Insidious (2011)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*SPOILER ALERT*

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

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

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

Wait, did you just hear something?

The Woman in Black (2012)

Who doesn't love an English ghost story?

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

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

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

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

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

*SPOILER ALERT* 

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

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

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

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

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

Creep (2004)

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

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

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

*SPOILER ALERT*

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nosferatu (1922)

Throwback!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halloween (2007)

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

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

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

GENERAL INFO:

Director: Rob Zombie

Studios: The Weinstein Company, Alliance Films

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

Tagline: Evil Has A Destiny; Evil, Unmasked

MPAA Rating: R

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

Scare score:  B+

Rating: A-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*SPOILER ALERT*

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

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

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

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

September Review

For your consideration:

1.  The Birds (1963): A
2.  The Shining (1980): A-
3.  The Reaping (2007): B-
4.  The Terror (1963): C-

True Terror: The Amityville Horror

While I was bored and temporarily separated from access to horror movies, I started thinking about some of the films I've seen that are based on true stories, or so they say.  So I decided to start a short series that I can update from time to time on movies that are (dramatic music) true terror.

The Amityville Horror (and all of its dozens of remakes and sequels). 
The terror: Basically, this movie (which I'll review down the line, no doubt) , based off of a "true" novel takes place in the quiet, bayside town of Amityville, NY, and recounts the story of a young Lutz family that moves into a charming, old home (to this day those wedge-shaped windows next to chimneys on houses terrify me), but the father slowly goes mad as the entire family is haunted and harrassed by a series of paranormal happenings.  Various versions include an entrance to hell in the basement, while others more midly solve the dilemma with a simple burial ground located on the grounds where the house now stands.  Classic!  Throw in a priest, creepy effects, the whole "true story" bit, and you have yourself a great film.  I especially like the "catch 'em, kill 'em" bit utilized in some versions.

The truth: In 1974, 23-year-old Ronald DeFeo, Jr. of Amityville, NY burst into a local bar screaming that his parents had been shot.  When a group of townspeople came with him back to his home, his parents had indeed been shot, along with 4 of his siblings.  All dead in their beds, lying face down on their stomachs.  The police caught on pretty quickly that Ronald Jr.'s story wasn't adding up, and that he was guilty for the murders.  I'm not sure how the case turned out, but I do know that they tried pleading insanity... or possession! 
Anywho, a few years later the actual Lutz family moves into the house (at a bargain price!!) and shortly thereafter claim to begin experiencing supernatural phenomena.  In some versions they have a priest come bless the house, and he senses an evil spirit, but even this is up for debate.  The whole family claims to have experienced various problems, injuries, hauntings, fly infestations, and ooze dripping from doors/ walls/ ceilings.  I don't know that any proof exists to their stories, but they did move out pretty quickly, and it is their "true" story that the book and then multiple movies recount.
I do know that my friend's mom was growing up in a nearby town on Long Island at the time, and she said that all the local kids would go to the property, try to break in, pull pranks, and get scared.  According to her, though, it wasn't scary at all and they didn't believe anything supernatural really happened.  (Cue more dramatic music!)

The Birds (1963)

For any of you old school horror fans out there, you hopefully knew that today (one day only!) was a nation-wide showing of one of Hitchcock's most memorable masterpieces, The Birds. While admittedly I sat across the aisle from some Chatty Cathies and sat behind an older man who apparently found the entire film quite laughable, seeing this horror classic on the silver screen was truly impressive... and pretty freaky.

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Studio: Universal Pictures
Starring: Rod Taylor, Suzanne Pleshette, (introducing) Tippi Hedren
Tagline: The Birds is coming!
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: suspense, thriller, animals, unexplained phenomenon 
Scare score: B
Rating: A

Plot overview:  The young, attractive, and scandalous socialite Melanie Daniels (Hedren) bumps into Mitch Brenner (Taylor), a charming lawyer, while in a San Francisco - wait for it - bird shop. Brenner, who is shopping for lovebirds to gift to his kid sister Cathy (Veronica Cartwright), manages to insult the effortlessly flirtatious Daniels after revealing that he knows she has been to court for her crude playgirl behavior. Hoping to learn more about Brenner, Daniels embarks on a long, scenic drive up the California coast to Bodega Bay to deliver two lovebirds ("I see") to Brenner's family home, where the lawyer spends his weekends with his sister and hard-to-please mother Lydia (Jessica Tandy). Upon Miss Daniels's arrival to the tiny hamlet, however, freak bird attacks begin plaguing the town and its residents. While the attacks start small, hundreds upon hundreds of birds begin to amass, attacking individuals, then children, then the entire town in vicious bouts of winged violence. Soon, Melanie and the Brenners find themselves in an all-out battle for survival against the birds.

It's only appropriate that Hitch is the Master of Suspense since the first bird attack doesn't actually occur until about an hour into the film. In fact, aside from the whole, you know, bird attack thing, this could be a pretty sweet '50s/'60s drama/romance film. Rod Taylor reminded me exactly of Cary Grant throughout most of the movie. But back to the horror: Once the good birds go bad, I found myself physically squirming in my seat and biting my nails during the attack scenes. While the special effects are very outdated, a lot of the scenes were filmed with real birds which, combined with the constant blood, do make for some pretty thrilling, panicked sequences. Hitch's masterful camera angles add such suspense to some scenes, especially the all-out bird barrage against the Brenner home. I loved the different shots of each character in the bottom quarter of the screen with the ceiling taking up the upper 3/4s as we soon learn the birds have broken in through the roof upstairs. Lastly, the first scene of true terror that we see is when Lydia discovers the dead neighbor with his eyes pecked out—which is creepy—and then Hitchcock zooms in 3 TIMES straight into his bloody eye sockets. Excellent.

The scene in the restaurant before and while the birds amass their first large-scale attack on the town is excellent. There is mob psychology; frantic, accusative mothers; panicked townies; and even a village drunk— "It's the end of the world!" There is a very human aspect to this scene as suspense and fear simultaneously rise via discussion about the cause and solution of the town's winged dilemma. This is also the first scene in the film that verbally brings to the audience's attention that the bird attacks started the very afternoon that Melanie arrived to Bodega Bay. Is Melanie the cause of the attacks? Is Melanie, as she is publicly accused, evil? Are the various species of birds in the area reacting to the caged lovebirds that Melanie brought to Cathy? Or is there no natural, logical explanation? This question is never answered, which leaves the suspense unresolved and the film pretty awesome. It kind of reminded me of The Happening, only not terrible.

The acting in the film is extremely impressive. As I learned in TCM's preview before the movie actually started, Alfred Hitchcock literally saw model Tippi Hedren in an ad and had the studio call her to arrange a meeting. This was her first professional acting gig, which might explain why, the first time I saw this film, I thought Melanie seemed pretty aloof. Upon a more thorough viewing, I think she was really great for a debut role: Miss Daniels is both active and reactive, naturally flirtatious and pleasant with a slight edginess, and even towards the end when she goes into shock she plays that very well. I need to give a special shout out to the very young Veronica Cartwright in the role of Cathy, who in both solemn, scary, and pleasant scenes (a combination of all three would be her 'birthday party from hell') is a tremendous actress. The other characters are also believable with much more depth than you will probably find in a modern horror. Like I said, even without all the bad birdies there is still a big film going on here, with creepy silence, plenty of build up, and a fulfilling amount of terror added in. That's suspense at its best.

Final critique:  This is a freaky film. Unpredictable, unexplained, unending terror at the hands, er, claws of a crazed, scary-sized, fast-moving, numerous, and so natural enemy. This film kind of has a Jaws affect to it, but in the air instead of the sea. We've all seen the people that scream when a pigeon flies by about a yard away from them in the city— just picture them if forced to watch The Birds. The acting is great, the setting is charming but creepy in its own way (that old victorian school, the church always in the background), and even with the outdated effects, all of the bird attacks are still scary (although the occasional giggle is still permissible). I recommend this film for all audiences who aren't looking for a simple slasher or screamfest of a movie. For those who scare really easily, I think this flick will provide more than a few jumps and reasons to cover your eyes, but it will only help toughen you up. The world should appreciate Hitchcock for all that he brought to the horror industry, so naturally one of his most famous films is fine by me.

The Terror (1963)

GENERAL INFO:
Director: Roger Corman (collaborated with Francis Ford Coppola, among others)
Studio: Filmgroup
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Boris Karloff
Tagline: "DRACULA"... "FRANKENSTEIN"... "HOUSE of WAX"... "PIT and the PENDULUM"... and now The TERROR
MPAA Rating: unrated
Genre: suspense, mystery, ghost, haunting, witchcraft
Scare score: C-
Rating: C-

Late on a Sunday night after an exhausting weekend was the perfect time to watch this horror 'classic', a hefty title for a film that doesn't quite stand out in memory as much as, say, Dracula or Frankenstein.  It was difficult rating this film given its production in 1963 and one's automatic expectations of modern horror films, so I tried to take a step back, put myself in my 1960's horror shoes, and enjoy the ride.

Plot overview: Set in an undetermined European coastal country (French Empire? Modern-day Bulgaria? Romania?) in 1806, French lieutenant Andre Duvalier (Nicholson) has been separated from his regiment and is found "weary and disillusioned" on the beach.  Here he first meets mysterious beauty Helene (Sandra Knight) and becomes enraptured by her looks.  After she inexplicably disappears (she does this a lot throughout the film) into the water, Andre is attacked by a very angry hawk (a la The Birds) and passes out for the second time in the first 10 minutes of the movie.  When he comes to, he is in the care of an old woman (Dorothy Neumann) who nurses him back to health with a homemade potion from her sketchy lab-setup.  She is also mysterious (as is every single character in the movie, except for the flat, 1-dimensional Andre), leaving our protagonist with more questions than answers, specifically centered around the whereabouts and disputed existence of Helene, and a now mild-mannered hawk under the witch's, er, old woman's care.  At this point the plot takes a turn down the road of The Wicker Man as Andre searches the area, following clues to discover the truth about Helene, who he has now seen [mysteriously] on several occasions.  His search leads him to the spooky, run-down castle of the elderly Baron von Leppe (Karloff), who lives in a self-sentenced solitude with his hot tempered servant, Stefan (Dick Miller).  Andre quickly learns that the visions of Helene he has been seeing is the ghost of the Baron's wife Ilsa, who has been dead for 20 years.  Her brutal murder took place at the hands of her own husband, who returned from war to find her with another man, Eric, who we are told was killed by Stefan alongside the unfaithful Baroness.  The Baron admits that Ilsa's ghost has been haunting him for two years, urging him to commit suicide and join her eternally.

*SPOILER ALERT* 

Little by little, with Andre's meddling and all of the other creepy characters' mysterious revealings, we learn that Ilsa's spirit has been brought back (questionably in Helene's body) by the local witch (Eric's mom!) to lure the guilty and self-loathing Baron into death and avenge Eric's murder as well.  Drama, confusion, and scares wait around every corner.


Again, the quality of this un-remastered movie made it a bit difficult for me to get into, so I had to keep reminding myself to float back to 1963.  While the plot itself is pretty understandable with lots of little twists, I found the movie to be generally confusing, filled with too many scenes of characters running around in the dark, in the woods, in the castle, in the crypt, on the beach, and too many mysterious characters popping in and out, leaving us with more questions than answers until the very end.  The effects are not great (1963, Horror Buff, 1963!), including some presumably animated background drops that took me straight back to the good old days of Scooby Doo.  I did rather enjoy the make up of the corpse we see in the middle of the film, the bloody-and-blinded-by-the-hawk minor character shortly before his convincing fall off a cliff, and the gruesomely decaying face at the end of the film.  These provided some small scares that were certainly entertaining, and I can only imagine were very frightful for audiences at its debut.

I can't say I was a fan of Jack Nicholson in this movie.  Everybody else in the film is a convincing actor and an interesting character, except for our boring and even annoying protagonist, Andre.  Nicholson takes on one mode the entire time as a rather angry and unfazed military officer trying to get to the bottom of the mystery surrounding the mysterious beauty he has his eyes on.  His lines are delivered poorly, his acting is unconvincing, and his reactions to the twists and turns of the plot are non-existent.

From the moment Stefan, devoted servant to the Baron, begins to have long lines, I immediately found myself guessing what borough of New York City the actor Dick Miller was from.  Not to my surprise in the least, this Bronx native brings his very Bronx-y persona to this character, again, a peasant in Europe in 1806.  Hmm.  I wonder, however, if this was on purpose because Dick Miller was such a personality at the time.  Other than his quick-talking, short-tempered Bronx flare, Miller did a great job, and any viewer can relate to his character, who would do anything to protect his old master...including dying for him.

Karloff is excellent in his role, as we are led to believe, of the Baron Victor Frederick von Leppe, an old man of questionable mental fortitude, haunted by his personal ghosts and a very real one as well.  An absolute icon to the classic horror film industry, Karloff's Baron is both a character we can sympathize with and suspect of any and all wrong-doing that surrounds the plot of this film until we learn more about his true identity towards the end, and by that point, salvation from damnation is just too late.

Final critique: To appreciate this film, you need to be okay with the poor quality and sometimes kitschy set, plot, and overall feel of the production.  In the movie's defense, I will beat the dead horse and mention again that some 60's films tend to have a cheesy feeling about them anyway.  A modern remake, even one retaining the time period of Napoleon's Europe, of this movie could be really frightening.  I can't get over my disappointment with Nicholson's acting or lack thereof, but luckily he is more so a tool that helps unravel the plot for us to enjoy.  The ghost aspect of the film: a will-less, vengeful spirit under the control of an even more vengeful witch, was pretty cool since I wasn't even expecting the ghost to turn out to be real in the end.  Some of the confusion could have been easily eliminated via clearer scenes and small changes to simplify the plot.  The period was fun and different as far as most horror films go, sets were impressive overall, and all the characters (besides Lieutenant Devalier) were interesting and tragic in their own ways, adding depth and credit to the film.  To bring up the movie poster (seen above) for a second, I really have no idea how all those people in a web apply to this movie at all... very random.  The tagline, as well, isn't very creative, and in fact I'm not reminded of Dracula et all after having watched this film.  But that type of tagline does evoke thoughts of cinema in the 50's, and we must remember that this was advertisement in the 60's (Don Draper, even).  Lastly, the title of the film kind of sucks.  When I hear 'the terror' I imagine some devilish force, not just an attractive ghost commanded by a witch who in reality is pretty friendly, and in that case I'm still assuming that the 'terror' refers to Ilsa/ Helene.  Why not "The Baroness' Ghost" or "The Haunting of Castle von Leppe: Eternal Love, Eternal Damnation" (by now you've guessed I'm not in Hollywood writing movie scripts), or anything that gives us some preview as to what the film is actually about?  Anywho, I appreciated the small scares throughout the movie, although they were certainly not too scary for me watching this alone late at night in a dark house.  That being said, I'd recommend this movie to anybody, especially to those who scare easily, if they find the time to sit back and watch this somewhat suspenseful, somewhat grainy horror classic.

American Psycho (1991) - novel

Horror Buff reads, too!

GENERAL INFO:
Author: Bret Easton Ellis
Publisher: Vintage Books, New York
Caption: Patrick Bateman is handsome, well educated, intelligent.  He works by day on Wall Street, earning a fortune to complement the one he was born with.  His nights he spends in ways we cannot begin to fathom.  He is twenty-six years old and living his own American Dream.
Genre: novel, psychopath, serial killer, gore
Gore score: A+
Scare score: C
Rating: B+

It's so hard for me to rate this book because of how equally creative, accurate, thought provoking - and just plain disturbing - it is.  I usually deal well with gore in horror movies, although I admit I'm getting more squeamish as the years move on and the Saw franchise gets more disgusting, but this novel was something else.

Plot Overview: In the late 1980's, Patrick Bateman is a 26-year-old investment banker living in Manhattan.  He is extremely wealthy, cultured, attractive, chiseled, and psychopathic.  The novel progresses over the course of a year or so in chapters that recount various social gatherings, dinners, drinks; discussions about fashion, art and financial accounts; nihilistic rants; lots of sex and drugs; and extremely graphic murder episodes that Patrick commits for no reason except to try (and fail) to gain pleasure or fill the void inside of himself.

This novel is a fascinating critique of the yuppie culture and of general American materialism in the 1980's.  Bret Easton Ellis' fine attention to detail makes the work remarkable, so precise in recounting even the tiniest opinions and criticism of culture at the time, from Manhattan's sky scrapers, to business cards, to restaurants and dishes, female bodies, and cold blooded killing.  Regardless of how you feel about the murder content of this novel, you have to appreciate Ellis' style and how much depth - or not - it adds to Bateman's character.  At the end of the day, this book isn't so much about murder as it is about death in general: the death of love, the death of society, the death of meaning and purpose.

Onto the gorey stuff.  I hate to admit it, but while reading this book a few summers ago I almost passed out on two separate occasions due to the gore.  The murder scenes are so chilling, so disgusting and so descriptive, I don't think it's fair to say that anyone can really enjoy them, although I appreciate the creativity (the rat scene - need I say more?) and Ellis' boldness in publishing them.  If you love blood and guts, impress your friends and pick up this book: it will look like you're reading a somewhat hefty novel, but little do they know...  Each murder scene is different and even more disturbing than the previous one.  Bateman never fails to amaze us with pocket knives, bigger knives, chainsaws, axes, broken glass, nails, power drills... the list goes on.  You may never want to go home with a stranger in Manhattan again.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Not that you really can spoil American Psycho - he kills people, all the time - but this novel does break one of my cardinal rules of horror.  I'm assuming that based on the chapter title "Killing Child at the Zoo" you can guess which rule it breaks.  However, I will say that my rules really apply to movies, which I think are made for a more general audiences and have stricter rules to follow than literature does.  I will furthermore say that Bateman almost regrets, not that psychopaths possess the ability to feel as we do, killing the child because it "has no real history, no worthwhile past, nothing is really lost."

That being said, I think this book is important because of the lines it crosses to show us how the line between sane and psychotic is a very fine one.  Some of the most famous psychopaths in history have gotten away with their crimes, or would have except they always seem to get sloppy in the end.  Like I've said in previous posts, to me, one of the scariest kinds of horror is when there is no reason, no cause, no warning, no cure.  There probably is a Patrick Bateman, or several, walking around somewhere in the world right now.  Bateman's psychosis is a human version of the decay and emptiness of American society that Ellis critiques excellently throughout the novel in more material ways.

Oh, the movie version?  Don't get me started.  I'm sure I'll rate it further on down the line, but I can tell you now that my rating will not be a good one.

And remember, with all of today's modern hustle and bustle, all of the people constantly coming and going, maybe we all know a Patrick Bateman.