hurt the overall film.  Lastly, this is a perfect example of why Pennsylvania is a terrifying state and Horror Buff refuses to drive behind cars with that license plate.  Highly recommended to anyone interested in the horror genre; true fans should have seen this many times by now.  If you're easily scared, make sure you're surrounded by friends and have a strong nightlight (and a sturdy bedroom door) to survive the night of the living dead.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

The original masked madman.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Rupert Julian
Studio:  Universal Studios
Starring:  Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, Norman Kerry
Tagline:  The Greatest Horror Film of Modern Cinema!
MPAA Rating:  NR
Genre:  silent film, mystery, drama, horror, suspense, masked murderer, deformed killer, classic, Universal Horror, black and white
Scare score:  F
Rating:  A-



Before musical theater fans had the longest running Broadway show of all time, horror fans had this classic.

Plot overview:  It is the late XIX century and the Palais Garnier, the Paris Opera House, is under new management.  As Christine Daaé (Philbin), understudy to the lead soprano, becomes more talented at the hands of an unseen vocal coach, a similarly unseen terror from the depths of the cellars below the Opera House becomes more powerful.  One night, Christine's "Angel of Music" at last shows himself - a dark, masked figure - and takes her to his subterranean lair.  Revealing his love for her, Christine unmasks the mysterious figure, revealing his horrid, deformed face, and realizing that her trainer and the Phantom, named Erik, are one and the same (Chaney).  Although terrified of the Phantom, Christine also finds herself pitying and even caring for him.  Still, whenever she can escape from the nightmare, she pleads that her true love and noble Vicomte Raoul (Kerry) take her away from the cursed Opera House.  As the Phantom grows more mad over his love for Christine, no one is safe and the number of his victims begins to increase.  Will the Phantom - a mad, romantic genius - be set free through Christine's love, or will true and pure love from Raoul conquer?  Soon, Christine finds that the fate of both men, and even the entire Opera House, rests in her hands and heart.

Much like Nosferatu, this film is too old (and too silent) to be scary.  Still, it should be respected as an early horror film and as the inspiration of several remakes, spin-offs, and related productions.  I've always enjoyed the original and creative plot of The Phantom of the Opera, having read Gaston Leroux's 1910/1911 novel a few years back.  I found the novel to be much more lengthy and complicated (plot-wise) than I had expected, but this film does a nice job in cutting out the extra fat.

As far as filming goes, this is a pretty beautiful film.  The sets are remarkable and I would love to see what the budget was like at the time of production.  We as viewers can't help but enter into the true decadence of the Palais Garnier or the vastness of its underground, labyrinthine corridors and waterways.  One of my favorite scenes was when the Phantom first takes Christine into his lair, and during the journey the tail of her dress is always drifting behind her: pure white hanging over the darkness of the horse or spectral fabric gliding across the murky water.  We can't miss Christine's pure, white, virginal colors throughout the film contrasted with Erik's blacks.  Later on, we are treated to a few sequences in technicolor during the Masquerade Ball.

This really is an awesome plot.  On the surface level we have an excellent, Romantic mystery, but as we dig deeper there is such a torn romance filled with characters who are neither all good nor all bad.  I love secret passages, trap doors, and underground caverns in my mysteries, and this story is full of them.  With Erik we are presented with a very tragic figure who is clearly pitiful, deranged in his own musical (and more) genius.  Still, even the most romantic viewers should realize that the true horror lays beyond his awful (read: awesome!) face, as he really is an unstable murderer.  Christine is complicated as well, because while she represents purity and innocence, she is pretty darn selfish.  She feels badly for Erik and tells Raoul she can't see him anymore.  Then she wants to escape from Erik and runs back to Raoul.  She has a hard time making up her mind, most notably at the end when she has to make the decision to spare everyone's life but remain with Erik forever, or blow up the Opera House therefore freeing herself and Erik... is that really a decision you have to think about?  Selfish and capricious.  In this way, I think the film is a bit chauvinistic in its depiction of Christine (though not necessarily due to Philbin's portrayal), but perhaps this was just the way thinks were in the melodramatic silent era of 1925.

Chaney is brilliant.  As a revered king of early horror, the viewer has to respect how creepy the Phantom is not only in his looks but in his actions and lines.  His makeup is extraordinary, and when we first see that face it might just be the scariest moment of the movie.  Years ago I read that Chaney did his own makeup for this film, and that it consisted of fish among other things, taking hours to perfect.  Even if it doesn't scare modern viewers, it has certainly become an iconic freaky face.

The very beautiful Philbin does her job as a silent film era actress in her depiction of the entranced-confused-innocent-sad Christine Daaé.  I think that Christine is a difficult character to portray in any version due to the need to establish a balance between victim and heroine who is both selfish and selfless in her "Beauty and the Beast," Stockholm Syndrome-ish situation.

As I have stated before, the single aspect that truly adds terror to a film is sound: creepy noises, eerie soundtracks, and, of course, the big "boom" moments paired with scary and surprising footage.  While this is a silent film lacking scary sounds, we do have a lovely score underneath the entire movie.  I wish some of the music could have been at least darker during the scarier segments of the film, but if nothing else we have a pleasant classical soundtrack.

My main criticism would have to be that the movie drags on a bit in some places.  I actually fell sleep while watching at first (Horror Buff needed a nap) and had to rewind to enjoy the Chandelier incident, which is based on true events.  Also, the over-the-top ending almost becomes comical due to its rapid sequence of events, but I guess it is what audiences wanted at the time.  Horror Buff won't be swimming in the Seine any time soon.

Final critique:  Phantom of the Opera is an important classic in the horror genre and a crowning achievement of Lon Chaney.  While it won't (er, shouldn't) scare modern audiences, it's still a pleasant movie to watch along with other black and white monster classics during the Halloween season.  It is among these other films (Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, etc) that Phantom has established itself and will forever remain in the retro realm of horror classics.  I recommend it for all audiences as an important piece of American cinema and more importantly for its contributions to early horror.

Psycho (1960)

The film that made us afraid to open the shower curtain.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Alfred Hitchcock
Studio:  Shamley Productions
Starring:  Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, John Gavin
Tagline:  A new- and altogether different- screen excitement!!!
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  thriller, suspense, mystery, horror, psychopath
Scare score:  B
Rating:  A

Plot overview:  After embezzling $40,000 from a client at her place of work, Marion Crane (Leigh) leaves Phoenix on a long trip to take up a new life with Sam Loomis (Gavin), with whom she has been having a love affair.  After an exhausting day of driving, Marion arrives at the isolated Bates Motel and meets its quirky proprietor Norman Bates (Perkins).  That night, she is brutally murdered by an unseen killer while in the shower, and in a panic, Bates disposes of the body, her car, and all other evidence in a nearby swamp.  Marion's theft and subsequent disappearance spark an investigation that will uncover the terrifying truth about the Bates Motel, where even the killer may not be fully aware of their crime.

What a wonderful film.  Hitch doesn't fail to keep us constantly entertained with an enticing production and beautifully suspenseful cinematography.  This film was racy at the time of its debut, but looking back I think it's safe to say that it changed the horror genre or at least impacted it for good.  To be honest, shower curtains still creep me out since I first saw this movie (because obviously that slippery dead end is where all thieves and murderers would choose to hide), and who isn't wary about isolated motels?  Drawing terror from real fears is sure to make our imaginations go wild.

Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates is so brilliant.  At first we are given a seemingly normal although admittedly quirky man.  His hobbies and idiosyncrasies are both believable and subtly unnerving: the way he will sometimes stutter, the way he is constantly munching on candy corn, his love of taxidermy, and his defensiveness regarding his manhood.  Of course the crowning achievement of this character is his neurotic tendencies in all subjects involving his mother.  Even Miss Crane becomes quickly aware of his mother's overbearing qualities, of how she belittles Norman, of how she very much makes Norman's life a living hell, and how Norman couldn't bear to leave her on her own because she is incapacitated.  One of my favorite lines from the film is "A mother is a boy's best friend"(ladies- if you ever meet a man who tells you that, RUN).  The scene where Marion takes supper in Norman's office is the definition of creepy, as they are surrounded by all the taxidermied animals and our protagonist (if we can call her that) begins to catch glimpses of Norman's odd and almost unstable personality.  That scene and the rest of the film are rich in metaphors regarding hunting, killing, and taxidermy (...mother?)

Janet Leigh does a commendable job in her "bad girl" protagonist role.  Do we, the audience, like Marion?  She is having a love affair, she embezzles from a client, she is sassy with policemen, and aside from maintaining good contact with her sister (Vera Miles) and mother, she is self-centered.  While her demise is certainly untimely, we at least get to see that she intends to return the stolen money and make amends before she is murdered in the shower scene (one of the most iconic scenes in the horror genre and in American film in general) - which I like to think is a sort of baptism before death.  There is a weird juxtaposition to this scene as it is both sexy and scary.  In and of itself, this scene is as complicated - in emotions and actual technical filming - as the plot and killer.

Let's talk about the cinematography.  Hitch fills Psycho with tons of intriguing and just plain cool camera angles.  I specifically loved the closeups on people's eyes (such as Marion's during the shower scene and Norman's through the hole in the wall before said scene), and there was a sideways shot I remember thinking was pretty impressive.  Wasn't crazy about the scene where private investigator Milton Arbogast (Martin Balsam) falls down the stairs, but I assume that was complicated to shoot and took a lot of prep work.  The filming is voyeuristic throughout, further complicating the plot, Norman's psyche, and the viewer's nerves!  I almost forgot to mention that there was a substantial use of shots scene through mirrors, which I really enjoyed.  We are constantly seeing Marion, Marion and Sam, Marion and Norman, and other characters in mirrors and reflections throughout the film.

The score!  The score, the score, the score.  Composed by Bernard Herrmann, even if the plot and execution of the film were not as excellent as they are, the score would have been sure to make the movie memorable nonetheless.  The easily frightened viewer will be on the edge of his or her seat as the staccato strings pluck their way under our skin and make our hairs stand on end.  It is brilliant and entertaining, adding so much to this classic.

*SPOILER ALERT*

This film has an excellent final twist.  We're not sure what the reality about Mrs. Bates is, but once it's revealed, most people are sure to be shocked and disgusted.  This movie has done wonders insofar as exploring the psyche of the killer, and especially his neurotic tendencies, goes: we are given a marvelously complex and frightening, and maybe pitiful?, murderer.  To himself, Norman is both the villain and the hero, the protagonist and main antagonist in his own life although to an extent he is not only Norman but also his mother.  Unable to cope with what he believes are his inefficiencies and also his guilt, Norman's personality has split, perhaps permanently, by the end of the film.  Thanks to the cheesy, audience friendly explanation from the police at the end of the movie, even the most dull viewer can understand the true psychological status and horror involved in this film.

Final critique:  This horror classic is an absolute must for the Halloween season.  Hitch isn't likely to let us down anyway, but Psycho is a wonderful doorway into the filmography of the Master of Suspense.  If you're a regular reader you know that I love horror movies that have solid plots, so the fact that the majority of this film is more of a mystery/ thriller helps it to secure a solid spot in my spooky book.  I highly recommend this movie for all viewers because in reality it is a suspenseful, intriguing mystery with only a few, excellent scares, making it perfect for those who scare easily.  All in all, a must see horror and an American classic.

Insidious (2011)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  James Wan
Studio:  FilmDistrict
Starring:  Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Barbara Hershey, Lin Shaye, Ty Simpkins
Tagline:  It's Not the House that's Haunted.
MPAA Rating:  PG-13
Genre:  haunted house, ghost, possession, family drama, thriller
Scare score: A-
Rating:  B

I remember when this film first came out and all I could think about was that I had no idea what the word "insidious" meant.  Having finally looked it up just the other night before watching the film, I'm not positive I see exactly how it applies to the plot of the movie (Dalton's condition?  Josh's ability/ visions from childhood?)  Either way, I suppose this hefty movie title is helping horror fans everywhere to improve their vocabulary.

Plot overview:  Recently after moving into a new home, the Lambert family is dealing with the discomfort and stress of juggling jobs, school, a new baby, and an unfamiliar house.  One day, young Dalton (Simpkins) is drawn to the attic, where he hits his head and is then visibly scared by something he sees.  When he does not wake up the next day, parents Renai (Byrne) and Josh (Wilson) rush him to the hospital and learn that he is in an inexplicable coma.  After moving Dalton back into the house under close care three months later, strange and terrifying events begin.  These largely affect Renai who is home to witness them all, but the possible haunting is clearly breaking apart the once happy family.  After moving into another home with hopes to escape the scary phenomena, the haunting becomes even more violent and horrifying.  Josh's mother Lorraine (Hershey) calls in friend and medium Elise Reiner (Shaye) to investigate the happenings, thus revealing a far darker reality with a much deeper past than anyone could have imagined.

I can't believe I waited almost two years to see this film.  Lucky for me some friends invited me to a movie night of sorts, and it was the perfect horror flick to watch given that one girl scares easily: her screams added a lot of terror to this experience, and even I had to jump a few times.

Plotwise, I found the movie to be very cool, although it was too much of a Poltergeist redux to be "original."  Still, this film went much further than, say, Poltergeist, taking the haunted house theme and internalizing the horror, thereby manifesting itself into the family.  So many horror movies, when the murderer/ghost/villain is placed on the back-burner, become stories about the relationships between a group of friends, lovers, or in this case, a family.  We saw the cliché stay at home mom being forced to take care of all the kids, unpack all the boxes, deal with the baby and all other fears associated with being a young mother in a new, unfamiliar house while the dad worked long days, constantly arriving home late (what teacher stays at work until 10 PM??)  The first half of the film is ripe with family conflict, suspicion, and distrust between husband and wife.  That being said, I absolutely loved how important Josh becomes in the second half of the film.  I believe this was important to the family as well as to audience viewers.  If Josh had been any more uninvolved, I would have taken him as a character that could have been easily killed off (...mwahaha).  Luckily the family issue was nicely rounded off before the end of the film.

This movie is chock-full of ghosts and demons galore.  Due to creepy makeup, imaginative ghost personalities, and absolutely perfect scare timing (I wish I had tallied how many jumpy "boom" moments there were), the audience finds itself getting tenser throughout each twist and turn of the first half of the film.  Once the second half of the film becomes heavy on the astral projection and trippy demon realms ("The Further") I found that I for one was able to relax and enjoy the main climax and falling action.  While I wasn't on the edge of my seat for these parts, I do admit that I was still very drawn to the action, although with a few giggles along the way.

While the film does an excellent job of setting us up to finally see the head demon honcho and main protagonist (bloody handprints, Elise's description for her colleague's sketch, and that awesome millisecond where his face appears behind Josh's), my criticism is that the creative team should have caught themselves with his uncanny similarity to Star Wars: Episode 1's Darth Maul.  I know I'm not the first person to think this, but anybody with a general knowledge of the two films is certain to make the very obvious connection.  I still think this demon was scary (at least at first, his whole workshop-from-hell bit was overdone), but a makeover would have prevented this comical association from taking away from the movie.

In defense of the other ghosts, though, I do need to give a well deserved shout out to the old lady who pretty much terrifies us throughout the whole film; the creepy, smiling family that seem like mannequins; and especially to the little boy who I liked to refer to as the Newsie from hell.  That whole seen with him running around the house and hiding from Renai was actually horror genius, as far as scaring rookie horror moviegoers out of their seats goes.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Let's quickly talk about what largely constitutes the second half of the movie.  As I said before, I did really like that Josh's childhood suddenly connects to his own son's and that he must know become the protagonist that saves Dalton.  The astral projection plot was interesting, certainly new to me, but I think the whole section that takes place in "The Further" was just a little weird.  I felt more like we were being lead through a carnival's haunted house than anything truly malicious.  By the time we get to the demon's workshop/ castle (?), I think I was just sitting there with a smile on my face waiting to see the father/ son duo escape.  Again, that was really overdone.  I'm not a fan of horror movies trying to throw together as many scary elements as they can into one scene (creepy dolls, weird music, the demon, sharpening his nails) because then it is no longer scary and becomes instead either funny or even kitschy.

Still trying to decide how I feel about the absolute ending of the movie.  Obviously everything wasn't going to be peachy keen after Josh and Dalton's return from "The Further," so I guess that was a pretty clever way to do it.  You'll have to watch to find out!  Or Google it...

Final critique:  Generally, this movie was very creepy, and it had a lot of heart (and a lot of ghosts).  Any ghost story is great if it is able to deliver, and while this movie will certainly meet and even exceed expectations, I have to admit I wasn't 100% satisfied at the end of the day.  The rising action, full of "boom" moments and other terror really sets us up for a big climax.  I liked that demon, but I don't know.  I really enjoyed the movie, but the jury is still out on if it resolved itself as well as it could have. I highly recommend this film to anyone looking for a screamfest and some nightmares afterwards.  You will be afraid to walk alone in your house after this, so it's not recommended for the weak of heart.

Wait, did you just hear something?

The Woman in Black (2012)

Who doesn't love an English ghost story?

GENERAL INFO:
Director: James Watkins
Studio: Cross Creek Pictures, Hammer Productions (among others)
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds
Tagline: What Did They See?; Do You Believe in Ghosts?
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: British, foreign film, ghost, haunting, curse, thriller, suspense
Scare score: A
Rating: A-

Plot overview:  Given one last chance to save his job, young lawyer, father, and widower Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is sent from London to a small coastal town in northeastern England to deal with the funeral process and final legal matters of the recently deceased Mrs. Drablow.  After a very cold welcome on behalf of various villagers, Kipps demands that he will stay in the town and handle all of the paperwork at the Drablow's manor, the Eel Marsh House, located far out on a causeway and only accessible during low tide.  Kipps soon begins to hear noises and see images throughout the dark and frightening Eel Marsh House, with the events culminating in his seeing the figure of the Woman in Black (Liz White) outside.  Thus begins a strange and terrifying series of horrible deaths of the local children as well as the growing panic and craze of the townspeople who are clearly aware of the relation between Kipps' arrival and business at the Eel Marsh House and the sudden deaths.  Only Samuel Daily (Hinds) and his unstable wife are kind to the concerned Kipps, who learns more about the dark past of the Eel Marsh House and its residents as the hauntings of the Woman in Black become more violent and real.  Kipps soon realizes he must right the wrongs of the Drablow family in order to prevent further further death of the children, including that of his own son Joseph (Misha Handley).  But will his attempts be enough to rest the soul of the Woman in Black?

Wait.  This movie was great.  I'm sitting here after watching it admittedly creeped out and wondering why I haven't heard tons of good reviews.  So yes, Horror Buff loves gothic horror, period pieces, and ghost stories.  This movie gave me everything I wanted and more, and indeed it was in many ways as much a drama with an excellent story line as much as it was a horror.  Outside of the slasher realm, it's so great to see a well thought out, chilling movie.

One has to admire the general filming of this movie.  The scenes, costumes, effects, and sets are beautiful.  I found myself just as interested in the grandeur of the Eel Marsh House and the sheer nature of the causeway through the marsh/ moor as I was with all of the characters as well as the ghosts themselves.  The movie presents us with a wonderful yet oppressive montage of black, white, and grey.  Everything in the film really falls into this color scheme, so along with the dreary weather we know that we are in Edwardian England.  That being said, the general production and presentation of the film is eerie and absolutely perfect for a ghost story.

My only complaint (if you could call it that) would probably be that Mr. Radcliffe is a bit too young for his role.  I never thought he was the best actor, but he did do a pretty good job, which is important for the success of the film as he is in generally every scene.  While I was not displeased with his performance, I still found it a little hard to believe his role and age, especially as he is paired throughout the film with older actors.

*SPOILER ALERT* 

The plot is really excellent; what a story (!) based off of the 1983 novel of the same name by Susan Hill.  The creepy tone of the film really complimented what was happening throughout.  We are given a friendly amount of clues during the exposition, as well as a pleasant amount of thrills during the rising action.  Might I say, the film does an awesome job with the "bang" scary moments, perfectly timed and placed to make the viewer jump on more than several occasions.  I love that kind of horror, and furthermore it complimented the building suspense of the film, therefore satisfying us equally throughout the film's entirety.  I liked the backstory of Jennet Humfrye (the Woman in Black) being the true mother of the deceased Nathaniel, therefore cursing the Drablow's and the whole village as her vengeful spirit returns to provoke the untimely demise of innocent children.  OKAY, okay, so yes: the entire structure of this film's plot relies on the direct opposite of one of my cardinal rules of horror however we have to let it fly as long as it's important to the plot and not just for the sake of randomly killing children (it's starting to seem like my rules are not standing up very strongly to these movies...).

On a better note, I thought it was awesome that the ghost is real!  Once that was established, I was kind of reminded of Darkness Falls, which is another film I happen to like, so that only brought more good feelings to this.  The hauntings were really pretty freaky, and I found myself trying to distract myself to avoid being scared at any "bang" moments.  Once the Woman in Black starts charging and making that awful wailing screech, I found myself really impressed.  And I have to take a second to talk about all the creepy toys around the nursery: perfect touch; so discomforting.  The ghosts of the children were creepy, too, and I was never sure just what was going to happen in that big old house.  The ghost of Nathaniel covered in mud was a little weird/ dumb, but otherwise it was all good.

I had already been predicting that Kipps would try to put the body of Nathaniel to proper rest, but the plot did get a bit strange during the whole scene where he and Daily use the car (1 point for technology!) to pull the carriage and Nathaniel's corpse out of the mud.  Obviously I wasn't expecting the film to end well (as far as putting the Woman in Black to rest was concerned), but it was still nice of Kipps to try so hard.

Admittedly, I was still surprised by the film's ending once it happened so rapidly.  But I won't ruin that for you here.

Final critique:  Considering I decided to watch this movie on a whim, I am truly very pleased.  Ghosts stories are usually great, especially when they end up being real, and even more so when the ghost is maleficent and just plain pissed off.  The enjoyable plot and structure of the film was wonderfully complimented by a fair amount of thrills and chills throughout, instead of having them all come at the very end.  With the prevalent theme of families being separated and reunited being brought to our attention throughout the film, it is certainly up to the viewer to decide if the movie has a sad or happy ending (if you can call it an ending, as we know for sure the Woman in Black isn't planning on stopping anytime soon).  I would recommend this film to anyone, but for those who scare easily, this will probably freak you out and give you some nightmares.  I still am finding myself looking over my shoulder every time I hear a noise somewhere near me.  Really an excellent film; perfect for the Halloween season.

Creep (2004)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Christopher Smith
Studio: UK Film Council
Starring: Franka Potente, Ken Campbell
Tagline: Ever missed the last train?; Your Journey Terminates Here
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: British, foreign, slasher, insane killer, deformed killer
Scare score: B
Rating: C

Plot overview: During a night of partying, the posh and self-centered German-English Kate (Potente) falls asleep on a train platform in the tube station at Charing Cross.  When she awakens, she realizes that she has not only missed the last train, but that she is completely locked inside of the station for the night.  She soon finds that one of her coworkers, Guy (Jeremy Sheffield), has followed her with hopes of taking her home for the night.  High on cocaine, Guy tries violating Kate, only to suddenly be pulled off of her and onto the train tracks by an unknown presence.  Kate runs away as Guy's cries for help echo down the train tunnel.  Thus begins a night of terror as Kate makes her way through the London Underground trying in vain to escape from a deformed and deranged killer.

The idea of someone getting trapped anywhere overnight while a killer runs loose is always pretty interesting.  When the chosen location happens to be one of the world's largest transportation systems, and when that system is furthermore underground and filled with dark, labyrinthine tunnels and passageways, the plot becomes even more exciting.  Not that this could happen to anyone in real life (security measures, common sense, etc), it's still good technique for a horror movie to take something so normal as the Tube and add a little terror.  I've always said that using something that isn't typically scary, something that people use every day, and then making it terrifying is a surefire way to frighten an audience (some people still don't go in the water after Jaws, right?)

*SPOILER ALERT*

It is an interesting tactic to present the audience with a protagonist who is not so likable.  While Potente's acting is pretty admirable, Kate herself is not.  There is an obvious criticism happening at the beginning and end of the film regarding society and how we look at (or don't) those who are homeless, mentally disabled, and, of course, deformed.  From the outset, Kate is a middle or upper class woman who is preoccupied only with herself.  As her endeavors begin below ground, she must rely on the help of homeless people and drug addicts to help her survive the night.  When calling for help, a security supervisor refuses to help her until he realizes that she is not some crazy woman.  At the end of the film, Kate exits the winding tunnels and takes refuge on a train platform as we see businessmen starting their work day: although invisible to some, one man leaves a few coins at her side, thinking she is homeless. Pretty good acting for the lead female in a slasher, though I think some of the time Kate was simply not scared enough considering her situation or that she alternated too greatly and too often between terrified and calm.

The killer is a high point of the film.  It takes a while for us to actually see what is lurking in the dark, which always adds some suspense to a movie.  At first there is merely an unknown forces wreaking havoc, and then there are two unsightly, pale, scabby, greenish arms, and then finally the face behind it all (that scene isn't as scary as it should be).  The make up is pretty good, and we are left dealing with some sort of deformed human/ possible botched medical patient who has adapted to life in the London Underground (his adapted condition being reminiscent of The Descent, as a friend of mine mentioned). From the gross scars and poor condition of his skin to the eerie, animalistic cry he often makes, this "creep" is pretty freaky.

My complaint about this film is that is does begin to drag on a bit, and we are left with too many questions due to poor editing and what seems to have been confusion on behalf of the creative team.  First of all, when Kate first comes face to face with the creep the film takes a strange turn, forgetting about everything that had been happening so far and just having the audience follow the creep around his lair.  I had no idea what was going on, but I assume we had to be shown that the creep is weird, sadistic, and even cannibalistic in what seems to be his fetish for blood.  The entrance to some sort of abandoned surgery room/ abortion clinic was too bizarre, and attempting to present a backstory to the creep (I'm sorry- Craig), his condition, and how he came to live/ kill here was never fully realized.  Was he some sort of medical patient?  Was his father a doctor?  Don't try and add some side plot or depth if you don't give enough information, and don't add anything just for show (bloody clinic, etc).

Other inconsistencies I noted that took away from the film for me: we saw at least two trains running in the middle of the night when we were told that no trains were running until morning; Kate and city sewage worker George (Vas Blackwood) break through a bricked-off doorway and still end up at a sort of "bedroom" in the creep's lair- I understand he knows all the shortcuts and that there is more than one way to get around, but it just seemed odd that it was closed off but obviously accessible and used by the creep; we never see Kate take her heels off, but suddenly she is barefoot (Horror Buff is being picky); and I guess in general I'm still angry about all the time spent showing us the strange photos, surgical tools, etc without proper explanation.

Lastly, the title of the movie could have been a lot better.  Yes, the guy is a creep, but otherwise it doesn't have a lot to do with the rest of the film.

Final critique: I really liked the idea behind this film, but in the end the delivery was just not there.  I wouldn't be too surprised to see, perhaps, an American remake in New York City or DC's metro.  Kate was annoying (but good work Potente), and ultimately I found myself not caring whether or not she survived her ordeal.  The gore is alright although sometimes random, and the dead bodies are aplenty.  Again, I was happy with the creep himself except for when we were forced to watch him lurk about his lair, and then when he randomly speaks when fighting with George.  I had a spot of trouble with the British/ German-British accents but hey that's what you get when you try to be cultured.  I don't recommend this film for people who scare too easily because you will certainly be "creeped" out, and the image of the killer and some of the murders will stick.  For the horror movie lovers out there, if you find the time to watch this film it will at the very least provide you with 81 minutes of an imperiled heroine, a bit of suspense, lots of screams, and a tiny scare.

Nosferatu (1922)

Throwback!

GENERAL INFO:
Director: F.W. Murnau
Studio: Prana Film
Starring: Max Schreck, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schröder
Full title: Nosferatu: A Symphony of Terror
Genre: black and white, silent film, foreign film, vampire, Dracula
Scare score: F
Rating: B-

Let me start by saying that the version of this classic horror film I just watched is a more recent, American release which uses all of the original names from Bram Stoker's novel Dracula.  In the original release, Prana Film did not have the rights to the novel or its characters, so you may be familiar with the version in which all of the character names are different.  I'll try to briefly account for both below with the names listed as such: novel/ original release.

Plot overview:  The young and naive real estate agent Jonathan Harker/ Thomas Hutter (von Wangenheim) is sent by his conniving and crazy boss Reinfeld/ Knock (Alexander Granach) to the distant, supposedly cursed lands of Count Dracula/ Count Orlok (Schreck) in the mountains of Transylvania.  After a discomforting night at Dracula's castle, Harker awakens with two large bite marks on his neck. Although he quickly realizes that Dracula may be an evil man (or monster...), he has already sold him a house - across the street from his own - and must hurry home before it is too late.  While the Count makes his way aboard a ship, killing off its crew and captain one by one, a terrible plague also spreads across Europe.  Harker meanwhile makes his own journey home to save his family and friends from the oncoming evil.  When Harker's wife Mina/ Ellen (Schröder) learns that the Nosferatu can only be stopped by a sacrifice of blood from a female pure of heart, she must decide whether to give her life for the sake of her husband, her friends, and even the world.

More than anything, this movie is very creepy.  Most black and white, silent films have a certain uneasy quality about them, so certainly a horror film is no exception. Although there is music playing underneath the entire film, we find ourselves with our eyes glued to the screen, watching chaos ensue as the terrifying Nosferatu slowly makes his way across Europe, feasting on his prey.  Speaking of the music, the darker organ stuff is pretty scary in and of itself.  The symphonic components are very romantic and dramatic, adding all the character to the movie that the production and acting itself do not. Overall, an excellent score, although it could be even darker and scarier in most parts, because after all, I think sound is the single most important component in making a horror movie truly scary.

Schreck is brilliant and the makeup and costume are perfect.  What a lasting, iconic image!  While the production is too old to actually be that scary, the Nosferatu himself is what adds terror to the film.  The way he glides, or the way he merely gets closer and closer without moving (thanks to the purposeful choppy editing) - which I think is the scariest way for a monster or madman to approach a victim (or the audience) - the way he remains so pale and skinny with his shoulders haunched and his awful, spider-like hands waiting for a new neck to bite into... it gives me chills.  Sorry to have only found such a strange video, but if you mute your computer, watch the first few seconds and then skip to 2:05, I think this is the scariest moment of the movie (just because of how creepy it is), along with the Count lurking towards Harker one night in the castle, and the extremely iconic image of his shadow on the staircase.  Those hands!  Lastly, the best/ creepiest line (is it still a line if it's not spoken?) in the film has got to go to Count Dracula when he first sees a picture of Mina: "Is that your wife?  What a lovely throat!"  Genius.

I didn't like von Wangenheim one bit.  He is so annoying, from his facial expressions to the way he always seems to be running or skipping around.  I understand that in this time period actors had to be overdramatic to portray emotion due to the silent aspect, and I also understand that these are foreign actors in a foreign film, but he is still a little annoying.  Also, terrible haircut.  Schröder is much better as his wife, who is the character with true guts anyway.  Powerful women in horror films!  Bam!

Otherwise, I found the filming locations very impressive and the special effects also good for the time period.  I loved the way the Nosferatu doesn't even have to open doors or close his coffin, as everything magically takes care of itself.  Creepy.

Fun fact: "Nosferatu" is believed to come from a very old Romanian word basically meaning "vampire."

Final critique: If you haven't already, you should see this film.  Vampires are all the rage these days (gag me), but Schreck's Nosferatu character is truly terrifying.  I would much rather be viciously mauled to death by any vampire from Twilight than even see this Nosferatu anywhere near me.  As you probably saw, I did give this film a pretty low rating, but there is an easy explanation for that: it's not scary, and because it's so old it becomes a little boring in parts.  Some scenes are totally out of place, and even unnecessary.  One more round in the editing room would have done this classic some good.  An important announcement, Horror Buff wants a modern remake: keep the makeup/ exact look of this Nosferatu; add some gore (picture that gross vampire puncturing someone's neck); add dialogue and make sure it's not cheesy; add a terrifying score, you can even keep it classical; get rid of what's unnecessary in the plot.  It would be a simple project, and you could even keep the remake as a period piece, or modernize it accordingly.  A new version of Nosferatu (let me once again stress keeping the Count Dracula's looks EXACTLY the same) would be terrifying.  Lastly, because this film isn't overly scary, I recommend for all you scaredy cats out there to take advantage of this classic by watching it on a dark, stormy night with one or two friends.  The images of the title vampire are sure to give you bloody good nightmares.

Halloween (2007)

Happy October. In the world of horror movies this is a pretty big month, so I'm going to try to make an effort to post pretty frequently. Unfortunately I won't be able to watch AMC's usually fantastic (but fading) Fear Fest—my favorite time of year —so I will have to rate whatever horror movies I can get my hands on. If you have access, I highly recommend Fear Fest, though what was once several weeks of terror, 24/7 has dwindled down to 2 weeks, and probably now less, filled with repeats of mainly mediocre thrillers. Regardless, watch it. It's a [trick or] treat.

Halloween may just be my favorite horror movie series, not to mention one of my top favorite movie franchises of all time. Growing up, I remember constantly watching as many of the films as I could whenever they were on TV. To this day I admit I'm still a little confused about the exact number of Halloween films total (I think we're at 10), but I can recommend almost all of them to horror movie watchers everywhere.

That being said, I've got a lot to say about this remake (sorry for not rating the original first), so hold on to your horror horses.

GENERAL INFO:

Director: Rob Zombie

Studios: The Weinstein Company, Alliance Films

Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Sheri Moon Zombie, Scout Taylor-Compton, Tyler Mane, Danielle Harris (!!)

Tagline: Evil Has A Destiny; Evil, Unmasked

MPAA Rating: R

Genre: horror, slasher, stalker, psychopath, serial killer, masked murderer

Scare score:  B+

Rating: A-

Plot overview: In this version, one Halloween night, 10-year-old Michael Mysers (Daeg Faerch) acts on his psychopathic desires and brutally murders the school bully, his sister's boyfriend, and his whole family except for his loving mother (Moon Zombie) and innocent baby sister. Claiming to be unaware of these crimes, Michael is nonetheless placed into a mental health institution where he is put under the careful watch of Dr. Samuel Loomis (McDowell). As his mental state steadily deteriorates, Michael's mother commits suicide, Loomis abandons the case, and Michael is considered hopeless. 15 years later, Michael (Mane) has grown into a very large and still dangerous inmate. On a particularly gory night approaching Halloween, Michael escapes and makes his way back to his home to find his baby sister and complete what he began so many years ago. Meanwhile, in Haddonfield, Illinois, Laurie Strode (Taylor-Compton) is a typical senior in high school. Typical, that is, until Halloween night comes around and she finds herself the target of "the boogeyman," the masked Michael Meyers himself. Before the night is through, Laurie must do anything she can to save her own life, including trying to end his.

I remember seeing this movie in theaters and enjoying it, even to the point where I was laughing with delight during some of the murder scenes and my friends refused to talk to me afterwards. It was a pleasure to see a Halloween film in theaters, especially one that mainly stayed true to the original series in plot, script, and even soundtrack. Let's start at the beginning.

I appreciate Zombie's attempt to give a clearer backstory to Michael, helping the audience almost to sympathize with him (Zombie would) while still showing his clearly ruthless, psychopathic side. Regardless of what we personally think, this film forces us to question: Nature or nurture?, not only in terms of Michael, but perhaps in the cases of actual serial killers. Zombie slightly overdoes the anything-but-healthy home environment that the young Michael comes from, what with a kind hearted stripper for a mother; an abusive, chauvinistic, recently handicapped, alcoholic stepfather-boyfriend-jerk figure; and a sexed-up, taunting, sleazy sister. The movie is [overly] chock-full of cursing, sexual references, and nudity— though I suppose that's where the horror movie might be headed today.

The soundtrack of this movie is pretty fantastic. While half of it seems straight out of Dazed and Confused (setting the '70s mood right from the start), there is also a modern feeling about the majority of the film; still, who could do without John Carpenter's haunting original musical theme?  Moreover, the inclusion of "Mr. Sandman" is a beautiful touch, taking careful viewers back to the original series.

I am so happy, as I was when I saw this in theaters, that Zombie kept many secondary characters the same as they were in the original. Laurie's friends always cracked me up, and while in this remake they are modernized and even more sexed-up (remember, premarital sex = death), the astute viewer will note, for example, things such as Lynda's constant usage of the word "totally," a beautiful homage to the original film's script and characterization. Also, what a treat it is to see Danielle Harris (from several of the original films) come back to the series all grown up. For all this and "Sandman," I would love to say thank you thank you thank you to Rob Zombie.

The whole mask motif is another way that Zombie attempts to add depth to our unstoppable killer, who, in his silence and behind a plain, emotionless face mask, is often left without emotions. Open a psychology textbook and you will see the whole development of young Michael feeling more comfortable "hidden" behind his masks gives the audience a clearer understanding of his psychosis as well as his choice of costume for the rest of the film. I did enjoy that the mask he wears when escaping from the mental hospital as it seems to resemble a jack-o-lantern. Very Halloween slasher-chic. Furthermore, the introduction of his iconic mask is done pretty nicely earlier in the film on the night that he kills his family.

Let's talk about the iconic mask. It's okay in this remake. It's not the best mask we've seen, but it certainly isn't the worst one either (think H20). I found myself able to accept how it was dirty, worn, cracked, and almost veiny. Still, I think it showed too much emotion for Michael, as compared to the original film. This wasn't helped by how much more sadistic Michael is made in this movie— lots of new, ingenious ways to kill people, and what was with him letting seemingly everybody keep crawling away? Since when did Michael Myers do that? I guess Zombie wanted to further demonstrate how Michael enjoys watching his prey suffer, but I can't say this is the true nature of the Michael we have come to know and love (in a terrified way, of course). Unfortunately, for all the time we are left watching Michael watch his victim's slowly crawl away (some even survive…), we have to deal with the fact that Michael's mask sometimes makes him look too contemplative or even confused, especially when he does that little cocked-neck thing. On a whole, the mask is still great.

More on Michael. He is pretty creepy in this film. I love how he lingers and lurks: outside windows, across the street, in dark hallways, and especially behind doors. I think some of the scariest scenes in horror movies are when we know the killer is just feet away from the next victim, waiting there, but the characters know nothing. Showing the killer in the background of a shot is one of the most thrilling tactics a horror movie can do. Very well done.

Unfortunately, I did not love Dr. Loomis in this movie. Throughout the original series I think Donald Pleasance does a pretty great job (minus the whiney "No! No! Noo!"s at the end of Halloween 4).  In this film, McDowell sheds a more negative light on Loomis, though this is certainly intentional on behalf of the creative team as we see the 'good' Doctor is also corrupted in his own ways: failed marriages, failure with Michael, receiving "blood money" from publishing a book about his work with Michael, etc. I think all the lines are there, but unfortunately McDowell just does not deliver.  

18-year-old Scout Taylor-Compton is pretty great as Laurie Strode. We watch as the young, virginal Laurie turns into a terrified and powerless yet willful female protagonist who must learn to fight back and perhaps even kill in order to survive. Obviously Zombie also wanted to explore more of her psyche, the interesting and no doubt scarring effects such an ordeal must have on its survivors…  I hate to admit I haven't seen the 2009 sequel, but I have heard that this film further explores not only Michael's, but also Laurie's mind after the events of this first film are over.

There was an interesting recurring theme I couldn't help but notice throughout this film that I wonder if Zombie was trying to stress. Michael Myers is an unstoppable killing machine, a masked catastrophe waiting to happen every year come October 31st, and although in some films we see him as a poor, even trapped soul ("Uncle!"), we can know no more about him. Since we know Zombie was exploring his background, psyche, and psychosis further in this film, I couldn't help but ignore the theme of homophobia. Michael grows up in a home where his abusive step-father-figure insinuates he's gay, his overly promiscuous sister taunts his sexuality, and only his mother is there to comfort him. At school he meets a similar fate, with the bullies constantly calling him gay through their own derogatory terms. Michael's vulnerability in the homophobic society he lives in is certainly a key factor in his ultimately snapping, as he first beats the bully to death (speak softly and carry a big stick), and then moves on to the members of his family who mocked him (and then some). Even as an adult, Michael's sexuality and potency are mocked first by the graveyard shift hospital guards, and then again by the extremely masculine trucker at the truck stop (none of whom meets a happy ending). When Michael is not killing, and especially when we see him as a patient, he does seem to be a confused, even gentle soul. Perhaps the stick, aluminum bat, and of course the iconic butcher knife each becomes the phallic source that allows him to demonstrate his own power over those who get in his way. Or perhaps Horror Buff is overanalyzing the situation and contexts.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I enjoy the more widespread panic and general killings in the original film, but the subtle terror (only known to the immediate victims, Loomis, Laurie, and the children—who are awesome child actors, by the way—is also moving. This film has a beautiful motif of contrast: The brutality of the inside hiding from the seemingly calm outside. Not only do we see this through the mask theme (Michael hiding his rage behind his mask), but until the very end of the film we fail to see any terror outside of the walls of any house or hospital. There are several terrific scenes in which, in the midst of sheer panic and murder inside a house, a character tries to escape outside, but Michael drags them back in and the door is slammed shut, leaving the viewer in the cold, quiet darkness of the street. The resulting inside vs. outside theme is brilliant. 

I can't say I'm happy about this film breaking one of my cardinal rules. The whole "rape hospital patients who can't defend themselves" thing was done in Kill Bill and it was disturbing then. I hate to say I think Zombie merely threw it in to this film for the sake of sexual brutality, perhaps to show the wickedness of the two male perpetrators who Michael proceeds to kill. We do not know what happens to the female patient, but I for one do not think Michael kills her. Furthermore I hold a personal vendetta against this film for breaking my cardinal rule, because I once promised a room full of friends that there would be no rape in any horror movie we watched, so as soon as this scene passed they had had enough, leaving the room (and probably horror movies in general) behind them.

Fun fact: Co-writer of the original film, Debra Hill, was born in Haddonfield, New Jersey, thus giving the Halloween franchise its classic location of Haddonfield, Illinois.  

Final critique: As far as remakes go, this one did its job and then some. There was great gore throughout the movie, even to the point that Horror Buff had to cringe (I will never look at aluminum baseball bats the same way again). The deaths are realistic, as far as I can only imagine certain deaths might go (twitching, etc), and this shows great progress since the cheap-o fake deaths of the '70s/'80s. With a scary and sturdy plot already set, Zombie was wise to not make any major changes but instead to add background to the story we have all come to know. The acting is great all around, except for Dr. Loomis, which I found to be a great let down as he is such a key figure in his Van Helsing-esque position. Overall, those who are squeamish or easily frightened should stay away. Stick to the original series for a good scare, and only once your stomach is stronger should you attempt to watch this remake (even then, consider keeping the lights on, windows closed, and friends close). Coming pretty highly recommended, this film was an excellent start to The Horror Blog's "Halloween" season.