The Wolfman (2010)

A potentially monumental occasion: I think this is the first time The Horror Blog has reviewed a remake of a movie that I've already reviewed?  Given the remake-happy nature of the horror genre, this is more than certainly the first of many to come.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Joe Johnston
Studios:  Universal Pictures, Relativity Media, Stuber Productions
Starring:  Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt
Tagline:  When the moon is full the legend comes to life
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, action, monster, werewolf, curse, remake
Scare score:  C-
Rating:  B-

Plot overview:  Following the disappearance of his brother, Lawrence Talbot (del Toro), returns to his family estate in Blackmoor, England.  While there, he must deal with painful childhood memories as well as a very rocky relationship with his father, Sir John Talbot (Hopkins).  During this time he also grows closer to his late brother's fiancee, Gwen Conliffe (Blunt).  While trying to learn more about his brother's death from a group of gypsies, Lawrence is attacked by a wild beast that begins to plague the town, leading the suspicious locals to think that a terrible curse has been unleashed at Blackmoor.

As far as horror movies go, this is an action-heavy, gore-happy, high-speed thriller that happens to revolve around werewolf lore with several tie-ins to the original film.  It reminded me in many ways of Van Helsing (2004) and similar films that claim to be scary, but in reality are special effect-flaunting blockbusters based on tropes from within the horror genre.  If you are looking for a true horror movie, don't bother with The Wolfman; if you are looking for a somewhat scary thrilling action ride, definitely give it a try.

The Wolfman is romantic, filled with dark forests, dark villages, and dark manor houses (in general, it's a dark movie both in plot and in cinematography).  There is intrigue and silver bullets around every corner; a tragic overtone regarding family and love and, of course, the curse of the werewolf.

The monster in this movie is very well done.  The transitions are seamless, I enjoyed both the form of the body and even the face wasn't that bad.  It certainly surpasses An American Werewolf in London's beast, due both to the conception and modern special effects.  Speaking of this great werewolf film, the keen viewer will note the huge similarity of the chaotic London street scene which I'm sure The Wolfman borrowed.  It's really no wonder that this movie won the Oscar for best makeup given the impressive nature of both beasts, humans, and victims in the film.

Acting was pretty good in this film even though it relies more on action and thrills than dialogue.  Although from the get go I realized I detest Benicio del Toro's voice (it's extremely irritating), I thought he did a really good job as a dark, driven Larry Talbot.  Emily Blunt as the love interest Gwen was also endearing, charming, and proper.  The really good acting here goes to Anthony Hopkins, who manages to conjure up this menacing Sir John that we are wary of from the beginning.

Scares are not too severe in this movie.  Think of it as an action movie with tons of car crashes and shooting scenes: these things make us nervous and tense while watching.  This movie does the same thing, except instead of car crashes and fighting, there are just scenes of a super-fast beast killing victims.  The occasional slash and spilling of blood or guts might rouse a scare, but otherwise this is certainly not the scariest film in the werewolf genre by far.

Final critique:  I'm a fan of remakes, and pro the whole remake classic movies movement.  That might sound blasphemous, and I don't think every movie merits a remake, but some incredible classics deserve to be modernized either in plot or production and brought to today's audiences that doesn't know how to dig past the year 2000 when looking for a movie to watch.  With a big-billed cast and the ability to flaunt great special effects, it should come as no surprise that The Wolfman turns into an action remake, filled with high-speed fight and murder scenes, a healthy amount of gore, some romance, and an extended plot that explores more psychology than the original film did.  If you're looking for a true horror movie tonight, pass over this one, but don't forget about it for another time when you want a fast-paced, monster-based thrill ride.

The Turn of the Screw (1898) - novella

Because you know I love a good ghost story.

GENERAL INFO:
Author:  Henry James
Publisher:  William Heinemann, London; The Macmillan Company, New York City
Quote:  "No - I suppose we shouldn't.  Of course we have the others."  "We have the others - we have indeed the others," I concurred.
Genre:  novella, serial novel, psychological thriller, thriller, suspense, ghost story, ghost, haunting, drama
Scare score:  B-
Rating:  C+

Plot overview:  In 19th century England, a young, respectable governess is hired to take charge of the education of the orphaned niece and nephew of a disinterested London man.  Upon arriving to Bly, the man's country estate, the governess is smitten with 6-year-old Flora and 10-year-old Miles, the latter of whom has just been expelled from boarding school under entirely mysterious circumstances, describing them both as perfectly handsome, intelligent, and loving.  The governess begins to doubt the children's angelic qualities, however, once the lonely household begins being visited by the specters of two very unwelcome, unholy guests.

This novella, extremely famous to this day for its masterful use of suspense both in content and form, is perhaps best known today as the inspiration behind The Others starring Nicole Kidman.  Having seen that movie countless times (and always forgetting to review it...), I was more than happy to find this book, pick it up, and devour it in a few hours of free time.

Horror Fan was not the biggest fan of the writing style of this book, although the terror is certainly pure and enjoyable.  I foremost had an issue with the rather confusing nature of the governess' narrative.  Understandably a lot of this was done on purpose to mix up the reader, making him further doubt what is happening in the story.  I think half of my problem was that the now aging language was a bit confusing for me in some points (and I ain't no dope), but then there we so, so many padded and run on sentences.  What I'm TRYING to say, I do believe, is that the governess, our dear narrator, often finds it necessary, nay, IMPERATIVE, to speak in such a way - such a way that I hope to convey in this VERY phrase - that requires a most distressful, and, dare I say, frustrating overuse of commas and - you perhaps catch my drift - asides; not to mention the BIZARRE usage of, as you can perhaps see, if it is not too much to ask of you, capital letters to denote EMPHASIS; and I ask myself, humbly, of course, did italic letters NOT exist YET?  Case in point.  Try getting through an entire novella written like that.  The constant majuscule exclamations in today's internet day and age just made me feel as if these people were screaming at me, which perhaps makes the story even that much more suspenseful and stressful.  Furthermore, any scene between the governess and her confidant, the housekeeper Mrs. Grose, feel like high school girls gossiping with PhD level vocabulary.  The bickering, so feminine, in these scenes almost complicate the plot even more than clarify it, as their conversations often revolve around trying to fix the worsening problems at Bly.

Aside from confusing dialogue, stories from wealthy British society up through the turn of the century nowadays result more distanced from the modern reader because of the importance of class, level, and respect that, especially in America, is very difficult to understand.  The greatest example in The Turn of the Screw would have to be the governess' (or anybody's) sheer inability to ask Miles why he was expelled from boarding school.  Being both a woman and an employee of the family, it is not the governess' place to ask - even if she is the only caretaker truly raising this kids.  Like okay imperialist England and your middle class/ working class divisions.  I mean he's 10, and the house is falling apart because of ghost sightings; just ask the kid.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Let's talk about the horror in this novella: it's fantastic from the first moment we have an apparition.  I think the reader, especially one biased by having seen The Others (I myself was constantly questioning to what extent the film drew from the story), picks up on his or her own doubt of the governess' sanity pretty early on in the novella.  As the story races forward, speech becomes quicker, more frantic, chapters become shorter, and the screws seem to come loose, as it were.

Are the ghosts real?  While the governess herself seems to be completely within her wits, enough so to convince other members of the house of what she is seeing, there are moments she also shows critical doubt.  The second time Quint appears to her, the governess says, "The moment was so prolonged that it would have taken but little more to make me doubt if even I were in life," (Part IX).  While reading, I thought for sure that this was a hint as to who the real ghosts in the story were, but alas, that wasn't the case.

What's interesting in the governess' predicament of seeing these two ghosts is her knee-jerk reaction to be a concern not for her own safety but for the children, whom she adores and exalts perhaps too much.  Although the ghosts seem only to be appearing to her, she fervidly imagines that the children are in on the haunting, both as conjurers but also as victims.  She says, "Then it was that the others, the outsiders, were there.  Though they were not angels, they "passed," as the French say, causing me, while they stayed, to tremble with the fear of their addressing to their younger victims some yet more infernal message or more vivid image than they had thought good enough for myself," (Part XIII).  All along, our narrator imagines - strongly and intuitively feels - that these ghosts are looking to connect with the children as sinisterly in death as they did in life.  Implications that Quint and Miss Jessel molested or otherwise abused Miles are only too prevalent in the delicate, beating-around-the-bush manner in which the story's characters talk.  No doubt his abuse had to do with whatever it was he said to his friends at boarding school that ultimately got him expelled without the possibility of returning.

So are the children bad? too smart for their age?  too cunning beyond their demure appearances?  Or is our governess an unreliable narrator, torn apart at the seems by the pressure of her new post and her abhorrence of privileged men in upperclass society such as her father, the uncle, and especially Miles?  If the governess is insane, how is it that she could have perfectly described the ghosts of Bly's two former employees?  This leads us to question Mrs. Grose, who we don't truly know that we can trust either.  The truth is we cannot trust anybody in this story, and regardless of whether or not the ghosts are real or imaginary, they are terrifying in description and appearance (a pale, ginger face staring intently through the window; a figure all dressed in black crying at the bottom of the stairs), and their inclusion into the text is done wonderfully, making it truly scary.

Final critique:  What is the source of horror in this 1898 novella?  A frantic and fast-paced narrative involving children who seem too precious to be true and a governess who seems too nervous to trust, not to mention those two ghosts prowling the property and pages, result in a quick (although confusing) read that allows the reader to make the final decision.  It is the very ambiguity of The Turn of the Screw that has kept it famous to this day.  What do you think?

April Review

Horror Buff had a nice, two-week vacation this month which prevented more horror movie watching. I'm telling you now that May will probably be a very busy month, but I hope to find the time for one of my favorite hobbies.

Four your consideration:

1.  The Silence of the Lambs (1991): A/ A-
2.  Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954): B/B-
3.  Pumpkinhead (1988): C+
4.  The Wolfman (1941): D+

Pumpkinhead (1988)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Stan Winston
Studios:  De Laurentiis Entertainment Group
Starring:  Lance Henriksen
Tagline:  A Grim Fairy Tale.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, monster, curse
Scare score:  D
Rating:  C+

Plot overview:  During a getaway to the country, some city teens are involved in a dirt bike accident that takes the life of a local boy.  Stricken with grief, Ed Harley (Henriksen) seeks his revenge, unleashing a vengeful demon upon the unsuspecting teens.

I remember always seeing this VHS case in Blockbuster when I was a kid, but I've never gotten around to seeing this original movie or its made-for-TV sequels.  While this production is '80s up the wazoo, it was an interesting concept and, at the very least, an entertaining movie.

First of all, I was excited to watch some sort of monster movie.  Going into it, I had very, very different ideas of what Pumpkinhead was going to be like; not surprisingly I was expecting a pumpkin-headed monster or even some sort of scarecrow demon, but alas that isn't the case here.  The demon is a masterpiece of special effects with all credit deservingly going to director Stan Winston, who is known for his work on film series such as Jurassic Park, Aliens, and Predator.  Well before I knew about Winston's affiliations with these other films, the noticeable relation was already there.

Here are my issues with the monster: first of all, this isn't a demon or monster so much as an alien.  Pumpkinhead doesn't quite have a pumpkin head, but rather a similarly shaped head to that of Alien.  I wouldn't be surprised if, as far as the body and tail are concerned, Pumpkinhead was the inspiration for Mewtwo.  That's a serious statement.  All in all, Pumpkinhead is a fierce enemy, but in my book it isn't quite right for the mood the whole movie, and the tagline "A Grim Fairy Tale" tries to set; it is far too extraterrestrial instead of demonic.  Furthermore, the cicada sound made whenever Pumpkinhead is approaching reminded me way too much of Predator.  A little more creativity here wouldn't have hurt.

My other big issue with the creature itself was the boring, repetitive ways in which it always killed.  Not once did it vary from a sort of strange combination of lifting, throwing, and dropping its victims until they were dead.  Not once did this vary with the exception of very minor changes either before or after proceeding to lift up and drop the given victim.  Boring city.

Regardless, special effects in this movie are pretty fantastic, specifically those involving Pumpkinhead itself.  Perhaps with such a complicated costume they were limited to the ways the monster could actually kill people while onscreen.  While it may not be as memorable as, say, Alien or Predator, Pumpkinhead was a cool looking demon.  I also really liked the whole urban-legend bit revolving around him.  When the Wallace kids start chanting that rhyme to scare their little brother, it was both a creepy and interesting moment.  We've seen a similar rhyme in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies.

The script was nothing special in this movie.  In fact, since the version I watched online had English subtitles, I was much more aware of the poor script that I perhaps would have been in a normal viewing.  So much of the dialogue in this movie is repeated.  So much of the dialogue in this movie is repeated.  I can't stress it enough.  I first realized this during the scene when Harley returns to the old woman who lives in the woods.  Every single line he has he repeats twice.  Then the old woman starts to do it too.  In later scenes, the teenagers do it as well.  The teenagers do it as well.  What may feel like desperation to an amateur screenwriter just sounds like a poorly thought out echo to audiences.

Acting isn't good either, but for an '80s B movie, it's certainly entertaining.  Lots of melodrama from unexperienced teenage/ twenty-something actors, lots of over-the-top Appalachia-meets-Deep-South poverty, and extra lots of running through dark, foggy woods and slipping in the dirt before giving up the will to run only to continue running.  When will these teenagers learn?

*SPOILER ALERT*

Something I loved about this movie though was the sort of evolution we saw in our two main characters at the end.  That is to say, Pumpkinhead and Ed Harley.  From the first murder, we realize that there is some sort of connection between the two, but it isn't until the very end that we see Pumpkinhead taking on the features of Mr. Harley and vice versa.  Truly eerie and fascinating, and done spectacularly for 1988.  Then, at the end of the film, we see the curse of vengeance complete its full circle when the witch/ old woman buries a new corpse in Pumpkinhead's grave for next time.

Final critique:  There is plenty of promise in this movie, but not enough delivery.  Going into Pumpkinhead, I think that most audiences will expect something different, although at the end of the day we have a unique monster attacking a group of frightened teenagers just as other unique monsters chased and killed other frightened teenagers throughout the majority of horror films from the 1980s.  The best thing about this movie is the fun plot and the creative monster, both of which will leave you wishing everything were more masterfully executed.  A fun watch, nothing more, nothing less.

The Wolf Man (1941)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  George Waggner
Studios:  Universal Pictures
Starring:  Lon Chaney Jr., Claude Rains, Evelyn Ankers
Tagline:  His hideous howl a dirge of death!
MPAA Rating:  Unrated/ Approved
Genre:  horror, terror, monster, classic, werewolf, curse, Universal Horror, black and white
Scare score:  F
Rating:  D+

Plot overview:  Returning to his native town and familial home, Americanized British nobleman Larry Talbot (Chaney Jr.) accepts his position within his family, and shortly thereafter becomes smitten with local beauty Gwen Conliffe (Ankers).  As they go out one night to have their fortunes told at a gypsy caravan, a mysterious beast kills their friend Jenny (Fay Helm) and bites Larry in the process.  Over the next few days, the townspeople begin to fear what is loose in the woods while Larry begins to fear what is loose within himself.

Yes, yes, we all love Universal Horror, and there is nothing better than that black and white globe circling around under the overture at the start of these movies.  Was this the first werewolf movie following a century or more of popular werewolf gothic and romantic fiction?  It seems that it just might be, spawning countless 'sequels' as well as a 2010 action remake.  In today's world, who doesn't know what a werewolf is and who hasn't seen some representation of one in literature, TV, or film?  Well it seems we might just have Chaney and this 1941 film to thank.

Unfortunately, this movie kind of stinks.  I say that with a smile, as I watched it over the course of two nights before bed, the first time finding sleep to be more enjoyable.  The movie is too clean, to prim and proper '40s Hollywood to be truly scary, boasting a plot that is frankly strange, droll and predictable screenwriting, and acting that can be frustrating at times.

Lon Chaney Jr., walking in his father's (The Phantom of the Opera) footsteps (he's only booked as Lon Chaney for Pete's sake), gives us this large, bumbling, and creepy Larry Talbot, a tragic character made only more tragic but how dumb this movie is.  There was only one brief moment towards the end of the film that, in his character's desperation, did I appreciate Chaney Jr.'s acting.  He's too big compared to the other actors, too smiley, too creepily charming.  I thought it was a poor casting choice, aside from his name and his (and his father's) famed monster career.

Claude Rains (The Invisible Man himself) does a good job in this movie, in what is probably the least believable father-son pairing up of all time.  Not for one second could anyone believe that Chaney Jr. is Rains son, and I don't care what the mother looked like.  Just Hollywood getting some big names on the bill.

Then we have the lovely, charming, flirtatious, pure, tortured, desperate Evelyn Ankers playing Talbot's love interest Gwen.  There is some good acting here, although this role is exactly the same as any given [horror movie] love interest role from this time period.

Chaney Jr. as the wolfman himself prances around the fog-suffocated soundstage in the least scary way possible, given perhaps 6 or 7 minutes of screen time if that much, inducing absolutely no fear in today's audience in the shots of his face, that is, about 1/3 of his face pictured through the shadows tragically, sadly, like a lost animal.  Makeup is alright; not my favorite portrayal of a werewolf, although poor Chaney Jr. had to undergo hours and hours of having yak hair glued to him.  I can't even imagine.

My problems with this movie are many.  First of all, the movie takes place in England, and nobody speaks with a British accent.  Maybe this doesn't bother the average viewer but Horror Buff is picky about this things, and I mean how hard is it to set the movie in Massachusetts or Maryland if everyone is going to talk that way?  Secondly, how Talbot and Gwen fall in love is so, so beyond me. He PEEPS at her while she is DRESSING through a TELESCOPE?  There was absolutely no point in having a telescope or a refurbished attic in this whole movie except that it provided a way for Larry to eerily spy on this girl.  Sure, we've all seen what our neighbors are up to at one moment or another in our lives, but then Larry marches to town and proceeds to terrify this girl by telling her what kind of earrings she keeps on her vanity.  Dear female readers: if a guy ever does this to you, just call for help and keep your windows locked.

Otherwise, the whole movie is just various characters running about, confused and scared, setting traps or falling into them, accusing each other or trying to confess.  It's totally boring.

I did love the poem/ saying that everyone knew about werewolves, "Even a man who is pure in heart/ and says his prayers by night/ may become a wolf/ when the wolfsbane blooms/ and the autumn moon is bright."  This rhyme has appeared in all but two of the subsequent werewolf adaptations and sequels of this film.  I also liked that this werewolf transformation lore doesn't depend on the full moon in order to change the victim, although this staple would soon develop.

Final critique:  I love Universal Horror and all the original monsters that are sort of like the founding fathers of horror.  Love 'em.  That being said, films as old and no-longer-scary such as The Wolf Man are fun to watch with a bowl of popcorn on a given night of the week.  Just do not go into this film expecting to be scared or expecting a good plot, or good writing, or a good time.  Still a classic, still enjoyable in its costumes and scenery.  I wish there were more of the monster.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

GENERAL INFO:

Director:  Jonathan Demme

Studios:  Orion Pictures

Starring:  Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins

Tagline:  To enter the mind of a killer, she must challenge the mind of a madman.  

MPAA Rating:  R

Genre:  horror, psychological thriller, mystery, crime, drama, serial killer, cannibal

Scare score:  C+

Rating:  A/A-

Plot overview:  FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Foster) has only dreamed of a successful career when Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn), the head of the Behavioral Science Unit, calls her in on a special mission.  Her task: to interview the infamous Baltimore-based psychiatrist-turned-cannibalistic serial killer Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins).  Unbeknownst to Clarice, Crawford's main goal is to use Lecter's expertise to help profile and then apprehend Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), a serial killer who is kidnapping, murdering, and skinning women across the Midwest.  Will Clarice be able to use Lecter's knowledge to identify Buffalo Bill before he kills his latest kidnapping victim, or will Lecter get to Clarice's head first?

This is a really fantastic mystery/ psychological thriller that tips into horror just enough that I feel good about reviewing it.  I mean, the main character is called 'Hannibal the Cannibal' - how can't that be just a little bit scary?

This movie swept the Oscars winning Best Picture, Best Actor/ Actress, Best Director, and Best Adapted Screenplay, and all for a good reason!  This movie is creepy from the outset given the misty atmosphere of Quantico, later followed by the equally dismal and grey shots around West Virginia and Ohio.  The Silence of the Lambs combines crime, mystery, and both physiological and human horror into one slam dunk, spanning from one serial killer who is so smart and creepy we fall in love, another serial killer who may be even creepier, kidnapping, dead bodies, creepy bugs, and plenty of suspense.  Gee, horror fans, there's just something for everyone!

Let's talk acting.  Jodie Foster is great in this role.  As a child, I always confused her with Jamie Lee Curtis, but aside from being strong leading ladies, there isn't much of a connection there.  Silly Little Horror Buff.  Clarice is a driven, strong, and badass FBI trainee who does a perfect job as showing how strong she can be in a field dominated by men, yet she isn't afraid to show her human nature such as in the funeral scene or after first visiting Hannibal.  In fact, it is Clarice's personal side that interests Hannibal so much the movie itself is set into motion.  I love her rough southern accent in this movie; just enough twang to bring this crime/ horror to the heartland.

Anthony Hopkins.  Need I say more?  No, but I will.  From his haunting voice to weird gestures (especially the slurping noise he makes when talking about eating people), Hopkins portrays Lecter masterfully, switching back and forth seamlessly from refined, intelligent psychiatrist to flesh-hungry psychopath.  His character, highlighted by the shots and frames we often see him in (plenty of close-ups!) stay with us well after the movie has finished.

I also love Ted Levine's performance here.  His voice is another key feature in the horror; the way he tries to remain calm when dealing with his prisoner or with police, and the way that his psychotic nature shines through underneath.  Then, of course, who can forget his pathology... and ultimate goal for kidnapping and murdering hefty girls?  I thought there was a touch of this behind American Horror Story: Asylum regarding Bloodyface/ the decorations around his house.  One of the weirdest and most memorable scenes in the entire movie is of course of Buffalo Bill/ Jame Gumb dancing around in his basement to "Goodbye Horses" by Q Lazzarus.

This film isn't particularly scary although there are scenes that will get your pulse up and maybe you'll find yourself biting your nails a bit.  Aside from a fun plot that we try to figure out along with the FBI, the characters in Silence of the Lambs are dynamic and truly intriguing.  

Final critique:  This hugely successful film has done our beloved horror genre a great favor by being scary enough to not fall strictly under crime.  The mystery is sure to keep the audience interested throughout the exploration of a crime that exists outwardly in society as much as inwardly within its perpetrators.  Not too scary, although there is a bit of gore; also, the psychological thrills are enough to creep out most audiences.

The Shining (1977) - novel

My second 'book report' following American Psycho some time back.

GENERAL INFO:
Author:  Stephen King
Publisher:  Doubleday, New York
Quote:  "The hotel caught Daddy."
Genre:  novel, psychological thriller, horror, thriller, family drama, ghost, haunting
Scare score:  C+
Rating:  A-

Plot overview:  Upon losing his job at a respected New England prep school, aspiring writer and recovering alcoholic Jack Torrance accepts a position as the winter caretaker of the Overlook Hotel, isolated amongst the peaks of the Colorado Rockies.  He brings his wife Wendy - who has stayed with him through thick and thin although she has contemplated leaving - and son Danny, a young boy with an incredible gift that allows him to read minds and see premonitions.  As the harsh, unforgiving winter sets in, both Jack's and the Overlook's terrible pasts come back to haunt the Torrance's in an attempt to make them eternal guests.

We all know the movie.  In fact, it's one of my favorites.  That being said, it was naturally very interesting to read the source of Kubrick's famous masterpiece.

I have never read Stephen King before, but I have to say I was really pleased with his writing style.  There were several obvious connections between this and other works of his that I'm familiar with via their film adaptions, as well as some standard King themes such as alcoholism, reality vs. imagination as well as individual perception vs. public perception (I find these four are often intertwined), and finally the capacity of the small or meek, that is to say, the supernatural ability of the underdog.

The Shining is heartily saturated with cultural references and great vocabulary.  While I couldn't help but picture the Overlook and the Torrance family as depicted in the movie, King leaves very little to the imagination in terms of his realistic and consuming descriptive style.  I was amazed at how each time I read, I, too, felt like I was trapped in some endless white winter.  After reading, I'd have to go outside to remind myself that it's spring and 75 degrees.  The book isolates its reader right along with the other guests of the Overlook.

As far as comparing and contrasting goes, it was interesting to see what Kubrick used, what he changed, and what he flat-out rejected.  Now that I'm familiar with both works, I would have to say the horror is different in the book than it is in the movie.  The movie depends a lot more on Nicholson's wacky performance (which we love), paired with only a handful of other scary images such as the twin girls, elevators full of blood, and that lobby full of skeletons which, in 2014, does nothing for us.  The book relies much more on the suspenseful horrors of the Overlook itself - which in the novel is easily the main antagonist, much more so than Jack - to make the characters (and the reader) paranoid.  I enjoyed how much the novel plays on reality and fiction, making us question what is real right up until the end.  An example of the Overlooks power: "The hotel was running things now.  Maybe at first the things that had happened had only been accidents.  Maybe at first the things he had seen really were like scary pictures that couldn't hurt him.  But now the hotel was controlling those things and they could hurt."

The biggest differences would have to be the lack of ghost personalities in the movie.  In the novel, the Overlook has stored up negative echoes and spirits of former guests that leave their stain in areas such as the Presidential Suite, Room 217, the elevator, and the bar.  While the movie version taps on a few of these references, focusing on a modified version of Room 217 and even briefly featuring previous owner Horace Derwent with special friend Roger the man in the dog costume.  The movie, however, invents the characters of previous caretaker Grady's daughters, and otherwise ignores the topiaries and roque court/ mallet.  I understand leaving out the hedges as creating such scenes given dated special effects would have been a terrible idea.  Furthermore, after reading the novel, I suppose I am upset that even the entire scene of Jack breaking into their quarters to try and kill Wendy and Danny -regardless of how iconic it has become - was entirely different.

And while in some hypothetical remake I would love to see more ghosts, it might be nice to see more of the human characters as they are in the book, talis qualis.  The book is absolutely focused on Jack's alcohol addiction, his inability to control his temper, and his alcoholic, abusive father.  While the Overlook ultimately does crack Jack, it is Jack - his weakness, his anger, his inability - that gives into the hotel's pressures.  In the movie, it seems much more like Jack becomes possessed or goes insane for little reason other than cabin fever.

Although I think Shelley Duvall does a good job of portraying the Wendy from the novel, she certainly falls away from prominence.  In the book she is much more than Danny's protector; they share a special bond, and she is eager and willing to sacrifice herself for his sake should the time come.  In the move, Wendy fights back and does well, but she suffers less so than in the book.  (Though I admit the domestic violence between Overlook-Jack and Wendy was incredible violent; reminiscent of Insidious: Chapter 2).

Then, of course, we have Danny.  Danny, the small key that sets all of the Overlook's horrors into action.  Listen to what King has to say: "If they got out of here, the Overlook might subside to its old semi-sentient state, able to do no more than present penny-dreadful horror slides to the more psychically aware guests who entered it.  Without Danny it was not much more than an amusement park haunted house, where a guest or two might hear tappings or the phantom sounds of a masquerade party, or see an occasional disturbing thing.  But if it absorbed Danny... Danny's shine or life force or spirit... whatever you wanted to call it... into itself - what would it be then?"

Danny Torrance in the novel is much of a key player than he is portrayed to be in the movie.  Since the majority of Danny's intellect and power is mental, it makes sense.  If not done cheaply, that hypothetical remake could rely some more on Danny's mental dialogue to assess the darkening situation at the Overlook from the outset until the film's climactic finale.

It's always interesting to read a novel and compare it to the movie.  While I'm usually a fan of reading the book before seeing the flick, sometimes you just can't help it.  The novel was admittedly freaky.  I think 'freaky' is the best way to describe the suspense and terror of this specific work: ranging from premonitions, to pure suspense, to decaying ghosts of ages past, to outright violence and the struggle to survive - all of which was pleasantly (or not) described in perfect detail.  I think the best thing the book boasts is its ability to draw you in to this bleak, isolated world of winter in the Rockies.  Jack's constant and profound introspection makes the reader question his or her upbringing, choices, and ability to hold themselves and their family together.  This is marvelously contrasted by Danny's innocence as a 5-year-old, simultaneously not understand adult emotions and perceiving much more of the gritty darkness and reality behind a smile or beneath the creaking floorboards.

Final critique:  I was very content with my book choice, and I flew through the 900-odd e-pages (I think on paper this book is around 500 pages) in less than three days; I was practically unable to put this down.  The book compels consumes the reader much as the Overlook consumes its guests.  If you love the movie, I recommend this book.  If you haven't seen the movie, read the book first, and then enjoy the film afterwards.  I guess all that's left now is the watch the miniseries from the '90s, which underwent far more supervision from the untouchable Stephen King.

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Jack Arnold
Studios:  Universal International
Starring:  Richard Carlson, Julie Adams, Richard Denning
Tagline:  Clawing Monster From A Lost Age strikes from the Amazon's forbidden depths!
MPAA Rating:  Unrated
Genre:  horror, thriller, science fiction, monster, classic, Universal Horror, black and white
Scare score:  D
Rating:  B/ B-

Plot overview:  During a geological excavation in the Amazon, Dr. Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) discovers a unique fossil of a clawed, webbed hand with five fingers.  He contacts his friends, the marine biologists Dr. David Reed (Carlson) and his girlfriend Kay (Adams), who agree to come to the Amazon under the financing of money-hungry Dr. Mark Williams (Denning).  Together, the group of researchers hope to prove a link in the evolution between sea animals and land animals.  Little do they know of the horror that awaits them beneath the murky waters of the Amazon!

This is your pretty standard, iconic horror movie from the golden era of Universal Horror spanning the '20s, '30s, '40s, '50s, and '60s.  Like other Universal Monster Movies that I've reviewed (Frankenstein, The Phantom of the Opera, The Invisible Man), this film - with its very wholesome, American characters and general lack of horror - isn't the scariest thing out there.  By a long shot.  But that doesn't mean that it isn't enjoyable.

Creature from the Black Lagoon has made the Creature, affectionately called Gill-man (played on land by Ben Chapman and underwater by Ricou Browning), an absolutely iconic monster and image in popular culture.  Described as a piscine amphibious humanoid, the Creature is admittedly creepy, especially in underwater shots, and especially when we're shown its face with black holes for eyes.  A huge kudos is in order for the makeup department here, specifically Millicent Patrick and Bud Westmore, according to my research.  Unfortunately, while Gill-man is a scary looking fish-dude, the scares revolving around it are not nearly as frightening as they could (or should be).  But of course, this was 1954.

The monster is first introduced to us about 10 minutes into the movie via a scaly, webbed, and clawed hand reaching out of the river.  We will see this same style of 'arm reaching out of water', 'arm reaching into tent', 'arm reaching over edge of boat', 'arm reaching through porthole' - and the list goes on - about a thousand times in the movie, always accompanied by a shrill cacophony of trumpets or other brass instruments that very nearly drove me insane.  Honestly, if the audience were subjected to the unholy blast of trumpets one more time, there probably could have been a lawsuit regarding hearing impairment.

I've said it before and I'll say it now - sound is what makes the horror movie.  Yes, yes, there are images and ideas we love because they terrify us and stay with us (think the protagonist in the foreground of a shot going about his or her business with the killer in the background, just lurking there - gosh I love shots like that), but I am convinced that if you sat through even the scariest movie with the volume on mute, you would not be scared.  Now this probably isn't a revelation for most horror fans, but it's an interesting and important point nonetheless.  Nowadays we have beautifully crafted scores and memorable intros, themes, or even sounds that we associate automatically with certain kills, regardless of the merit of the kill(er) itself or the scare factor.  When we go back to old-fashioned horror such as Creature from the Black Lagoon, however, audiences weren't used to the sheer level or ferocity of horror that we know and love today in 2014.  Just imagine somebody from 60 years ago sitting through, say, Cabin in the Woods.  Needless to say, moral and societal standards have changed, as have scare tactics.  Unfortunately for this movie, the scare tactic was to pair a not-quite-scary shot of Gill-man with blasting brass instruments.  When this is done about 50 times over, the result may have been shocking in '54, but in '14 it comes off as a little tacky.

This movie, like other Universal Horrors, is too old to be scary.  Aside from the repetitive 'hand' bit, and a few scenes of underwater pursuit, there isn't much suspense either.  Browning, who spends his screen time swimming around in a very human and not monstrous fashion, didn't have much room to work with in terms of scariness.  Chapman, on the other hand, lugs around on land much like Frankenstein (who he cited as an inspiration for his role), whereas I think Gill-man would have been much scarier if he had rapid movements on land.  Oh well.  Lots of lost potential there.

What this movie does boast and fantastically are its underwater shots.  The scenery throughout the whole film is great - I would absolutely love to see this film in color (I'm sure it's on the internet somewhere).  Browning, a famous and I think still-active underwater stunt coordinator, along with actors Carlson and Denning deliver really cool scenes in the lagoon, even if they're just splashing around or tying rope around fallen trees.  It's very interesting that this was shot and released in 3-D.

*SPOILER ALERT*

As far as plot goes, the movie is all right.  It only takes about 4 minutes for the movie to introduce the beautiful Julie Adams, who we know from the movie poster will be our damsel in distress.  My big question about this movie is why does Gill-man seemingly fall for her?  And what is he planning on doing with her?  I guess this questions goes for most classic monster movies.

The other interesting thing about this movie is the ambivalent nature of the Creature.  Who strikes first?  I mean, sure, if I were in the Amazon and Gilly popped his head into my tent to say hi, I would do everything in my power to frighten him off or kill him.  Fight or flight, am I right?  So although the two assistants at the beginning only throw small items at Gill-man before he kills them, you could argue that the monster was just reacting with the violence he was shown.  Was he going to harm Kay?  It doesn't look that way.  There's a lot to be said here about the environmental effects of humans in the Amazon, etc, etc.  Much like other Universal Monsters when confronted by angry, pitchfork or powered harpoon gun-brandishing humans, who's the real bad guy?

Final critique:  This is a fun movie that today falls more under a sci-fi thriller than a horror.  Since its debut in 1954, Creature from the Black Lagoon has spawned several sequels as well as countless references and allusions that has secured Gill-man a place in American and global horror culture.  This is a fun movie to watch when you're looking for a sort of retro sci-fi.  Very few scares, and the ones that are there aren't scary.  With a run time of only 79 minutes, why not watch this classic?

March Review

March was a truly successful month in terms of horror.  Hope to have more months like it in the future.

For your consideration:

1.  The Cabin in the Woods (2012): A
2.  An American Werewolf in London (1981): A/A-
3.  Fright Night (1985): A-
4.  The Innkeepers (2011): A-/B+
5.  The House of the Devil (2009): A-
6.  It (1990): B+
7.  The Bone Collector (1999): B+
8.  Darkness Falls (2003): C+
9.  Friday the 13: The Final Chapter (1984): C+

Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Joseph Zito
Studios:  Paramount Pictures
Starring:  Corey Feldman, Kimberly Beck, Lawrence Monoson, Crispin Glover, Peter Barton, Barbara Howard; ft. Joan Freeman, Ted White
Tagline:  Friday April 13th is Jason's Unlucky Day
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, thriller, slasher, stalker, serial killer, psychopath, masked murderer, teen
Scare score:  D+
Rating:  C+

Plot overview:  Immediately following the events of the previous film, we are introduced to the Jarvis family, consisting of the recently separated mother (Freeman), blonde bombshell daughter Trish (Beck), and oddball son Tommy (Feldman).  Trying to enjoy a peaceful getaway at the lake, they have mixed reactions to the arrival of a group of teenagers at the house next door.  This time around, we have the big talker but poor performer Ted (Monoson), his best bud and recently single Jimmy (Glover), on-and-off sweethearts Sam (Judie Aronson) and Paul (Clyde Hayes), the shy Sara (Howard) and her crush Doug (Barton).  After escaping from the hospital where he was believed to be dead, Jason (uncredited White) returns to Crystal Lake and is very unhappy to find so many intruders.

It's really a wonder to me that the franchise didn't end, or come to a terrible, crashing halt, after this film.  Already by Part III, we are used to the blood bath Jason makes out of any unsuspecting weekenders at the lake (beware of West Jersey).  We were also already used to a lack of plot as well as kills that made it seem like screenwriters were crossing names off a list rather than creatively, purposefully murdering characters (and people think modern horror is bad with boobs and body counts... Friday the 13th doesn't hold back).  I'm not sure, then, just what we were expecting from Part IV - "the final chapter" HA big laugh 30 years later - because, with no plot and many senseless kills, this movie just brought us more of the same.

More stupid introduction.  Why is it that the creators of this franchise love using the first 5-10 minutes of each movie to recap practically all of the events of the previous movies?  It's so unnecessary.

More dopey teenagers.  Our cast of victims is colorful and fun as always, and this time around they might even just be sexier with teen idol Peter Barton (who talks like four times in the whole movie), beautiful yet annoying yet incredibly resilient big sis Kimberly Beck, and the unforgettable More twins Camilla and Carey as the shockingly uninhibited Tina and Terri; aka any teenage boy's dream multiplied by two.  Then hunky Rob Dier (Erich Anderson) shows up with a ridiculous backpack, a gun, and a machete, supposedly to 'hunt bears' although we know he has a bone to pick with Jason.  Our familiar, overdone archetypal 'horn dog' Ted is like any other big mouthed, self-proclaimed 'ladies man' in horror, Jimmy is pretty bizarre and possibly capable of murder himself since he's wound so tight, and then to round out our cast we have the completely one-dimensional Samantha who is cute but jealous, and finally Sara who's shy so her only way to acclimate to the social scene is to put out.  For Pete's sake, the girls' names are Tina, Terri, Sam, and Sara, and I think we see all of them at least partially naked.  There was certainly a lot of heart put into creating the female characters in this movie...

More kills that are swift and kind of scary but severely lacking in suspense.  Although we see a lot of Jason in this movie (more about that later), it seems we only don't see him right before a kill.  With our highest body count yet in the franchise, that's a lot of highly anticipated, totally expected kills that  average maybe 5-7 seconds of screen time each.  What I'm trying to say is boo, boring.  Sure there's a little bit of gore, but honestly each kill seems to be done with one cut to the leg or head, one impalement through the abdomen, one squeeze by an ugly deformed hand.  While they may momentarily startle us, the kills are not thrilling, and I think they're less creative than what we've seen in earlier installments.  So much pressure for screenwriters!  Seems like they just couldn't handle it.  The absolute best kill in the film, however, goes to Sara.  That was awesome.  Worst death?  Easy.  Rob's death was one of the stupidest things I've seen in a horror flick, more attune to a parody.  Who narrates their death while it's happening?

More teens breaking the rules.  Since Friday the 13th was one of the leading franchises in establishing the basis of these rules, I guess I shouldn't be surprised or bored given the amount of teen baseness here.  If I had to retitle this movie, I'd probably call it "The Short-Shorts Slasher".  This movie is literally a showcase of short shorts and boobs.  If that's your thing, I mean go for it, have a good time.  But does anybody live in a world where hot blonde twins just show up on the side of the road, only to suggest skinny dipping moments later - AND everyone complies?  Why weren't my teenage years like that?  I mean they were at times, but... well, that's another story for another time.  Yet still, in spite of all the horror movies I've seen, this one still surprised me with the sheer amount of spur-of-the-moment nudity, showering together, and towel-clad victims.  One of my least favorite scenes in this movie had to be the dance sequence, and no, I didn't mind when Crispin aka Jimmy (can't believe his name is Crispin) started rocking out to some typically '80s tunes, but then when all the mushy lovebirds put on like '50s dance music... what was that?  Like I'll be honest, I'm listening to a Big Band station right now on Pandora, but come on, why that boring slow dancing scene?  And so soon before their lives are cut short; what a tragedy.

More bumbling Jason.  Although I read that a lot of fans praise White for his Jason portrayal in this movie, all I could think while watching was that our number one nemesis just seemed a little too... I don't know... dumb?  I mentioned before that while slaughtering every teen at the one house we don't even seen too much of him (maybe a nod towards the style of the first film), but then he sort of stars in the whole sequence at the Jarvis household.  During this time, we see that although he is inhumanly strong and difficult to stop, he is also somewhat goofy, running around all over the place, slowing down after getting hit in the head time and time again.  Taking into account that Jason is supposed to be a sort of demented little boy in a (large) grown man's body, I get that he might not be the sharpest tool/ murder weapon in the shed, but still, aside from his gross blue hands that are in dire need of a manicure, the J-man just isn't too scary.

*SPOILER ALERT*

What was good about Jason?  When his mask comes off, the makeup is really great.  I remember complaining about his face in an earlier movie, and it seems that the creative team here knew that 30 years down the line, Horror Buff would be complaining, because in this movie they really delivered.  I felt equally as shocked and horrified as Trish when the hockey mask falls to the floor, because boy is this guy ugly.  His 'death' scene towards the very end of the movie was also pretty horrific.

Something else I like about Jason is that he doesn't discriminate.  Sure, we've all seen a bunch of ruthless killers in our time, but every so often, an unstoppable killer turns out to have an Achilles' Heel which makes them not as scary.  Let's be honest, what is it that we want in a killer?  Someone or something ruthless, terrible, imaginative, totally insane yet calculated, and entertaining (is that so much to ask?)  Jason, technically a human, doesn't necessarily have a weakness other than the fact that he can only maintain a certain amount of injury before temporarily collapsing.  This is, however, the second time we've seen Jason sort of confused by visions of either his 'mother' or 'himself' before being subdued.  While this film pegs itself as the true end of Jason, we know that it didn't stay that way, and I think at this point Jason only gets crazier and less human.  Looking forward to that...

Until this point, Jason has stuck to teenage victims, give or take a few adults.  The good thing about this is that it doesn't matter if the victim is a jock or popular girl, innocent camp counselor or nerdy best friend, pothead or handicapped person, white or... just kidding, there is absolutely no diversity in these movies.  Regarding the no-victim-left-behind-act, take for instance the very, very random fat hippie hitchhiker (Bonnie Hellman) - yup that's a real thing.  Seemingly for no reason at all, BAM she's dead.  Was she even that close to the lake?  Methinks not on account the teens passed her in the daytime but didn't arrive to the house until after nightfall.  As the series movies away from Crystal Lake, I suppose the variety of Jason's victims will only grow.

Perhaps the biggest step forward that this film makes is the introduction of a child, a child that just so happens to be Corey Feldman.  Luckily it seems that Mr. Feldman received this role before developing his own famous, wise-guy personality, therefore leaving the character of Tommy Jarvis untainted.  Tommy represents a sort of innocence in the film although he is no saint as he is subjected happily to the debauchery of the teens next door several times.  Still, his youth and ingenuity allows him to tackle the whole Jason plight with a different angle - sympathy.  Weirdly skilled with mask-making, a certain homage to the hardworking makeup and special effects departments, Tommy effortlessly gives himself a makeover from heck in order to confuse Jason into thinking that he is seeing his younger, tortured self.  This gives the brother-sister Jarvis duo just enough time to stop Jason's rampage once and for all! ... or not.

Final critique:  This movie is pretty silly, and the negatives are more than apparent.  Still, if this couldn't kill the franchise from continuing, it must be for a reason.  I don't dislike this movie, it just simply wouldn't be my first pick from out of the Friday the 13th's I've seen to date.  This movie is filled with plenty of action even though it misses ample opportunities to create even more suspense and horror.  In its unintended farce, this installment epitomizes the B-movies of '80s horror and teen slashers.  Unfortunately, there are plenty of other ones out there that do the job better.  The Final Chapter boasts some gore, a few scares, a multitude of deaths that aren't milked enough to be memorable, and plenty of teen shenanigans.  It's pretty much exactly what you expect 4 movies deep in this iconic franchise.

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Drew Goddard
Studios: Mutant Enemy Productions, Lionsgate
Starring: Kristen Connolly, Fran Kranz, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Jesse Williams, Bradley Whitford, Richard Jenkins; ft. Sigourney Weaver
Tagline: You think you know the story.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, supernatural terror, thriller, satire
Scare score: B/B+
Rating: A

Plot overview: A group of five friends heads to a lonely cabin to spend a long, relaxing weekend. They could never imagine the horror awaiting them there.

This movie is great. I watched it for the first time last spring, but I never got around to blogging about it. Luckily I had plenty of free time this week to watch and enjoy it again.

I think that horror fans will find themselves pretty evenly split between loving and loathing this movie; obviously I'm one of the former just because I appreciate everything put into this movie. Cabin in the Woods flips horror on its head, putting an entirely new twist on the genre simply by recycling just about every archetype and trope they could think of, making stereotypes brand new.

While the audience is generally appeased with the right amount of college students having fun and then being terrorized and slaughtered, there are also some moments that we are treated as rather dumb viewers when 'the rules' need to be explained to us. I mean I get it, the egos of some horror buffs might just not be able to handle that— I'm not saying this Horror Buff can't, I'm just saying there might be some more sensitive fans out there. The fun thing about this movie, though, is that you're never entirely sure just what exactly is going on, and when you find out, you can't help but smile at this tongue-in-cheek approach to a horror movie.

The first time I saw Cabin in the Woods I thought I had made a big mistake when we were immediately introduced to two obvious archetypes— Dana (Connolly) and Jules (Hutchison). When smart jock Curt (Hemsworth) throws that football through a window but intellectual jock Holden (Williams) makes a perfect reception in the street, I almost couldn't handle it. This can't be so, I thought, so naive to the satire I was in store for. The small scares and the eerie atmosphere surrounding the cabin (which is, by the way, almost straight out of The Evil Dead) start quickly as we try to guess what exactly is the relation between the comic-relief scientists (Whitford and Jenkins) down in the lab, and our victims up in the cabin.

Given the fact that we are working with rehashed, reproduced, over-the-top tropes, each of our five principle characters still manage to charm and surprise us. Leading the way is our 'virgin' Dana, who is intelligent and rational. She is a heroine we root for and enjoy following throughout the entire film. Studly jock Curt surprises us with his extensive knowledge of Russian economics early in the film, and as time goes on (and runs out), we only become more familiar with what a great guy he is. His girlfriend is a beautiful if dumb, fun and endearing if loose, not-natural blonde. Then we have newbie Holden, who is also more than just muscle. Finally, rounding out the group, we have pothead and conspiracy theorist Marty (Kranz), who in his altered state also brings a large amount of sense to the film.

The plot, which is a new take on a hundred old plots, is intriguing and entertaining. The writers here were anything but afraid to play with everything horror fans love: bewitched items, creepy basements, conspiracy, sacrifice, and the end of the world, to name a few. As the initial horror at the cabin expands into something much larger, the apt horror fan should be fascinated at the sheer variety the movie then treats us to. One of my favorite things about this movie is absolutely this creativity (although not necessarily novelty) when we get to witness attacks and murders carried out by an army of nightmares. Some of the allusions in this film are to Hellraiser, The Strangers, Night of the Living Dead, Thir13n Ghosts, It, Alien, maybe Poltergeist, plus any werewolf movie, and then a general feeling of Friday the 13th throughout with a touch of Deliverance and Texas Chain Saw Massacre at the beginning. It's actually awesome.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Some qualms I had with this movie came directly from the satirical humor. All in all, sure, I liked the scientists down below. I didn't necessarily love the whole idea that some prehistoric gods under the Earth's crust depend on a very specific ritual of human sacrifice in order to not destroy the planet. That being said, I admit I'm a bad Horror Buff insofar as I've only had a very basic introduction to Lovecraftian themes and works. Also, when that very fact comes from the direct explanation by workers or especially Madam Director (Weaver), it frankly resulted as... well, almost stupid (those are tough lines to deliver seriously, even for Weaver). Still, the general idea of playing with the rules of horror movies makes this film both charming and fun to watch.

The scares are plentiful and pleasing, ranging from your standard surprises in the dark and things that go bump in the night to much more modern, high-paced monster kills. There's honestly a little bit of everything for everybody in this movie.

Final critique: I realize I don't have tons to say about this movie even though I think highly of it. It's not the best horror movie out there, but it's a pretty wonderful nod towards all of its predecessors in the genre. The acting is good, and the plot is really fun; in fact, I think fun is the best way to describe this movie. Audiences that easily scare certainly may not want to watch this film, but anybody looking for a good time with a movie that gives the horror genre a good name, spicing up old, worn-out plots and using them in a new recipe of horror, should definitely move this to the top of their list.

It (1990)

From the director who brought you Halloween III (you know, the one without Michael Myers)...

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Tommy Lee Wallace
Studios:  Warner Bros. Television
Starring:  Tim Curry, Tim Reid, Richard Thomas, John Ritter, Annette O'Toole, Harry Anderson, Dennis Christopher, Jonathan Brandis, Brandon Crane, Emily Perkins, Adam Faraizl, Seth Green, Marlon Taylor, Ben Heller
Tagline:  The Master of Horror unleashes everything you were ever afraid of.
MPAA Rating:  TV-MA
Genre:  TV, horror, thriller, mystery, drama, alien
Scare score:  D/D+
Rating:  B+

Plot overview:  A group of misfit children are terrorized by an evil being that appears as to be a cruel, knee-slapping clown (Curry) that can also manifest itself into their biggest fears.  After thinking they have destroyed It, each of the children moves on to live a privileged, successful life.  But when they are called back 30 years later when It returns, will the 'Lucky 7' be strong enough to defeat It once and for all?

Who doesn't know the image of the clawed clown with razor sharp teeth and bloodshot eyes?  Unlike most children, Horror Buff always liked clowns, although Stephen King and the creative team behind this two-part miniseries clearly played on one of the most common fears or dislikes in American society.  Yet It is so much more than Pennywise the Dancing Clown, It is everything you were ever afraid of; It is your worst fear... a concept that works much better in writing than in film, I'm afraid to say.  Regardless, that doesn't mean that this slamming '90s adaptation weakens the entertainment or creepiness behind King's novel, just that the scare factor itself isn't really there.

This movie boasts great acting all around, babies and grownups alike.  Starring Bastian Bux (Brandis), Hollywood's sweetheart of the late '80s, Seth Green already showing off his natural humor, and a pretty fantastic Emily Perkins and Brandon Crane, we are introduced to the plight of the children of Derry.  The flashbacks in the movie feel a whole lot like Stand By Me (which you should go watch), which is also based off of a work of King, giving us an idyllic, '50s-americana undertone that is contrasted by the rapidly increasing creepiness.  

Then we have the action taking place in 1990, which is the time period that maybe the majority of the film takes place in.  While the second half is less popular with fans and critics, there is still some good acting and an occasional scare; admittedly, the adult half of this film depends much more on emotions and relations than the kid half.  Starring in this half we have some smooth jobs by Tim Reid, Richard Thomas, John Ritter, Annette O'Toole, Harry Anderson, and Dennis Christopher.

Something fun that each actor had to work with was his or her distinct character.  In both time periods, we have Bill Denbrough (Brandis/ Thomas), a suave yet geeky boy who has lost his brother and subsequently endures a difficult home life (aka Gordie from Stand By Me).  Then there's Ben Hanscom  (Crane/ Ritter), a big boy with an even bigger heart dealing with his father's death in the war.  The resident female, Beverly Marsh (Perkins/ O'Toole) is a bright and beautiful young woman with an abusive, alcoholic father.  Eddie Kaspbrak (Faraizl/ Christopher) is a momma's boy and debatably asthmatic hypochondriac, but when the time comes, he finds his courage.  One of my favorite characters, Richie Tozier (Green/ Anderson) is a red-head and natural comedian who makes dorky look cool.  To draw on racial tensions from the '50s and '60s, although I imagine they're stronger in the book than they are in this miniseries, we have Mike Hanlon (Taylor/ Reid)- the only one of the Lucky 7 that doesn't get out of Derry in his adult years.  Finally, to round out the group, we have devout Jewish boy scout and obsessive empirical cataloger Stanley Uris (Heller/ Richard Masur).  This cast of distinct, colorful characters - topped off with Tim Curry as a lasting Pennywise - make for a film that, while not the scariest, has depth and heart.

What's good about this movie:  everything Tim Curry.  The scary horror isn't there, but the creepiness is.  The hard contrast between his slapstick humor (and incredible physical acting) and the fact that he is a psychopathic killer is so satisfying.  His yellowed teeth, his red and dry eyes with their continuous shifty glances, his voice, and, of course, his strange exclamation that 'down here, they all float' make for a memorable and actually scary nemesis.  And no, this isn't Michael Myers or Leatherface scary, it's a more subtle, creepy terror that stays with you after watching.  It's ability to manifest itself into It's victims biggest fears also adds color to the movie (werewolves, clowns, mummies, etc).  I also like the dual nature of the film, with major action taking place both in 1960 and in 1990.  One of my absolutely favorite details in this movie is the balloons filled with blood.  I love the scenes where the seemingly unaware people are showered in blood.  The fact that Pennywise can appear to terrorize his victims and no one else can see leads for some fantastic scenes: older Richie in the library, young Beverly in her bathroom.  It's fantastic.

What's bad about this movie:  single-handedly, Richard Thomas' mole and ponytail ruin the movie for me.  Horror Buff isn't afraid of too many things, but men with ponytails is high on that short list.  Just can't handle 'em.  That being said, from the time we're introduced to older Bill, the whole thing is just unsettling.  Did Stephen King ever have a ponytail?  As we see when showed Bill's book titles, Bill is certainly a sort of fictional version of King.  The fact that it was made as a two-part TV movie also results in a lengthy final product, so if you're watching it all at once you'll need 192 minutes to do so. Then, finally, the general feeling of a '90s made-for-TV-movie does inevitably leak into the feeling of the film - we're talking mushy background music, excessive fade-outs, the works.

*SPOILER ALERT*

The concept of a timeless, dimension-less, shape-shifting, omniscient foe is great and scary.  In writing.  That being said, sometimes the true terror of It is difficult to convey on screen.  Ultimately, and this is just my opinion (but hey, it's just my blog), the idea that It is an alien, topped with the whole concept of 'dead lights' is just not my favorite resolution.  I like that if somebody doesn't let It scare them that they can then imagine ways to hurt it ("this is battery acid, slime!") because then they're playing It's game.  However, in the scene that It reveals it is a devourer of worlds ... and of children- yeah, that is just kind of dumb to me.  Why children?  The final battle scenes in the caves underneath Derry (lol) have bad effects, and the spider/alien monster doesn't deliver.  It is much creepier in his other forms.

Final critique:  This is a fun, enjoyable movie.  I think the true reason that It has remained so relevant and entertaining - aside from it being an invention of Stephen King who we love and adore - is Tim Curry, 100 percent.  His Pennywise character and admirable acting skills make for a ride that is simultaneously funny and creepy.  There are a lot of little scares in this movie, but nothing should shake you too much except for Pennywise's general sadism mixed with a corny sense of humor.  Still, I wouldn't recommend this movie for audiences that scare too easily or that don't like the general concept of a multitude of terrors materializing in order to eat children.

The Bone Collector (1999)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Phillip Noyce
Studios:  Columbia Pictures, Universal Pictures
Starring:  Angelina Jolie, Denzel Washington, Queen Latifah
Tagline:  Two cops on the trail of a brutal killer.  They must see as one, they must act as one, they must think as one, before the next victim falls.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  thriller, crime, drama, mystery, suspense, serial killer
Scare score:  C/C+
Rating:  B+

Plot overview:  NYPD cop Amelia Donaghy (Jolie) is the first responder to a disturbing crime scene where a homicide victim has been buried near some old railroad tracks.  Taking note of her instinctual documentation of the forensic evidence at the scene, famous forensics expert Lincoln Rhyme (Washington), who was left paraplegic after investigating a crime scene years earlier, chooses the novice Amelia to become his physical eyes and ears when the serial killer strikes again.  The killer, who surgically removes a bone from each of his victims, is imitating crimes from turn of the century New York City, but can Rhyme and Donaghy find out his true intentions before it's too late?

During the same lazy, adolescent summers when Horror Buff watched Darkness Falls about twice a week, The Bone Collector was also an obvious choice for a scary movie given the selection of VHS tapes on hand.  Aside from the big-billed names, this movie gives us an intriguing, gory, and gothic mystery that viewers can't help but try and solve before Rhyme's brain and Donaghy's brawn (and beauty... hey Angelina) do the job.  What is perhaps most fun about this movie, aside from the creative kills and the mystery that rapidly gains momentum, is just the horror behind the crimes- the lack of motives, the innocence of the victims, the seemingly random nature of it all.  Who knew the big apple could be so seedy?

In my opinion there's a pretty obvious touch of Seven here, and considering any crime driven, film noir movie, The Bone Collector doesn't give us anything stupendously new, except for one too many shots of Queen Latifah perplexing over puzzles or the given crime at hand that she either blatantly ignores or blatantly eavesdrops on.  Where would Rhyme be without Thelma (Latifah)?

Speaking of big names, who doesn't love some bed-stricken Denzel and the ingenue Angelina, still gorgeous with her debatable Brooklyn accent and manly disposition before making it big in Hollywood and across borders.  Both actors are cool in this movie although Miss Jolie seems young (Amelia is supposed to be nervous and hesitant in her demanding forensic task work as she simultaneously overcomes personal obstacles regarding love and acceptance.... ugh).  While no one delivers a poor performance, I found that this movie depends more upon action and mystery than serious acting.

That being the case, the kills are cool.  The amount of detail left in the clues, in the elaboration of the crime scenes, and in the murderer's general plot is creative and intriguing, even if what the Bone Collector is pulling off is pretty much outside the capacity of a human being.  Oh well, this isn't the first thriller that exists outside the realm of strict reality.

Final critique:  Not much more to say I guess; this is a new spin on otherwise old - but classic - film noir.  An able bodied novice, a paraplegic professional, some sexual tension, and an anonymous madman with too much time on his hands and a very useful taxi - this is the recipe that keeps the drama and mystery of this crime film cooking.  An enjoyable watch for most audiences; stay away if you're not into mild gore or thinking about the chilling possibility of what could happen any time you get into a cab.  Stick to Uber, kids.