Silent Hill (2006)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Christophe Gans
Studio:  Davis Films
Starring:  Radha Mitchell, Laurie Holden, Jodelle Ferland, Sean Bean
Tagline:  We've Been Expecting You; The Silence Will Be Broken
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  drama, mystery, psychological thriller, satan, cult, religious occult
Scare score: B
Rating:  B

Plot overview:  Curious and concerned as to why her adopted daughter Sharon (Ferland) has been shouting the name "Silent Hill" during her dangerous sleepwalks, Rose Da Silva (Mitchell) takes Sharon to go learn more about the town and the girl's past.  Soon learning that Silent Hill is an abandoned ghost town following a horrible coal mine fire that still burns, Rose's suspicious behavior causes dedicated police officer Cybil Bennett (Holden) to follow the mother and daughter into the barricaded lands belonging to Silent Hill.  When the mysterious figure of a girl crosses the road in the dark, Rose swerves out of the way, thereby crashing her car and knocking herself unconscious.  When she comes to, Sharon is missing and Rose must set out into the town, which is coated in a snowfall of ash and a frightening, supernatural darkness.  Rose's husband Christopher (Bean) is simultaneously investigating the mystery of Silent Hill's dark past although police and other officials warn him to stay away.  As Cybil and Rose counter the terrors of the small town together, they must face Silent Hill's dark monsters: both real and human in form.  To save Sharon, the women also have to right the wrongs of the town's predominant cult through a sick game of revenge in which no one may leave atoned.  

This film was really very interesting.  Although it wasn't the greatest horror I've ever seen (not by a long shot), that doesn't mean it wasn't a good movie.

I didn't realize for some time how long the movie is; at a whopping 125 minutes, viewers with a short attention span may not care enough to stay on to see whether or not the film resolves itself.  To the film's credit, even though I was aware of how much time was passing outside of my computer screen, only a few scenes actually dragged on.  

The plot is pretty complex during most of the movie, but the action and acting keep the events moving. I was a big fan of Holden in the role of the rough and tough police woman who may look sweet but means business.  During the fight scenes she was constantly a step ahead of the bad guys, and as far as acting went she was also fun to watch.  Mitchell should be commended for the daunting role of Rose, who I found myself getting a little bored of as almost the entirety of the film's 125 minutes feature her running around trying to find her daughter, getting trapped by horrible nightmarish monsters, and escaping again only to continue desperately searching for her daughter.  In some scenes the acting was not so convincing, and I had to rely on the promise of plot development to get me through.  Lastly, I really can't say I was a fan of the young Miss Ferland who was frankly very annoying as Sharon but more charming in her persona of Alessa/ manifestation of evil.

This film isn't necessarily full of scares, and the scarier scenes are more plentiful in the beginning.  After a few scenes of ugly and freaky monsters/ mutants, the type of terror that Silent Hill throws at us begins to change and become more psychological, with some added gore towards the end.  Lots of points to the creative, nightmarish monsters.  They were certainly gross and added a bit of terror to the film during their select scenes.

Let's talk about plot.  Stemming from the 1999 video game of the same name, it makes more sense why so much information had to be packed into the running time of a movie.  I found myself constantly trying to piece the puzzle together myself, but it was admittedly tougher than your average horror mystery.  This truly is a complicated piece, and given that, I really enjoyed the viewer-friendly explanation that Alessa gives Rose towards the end.  Then, while enjoying the denouement of the film - thinking I now understood everything - I suddenly realized that there were many questions left unanswered, but I believe this is done on purpose to keep the audience thinking, even after the movie is over.  

*SPOILER ALERT*

I'm still trying to decide what I think.  This might be unclear but here's my take: Rose is already dead following the car crash she endures upon entering Silent Hill.  Likewise, Cybil dies following her motorcycle crash.  Since I'm not sure that Sharon was ever actually a real person, but more so a physical spirit, the lasting, living goodness of Alessa, I won't say she 'died,' per se, but rather that she returned to whence she came.  If you don't want to say that they are actually dead, I will also accept that they are now in some dimension alternate to our human reality, but still one that borders ours (as we see Christopher can still 'feel' Rose's presence when they are 'near' each other).  Clearly the Silent Hill that the main female protagonists experience is different than the reality Christopher and the police are exploring.  The men are in the real, human world where Silent Hill is truly abandoned.  Our leading ladies, on the other hand, have entered the limbo or hell-on-earth that Silent Hill has become following the curse of Alessa (and her pact with her look alike who we can only assume is the devil).  While the darkness period of the day is a manifestation of hell, monsters of ash and fire (all relating to how Alessa was made to suffer), the seemingly 'light' part of day is basic limbo where all of the surviving members of the cult are trapped, perhaps thinking they are alive although Rose hints to the very annoying cult leader Christabella (Alice Krige) - and wow how hard are we trying to invoke some religious notion behind the name/ role - that she is aware of their fate and hiding it from the rest of the cult.  Anywho, they are stuck in this limbo of sorts basically awaiting a 'second coming' of Alessa, who, having 'sold her soul' (more or less), is now in control of the cult's "reality."  By revealing to Rose the truth behind the town's fate (or what we're supposed to believe is the truth), Alessa gets the help she needs to enter the cult's safe haven church and seek her revenge.  Obviously, as the film ends and Rose thinks that she and her daughter are returning home, they are still clearly in the foggy realm they have been in the whole time; and whether or not this is death, they are certainly in a parallel dimension to reality where Christopher is waiting at home alone.

Wow!  Psychological thriller, much?  Lots to think about and chew on, so assuming the plot interests a given viewer, I think that person will be happy.  On the other hand, if you're not into this stuff, you may be really bored for 2 hours and then upset afterwards.  I enjoyed all of the psychological projections (of Alessa, as we learn) which manifest themselves into the realm that our female protagonists experience.  While these created monsters and deformed, mutant like humans add plenty of scares to the film, we realize the true monsters are the members of the cult and especially their awful leader, who is a master of mob mentality.  I usually am not into splatter fests, but I have to say Christabella couldn't have gotten what she deserved in any better way.  That penultimate scene got pretty silly pretty fast, but I do admit I enjoyed it.

Final critique:  Again, while this isn't your typical horror, what Silent Hill lacks in scares it makes up for in content - and I don't mean a concrete plot beyond a horror movie, I mean layers and layers of psychological and even religious depth.  Can't say I was crazy about all of the forced religious motifs, although I realize they were important for one of the 'overall messages' of the movie.  Very creative monsters, or whatever you want to call them.  I'd recommend this film to anyone looking for something deeper than your average slasher film.  Warnings go out to all of those who scare easily because if anything this movie will probably make you uncomfortable and even grossed out during the scenes with said monsters and additional gore.  If you don't like being scared or subjected somewhat graphic material, my advice is to stay away from this one.  Overall, I did like this movie although it wasn't quite up my horror alley.  A good watch, especially if you have someone to talk about it with afterwards.

Absentia (2011)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Mike Flanagan
Studio:  Fallback Plan Productions
Starring:  Courtney Bell, Katie Parker, ft. Doug Jones
Tagline:  There are Fates Worse than Death
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  mystery, suspense, drama, monster
Scare score:  B-
Rating:  C+

Plot overview:  Seven years after the unexplained disappearance of her husband Daniel (Morgan Peter Brown), the now pregnant Tricia (Bell) is still grieving, especially as she finishes his final paperwork: a death certificate declaring Daniel missing in absentia.  During this hard time, recovering-though-not-yet-sober drug addict younger sister Callie (Parker) comes to live with Tricia.  Although still haunted by vivid nightmares of Daniel, Tricia has begun dating Detective Mallory (Dave Levine), who we are led to believe is the father of her unborn child.  Just as Tricia is ready to move on with her life, Daniel appears out of nowhere.  After witnessing what she believes to be some sort of supernatural attack at the hands of a monster, Callie begins piecing together the high amount of local missing persons reports and tracing back the strange activity to a nearby tunnel under an overpass.  Callie must move beyond her drug problem to prove to her sister and the police that, myths and legends aside, there is true danger lurking beyond the walls of the tunnel.

This film was interesting.  I found it at random on the internet and decided to give it a go.  My first impression was that this was a low budget film and I was going to regret my choice.  Having watched it, I now know that a low budget film doesn't mean low quality.  Still, that doesn't mean that this film was perfect.

The first thing that kept me sticking to watching this movie was the acting.  I have to say how impressed I was especially with Courtney Bell in the role of Tricia - a very normal woman: grieving, pregnant, and one who is searching for peace but accepting of how unfortunate her situation is.  Miss Bell does splendidly; I found myself truly caring for Tricia's plight, unaware that she was a character being portrayed by an actress, and not a real person all her own.  Parker also does a pretty good job as the prodigal sister, recovering drug addict who is dealing with her own personal demons.  The script writing in all the scenes between the two kindred spirit sisters is flawless: so natural, almost as if taken from real life dialogue.

Beyond this, I have to say the plot intrigued me to the point that I couldn't turn away.  At first I just wanted to see where the movie was headed.  Next I wanted to know what the deal with Daniel was.  Lastly, I wanted all the details regarding the monster that seemingly haunts this tunnel.  Well now that the movie is over I have mixed reactions, as follows:

Really a pretty interesting plot.  What has been happening to all these people?  Are they runaways or were they taken?  Adding a monster into the idea that people just go missing makes reality a bit more exciting, and horrific.  Points off for trying to relate the present situation with the myth behind the three billy goats gruff... and not delivering.  The scene where Callie is suddenly well versed in all world mythology and legends regarding people being mislead and going missing was pretty dumb, and the film took a slight turn for the worse.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Next, the whole bit with Daniel is fun, a real curve ball of sorts.  Most of us could assume that he might show his face at some point in this movie (besides the creepy ghost appearances which added some scare points, albeit predictable at times).  Once he is captured again it adds even more drama to the film.  Also, he was around just for the right amount of time: any less and it would have been stupid to have him return.

Lastly, however, I have to say the explanation and even the simple display of the monster bit did not deliver.  Earlier on, subtle movements accompanied by that creepy, insectile slithering sound were pretty freaky. We are given a few sneak peaks of the monster, which are luckily too brief to be corny, because I fear it was starting to look like some '50s sci-fi lizard man.  Still, I wanted more, as any good horror fan does, and in this way the film just did not bring to fruition the beast it had been building up the whole time.  I knew we were running into a problem when there were so many questions left unanswered with only 20 minutes left in the film.  I didn't expect all of our questions to go virtually unanswered.  Tsk tsk, although I suppose the film is very easily set up for a sequel.

I did love how the film employed random cutscenes to other possible explanations: what might have happened if Callie weren't high; what Tricia and Callie might have done to start a new life.  At the end of the movie, the audience is unsure of what they want to believe, much as Tricia countered in her argument with Callie, that sometimes the brain invents awful imaginative situations in order to deny the even more terrible and simple plainness that the truth may hold.

Final critique:  All in all, this low budget film delivered more than I expected but not as much as I would have liked for it to have done.  I really was expecting a stronger delivery as far as an explanation of the monster or "what lies beyond/ beneath" might have included, but oh well.  With some jumpy scares throughout the beginning, we later move into more of a mystery/ drama with some added gore and brief scares that might leave some viewers bored.  Recommended for newcomers to horror, as this film shouldn't be too scary.  For any big time horror fans, it's not a classic but certainly not a waste of time.

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  William Castle
Studio:  William Castle Productions
Starring:  Vincent Price, Elisha Cook, Alan Marshal, Richard Long
Tagline:  See It with Someone with Warm Hands!
MPAA Rating:  NR
Genre:  black and white, haunted house, thriller, mystery, drama, ghosts
Scare score:  C
Rating:  C

Plot overview:  The very rich and very strange Fredrick Loren (Price) and his unsatisfied wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart) decide to host a party in a supposedly haunted house that they have rented.  The group of five guests - none of whom knows each other - is told that they'll each be paid $10,000 to come; what they are not told is that they have to survive a night in the house first.  Among the guests is the home's owner and drunkard, Watson Pritchard (Cook), who keeps the others frightened and irritated all night as he tells them about the various murders that have occurred in the house, as well as the ghosts who now roam the vast halls.  While pilot Lance Schroeder (Long) and the hardworking Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig) are attacked and frightened, respectively, in the basement, psychiatrist Dr. Trent (Marshal) keeps his calm and tries rationally explaining the night's strange occurrences.  When disappearances and deaths begin to plague the small group of party guests and their hosts, they must discover what evil is truly lurking in the house on haunted hill.

I remember liking this film as a kid, but having re-watched it I can't say that I'm impressed.

Let's start at the very beginning.  The blood-curdling screams in pitch black at the beginning of the film set such a tone of horror, and if I ever make a horror movie I will utilize this same tactic.  Shortly thereafter we are introduced to the annoying floating head of the paranoid Pritchard (who is equally as irritating when the rest of his body joins him and together they spend the film in the form of Elisha Cook whose mediocre acting makes us wish the angry ghosts would come get him).  Luckily the Merchant of Menace and all around Granddaddy of Horror, Mr. Vincent Price, soon takes over the narration and sucks us into the classic plot of a group of strangers brought together in a scary house for an unknown reason.

The other actors are decent, although it's tough to judge '50s style actors on modern standards.  Long provides us with a typical Cold War era manly-man who keeps his head on the whole movie, whereas Craig treats us to a scream in at least 3 different octaves since her character Nora suffers the most throughout the film.  I also liked the dynamics between Price and Ohmart as man and wife in a murderous matrimony.

All the filming is pretty good and enjoyable.  From a hearse at the beginning to a scary basement at the end, the audience is at the very least given a creepy setting.  While one might expect a haunted victorian, we are instead provided with the outside shots of a Frank Lloyd Wright house in L.A. which is a strangely modern, imposing structure made out of concrete.  The inside of the house is equally massive, with long hallways, endless closets, and gothic decor to boot.

The scares that are often thrown at us during the movie are fun, and I'm sure there are people out there who would still scream or jump.  One of the scarier "ghosts" at the beginning of the film is the ugly old woman who seems to float in and out of the basement closets.  I don't like that we see her again later and learn her identity, but not why she was acting all weird in the cellar.  That's fright for the sake of fright (surely shocking audiences at the time) and not so practical as far as plot is concerned.  On the plus side, this old lady might be the only reason why I even gave the film a C for scare instead of anything lower.  Obviously this film made marks with "Emergo," in which some audiences had a skeleton depend upon them during the appropriate scene.  Part of me still wishes movie theaters did things like that, even if it's a little cheesy.  Lastly, the severed head prop seems to surprise us when we least expect it, but luckily for those who scare easily, it still looks like, well, a prop.

Fun fact: The skeleton in the film is listed in the credits as portraying "Himself."  What jokesters!

Final critique:  While campy, House on Haunted Hill left its mark with a famous plot and good ideas, thus joining all of our favorite black and white horror classics.  The script, scares, and general horror is a little too outdated for modern audiences, but if you've seen the 1999 remake you know exactly how Hollywood would (and did) update the original.  The best thing this movie has going for it are the discomforting and frightening screams throughout.  This movie deserves a big bowl of popcorn, a chilly October night, and a small group of friends to watch it.  Recommended for the weak of heart (easily frightened), and not for those with a short attention span.

American Horror Story, S2, E1 - (2012)

The only TV show I watch regularly.

GENERAL INFO:
Creators:  Ryan Murphy, Brad Falchuk
Producer:  20th Century Fox Television
Channel:  FX
Starring:  Jessica Lange, James Cromwell, Evan Peters; ft. Adam Levine, Chloë Sevigny
TV Rating:  MA SLV
Genre:  television, horror, drama, insane asylum, alien abduction, mad scientist
Scare score:  B-
Rating:  A-

Plot overview:  In present day, newlyweds Teresa (Jenna Dewan) and Leo (Levine) are on a honeymoon touring the 12 most haunted spots in America; equally as interested in having their own fun as they are in discovering ghosts.  Their last stop is to the Briarcliff Manor, a large building first built as a sanatorium for tuberculosis patients (complete with a "death chute" in the basement to dispose of the dead) but later turned into a Church-owned asylum for the criminally insane.  Hearing a loud noise, the couple moves from one bang to another until Leo is viciously attacked by an unseen force behind a door.  Cue opening credits.
In 1964, we are introduced to Kit Walker (Peters), a young and friendly man who is living with his new black wife in secret, as she is afraid of what society would do to them if they were found out.  That night, prompted by strange loud noises and blinding lights, Kit runs out to defend his house and bride.  We subsequently are shown various, choppy clips of him being the subject of an alien abduction.
In the next subplot, we are introduced to the driven journalist Lana Winters (Sarah Paulson) who is hoping to make her big break by doing an exposé on Briarcliff and some of its patients.  She is given an interview with the sadistic head nurse Sister Jude (Lange), who quickly realizes what she is up to.  Lana has really come to see the admittance of a horrible serial killer, called Bloody Face, who has terrorized the town of late: killing and skinning 5 women, one of whom was black.  Of course, it is revealed that Bloody Face is none other than Kit, who has no memory of committing any murders, especially not that of his wife.  No one believes his insane stories of being abducted by aliens.  Through Kit we are shown the inner workings of Briarcliff as well as the maladies of its patients.
Moving right along, we meet the frightening Dr. Arden (Cromwell), who introduces the major theme of science vs. religion.  He and Sister Jude, respectively, represent these two forces in the institution.  Through this subplot, we become aware of the monstrous tests Dr. Arden runs on some patients.
Through these various subplots, we are introduced to the major themes of the episodes and perhaps the season in general, all of which have a heavy focus on society (individual perception vs. social perception): race relations, homosexuality, religion, science, truth and lying, good and evil.  Much as in last season, the episode jumps around from the past to the present day dilemma of Teresa and Leo in an enticing introduction to Season 2.

I love American Horror Story.  Last season it was the only program I would actually make time in my schedule to watch as a dedicated fan.  The writers and creative team did a beautiful job of balancing classic, supernatural horror (ghosts, haunted houses, the devil, the spawn of satan, murderers) with what really frightens us to our core as humans (burglars, unfaithful spouses, miscarriages, suicide, school shootings, and even home realty).  That is what made the show truly about American horror, especially on a personal level.  I already see this season doing the same thing, although perhaps more on a public level - still behind walls but no longer in a home, well, at least not one for families.

So far the plot is filled with all the little stories we know to look forward to in this complicated show of variously overlapping terror.  First and foremost we have Sister Jude (Jessica Lange fans cheer for joy), who is so complicated that I still didn't know if I liked her or not up until the final events of the episode.  Here we already have a high ranking nun, a symbol of pious authority, who is very clearly dealing with her own personal demons and desires.  Lange is already doing a great job acting, and I'm glad she is so different from Constance in Season 1.  I'm a little confused by her accent and by where this season takes place in general, not that we need to know anything except East Coast (soo different than Season 1).  In her accent I'm hearing traits of southern mixed with the occasional Boston or Upstate New York.    Peters also uses a hard-to-pinpoint semi rural sounding accent.  We know that in two weeks the episode is titled "Nor'easter," which means they have to be within about two hours of the coast and north of the Mid-Atlantic if it's going to be a serious storm.  Oh well, less meteorology and more reviews, Horror Buff

I like Peters so far, too.  He's back again as - surprise! - a killer who doesn't remember anything (although I don't think he did anything intentionally).  I'm not usually crazy about the whole "blame it on the aliens" thing, but as this is the '60s and it was done tastefully throughout the episode, I think it's an interesting touch.  Good acting on his part; he seems much more mature than in Season 1.

As of yet, I think the scariest subplot is Lana's.  First of all she has to live in fear for who she really is, and then she meddles too far into Briarcliff's matters and suffers the consequences - with no friends or family to save her.  Any plot involving psychiatric wards always plays the card of "you're crazy if we say you are," because I think that someone who denies they're crazy is only considered that much crazier.  Once you're committed, who's to say whether or not you actually belong there?  Scary stuff!

Final critique:  That being said, I am really excited that this season has started up.  The small scares are already abundant, and the deeper terror is still being uncovered.  Good acting, interesting episode: we're off to a good start.  Stay tuned next week.

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.