TBT: The Descent (2006)

Posted on October 30, 2014 by Tom

There is no shortage of horrors I could have/might have gone with here. But I decided to ultimately pick something a bit more. . .random out of the hat, as I think more obvious choices like Halloween, or Psycho, or even Friday the 13th would be a little more difficult to say something original about. I turned instead to a film that really, really gave me the heebie-jeebies on the first viewing. As someone who loves rock climbing, it’s pretty ironic that caving (or ‘spelunking,’ if you want to get technical) is terrifying to me. Much like people who are averse to scaling heights outdoors, dropping one’s self into dark, cramped spaces beneath the surface of the earth seems like such a bad idea. I wonder if that in any way might be related to my experience with

Today’s food for thought: The Descent.

Descending into chaos since: August 4, 2006

[DVD]

Few horrors have managed to consistently thrill me the way writer/director Neil Marshall’s impossibly claustrophobic tale of a cave-diving trip gone awry has. Time and again, the heady vibrations of the blood-soaked, tenebrous The Descent leave me exhausted come the end, and in a genre where first impressions are critical I find it unusual to exit a film on the tenth go-around in such a manner. It’s like watching it for the very first time again. . .and again.

I feed off of adrenaline, and certain installments offer a mainline shot of it. This chaotic and brutal journey into what might reasonably be described as hell has been like taking one to the carotid. For the uninitiated: a group of young outdoor enthusiasts reunite a year after a tragic car accident involving some of their friends and decide to get a secluded cabin in the backwoods of North Carolina. On their itinerary is an exploration of a massive cave system close by. Of course, things don’t go according to plan and they are left fighting for survival when they find living creatures inside the tunnels. What begins as a routine exploration ends in an epic battle for the surface when they realize the inhabitants don’t take kindly to visitors.

In a refreshing twist, the group’s presented as an all-female cast determined to not be pinned down by the horror tropes of yesterday. (Hooray for climbing/rappeling gear!) Juno (Natalie Mendoza), Sarah (Shauna Macdonald), Beth (Alex Reid), Sam (MyAnna Buring), Rebecca (Saskia Mulder) and the most recent addition to the group, Holly (Nora-Jane Noone), are all given sufficient, if not wholly original introductions. It’s not likely you’ll remember these names after watching but what’s more memorable is the tension between them even before the film dives into the deep end.

The Descent has been most successful in drawing upon the decay of its hopelessly confusing confines. The labyrinthine setting forever remains frighteningly unique — a character unto itself — and Marshall even took the time to stuff it full with plenty of gruesome surprises. (I’m left wondering how many films have been based upon the amazing Carlsbad Caverns?) The Descent has earned a reputation from the speed with which an innocent day trip transitions into a situation darker than the stuff of nightmares. Marshall is less concerned with the minutiae of spelunking in all its spectacular danger in the same way he’s not as bothered with bringing out award-worthy performances from his relatively unknown cast. What comes front-and-center in this wonderfully under-lit production is emotion, energy, a need to survive.

If this all sounds rather familiar, it should. Less familiar is the effectiveness of the atmosphere. You’d never guess this was filmed in the comforts of the Pinewood Studios near London. Or, you know. Maybe you might. You might’ve naturally assumed that filming within an actual cave is simply too dangerous and/or impractical to achieve the desired effect. (Or you could have been perusing Wikipedia, like I just was. . .) Either way, the bloodcurdling screams echoing off these walls have this tendency to trick the mind into thinking we are where we really aren’t. The lack of light, the pools of blood. The pickax and the neck. The crevasses. Interpersonal tensions resulting from last year’s car accident boiling over at the worst times. All of this adds up to a stressful experience that’s difficult to put into the back of one’s mind.

The Descent doesn’t exactly escape unscathed, as its gender-uniform cast at times struggles to reach the gravitas necessary to sell the moment. There are the usual jump-scares lurking around many a dripping stalactite that pass by rather forgettably. There are cringe-worthy lines sprinkled in here and there. Fortunately these issues constitute a small enough percentage of the run time to not overwhelm.

Recommendation: There are many aspects to this spelunking expedition that are likely to turn many outdoors-oriented types away. Personally, I find the exhibition of passion for the outdoors often goofily exaggerated in films — not even Danny Boyle’s 127 Hours is immune — as if the industry feels it ought to confront those who don’t quite ‘get’ what it’s like to be an adventurous, outdoors type. But to get caught up in frivolous details like that is to overlook the pure adrenaline rush and psychological torment that the film provides. The Descent is taut, exciting, bloody and brutal and if those are the requirements you would list for a good horror, you should avoid this film no more.

Rated: R

Running Time: 99 mins.

TBTrivia: This film had a working title of ‘Chicks with Picks’ during production. That conjures up an entirely different image now, doesn’t it?

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.imdb.com

TBT: The Exorcist (1973)

Posted on October 23, 2014 by Tom

I have had this blog for three years now and still haven’t reviewed this?! This surprises me not just because of the infamy attached to this staple of 1970s American horror, but because it is one of my personal favorite horrors ever. Why haven’t I been yammering on about this already?! I blame blogger’s block. But here we are, on another Thursday in October, once again given the opportunity to redeem ourselves. And by ‘we’ I mean me. And by ‘ourselves’ I refer to my more demonic, possessed side. . .

Today’s food for thought: The Exorcist.

Reinforcing the notion that Regan is a terrible name since: December 26, 1973

[DVD]

It’s a shame William Friedkin’s masterpiece of supernatural scares has only gone on to become one of the most parodied films of all time. A shame because the true power of Pazuzu’s icy grip on the throat of a young girl named Regan has so often been overlooked in favor of making fun of a head that spins and pukes at the same time, and that upside-down crab walk.

A shame because this movie used to terrify people and by rights it still should to this day. It’s also a shame, though, that the special effects used in this memorable production haven’t exactly aged well. Modern audiences perhaps should be forgiven for saying ‘no thanks’ when the exorcism phase of a horror movie seems a dime a dozen these days. Unfortunately by passing up on the opportunity to watch The Exorcist these folks are inadvertently missing out on an exorcism done the right way; the disturbing, nightmare-inducing way.

Disregarding the extraneous and inferior prequels and sequels it has spawned, the story centered around a young actress and her daughter’s quite literal descent into hell when Chris McNeil (Ellen Burstyn) began noticing rather bizarre behavioral changes occurring in her Regan. Growing pains associated with the onset of adolescence these were not. Poor Regan is soon revealed as the next incubator for a malevolent spirit.

Elsewhere, an archeologist/priest named Lankester Merrin (Max Von Sydow) has determined his experiences with fighting off demonic possession in the privacy of the possessed’s home are not days of the past. Following his discovery of a pennant reminiscent of the demon spirit Pazuzu, whom he had defeated years ago, Father Merrin is inevitably ensconced in a bizarre case in the Washington, D.C. area, courtesy of another priest having difficulty finding the faith after losing his elderly mother to an illness. Father Karras (Jason Miller) was the first to be contacted by a desperate mother seeking answers to an unexplainable situation. The case is of course, none other than Regan McNeil. She’s rather. . .sick. It’s been determined she needs an exorcism and needs the help of both priests.

If slow-burning horror is what it takes to get under your skin, then William Friedkin has had a movie waiting for you. The director may be knocked a little for applying a liberal amount of atmosphere creation for the first two-thirds of the film. However, the film is titled what it is for a reason, and on that ground alone it did not, does not and should not disappoint. “That scene” is an absolute staple of horror, its tension and emotional involvement hitting into the dark red part of the needle. I hate to reduce a film to a particular scene, but if there ever was a popular title to be reduced to one, it’s this. The beast’s vile behavior and the sounds it made have been difficult to shake for years.

The blame is on the era of filmmaking for a lack of better sound equipment, for surely some of the sound effects have come across more deranged and disturbing on the virtue that they are muffled, tinny and awkward excretions of noise, more aggravating than alarming. Remastered versions have helped improve these issues slightly but one can imagine this film’s potential made in today’s studios. It’s never enough to detract from the levels of nail-biting anxiety, though.

In some ways, perhaps it’s a good thing so many parodies of these moments exist. The more ADHD-prone viewers could use a little bit more of that 21st Century sense of hyperreality to make history more interesting. At least by watching Regan’s head spin right round, right round to Flo-Rida’s song they might be able to appreciate that whatever is being parodied was at one time so effective it spawned these humorous takes on it. Hey, entertainment is all relative anyway so I’m in favor of more people getting caught up to speed with this film’s iconic imagery and settings in any way they can.

It doesn’t get much better in terms of suspenseful exorcisms than this. In today’s horror, the act of exorcising almost deserves its own sub-genre. But there is something truly special about the way it all comes together under the supervision of William Friedkin; the acting, particularly on the part of a young Linda Blair as Regan is superb, urgent and emotional. It’s also an unusually vulgar performance from such a young performer. The pacing lags at the start but intensifies as the situation spirals out of control and into the world of the supernatural, while a chilling, somber tone is never quite escapable.

It’s a shame more people don’t regard The Exorcist as one of the scariest films of all time, because that’s exactly what I think this chilling, suspenseful and at times downright crude chronicling is, one of the scariest things I have ever tried watching.

Recommendation: Add this one to your queue if you consider yourself a fan of good horror. The pseudo high-concept horror. The horror that can wake you in the middle of the night in a fit of cold sweats as you’ve just dreamt of the vague outlining of a vengeful Pazuzu-like spirit. And fans of the director have undoubtedly had this one in their collection; they more likely have begun many of theirs with this very title. It’s hard to do with horror movies but this is one I have no problem with calling a must-see.

Rated: R

Running Time: 122 mins.

TBTrivia: In the six months following the film’s release, 14-year-old Linda Blair had to have bodyguards following her around in the wake of multiple death threats thrown her way by zealots claiming her character “glorified Satan.”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.2warpstoneptune.com; http://www.puremzine.com

TBT: The Shining (1980)

Posted on October 16, 2014 by Tom

The first time I had heard this film title, I thought it was referring to something else entirely. And when I finally sat down to watch (whenever that first time was, I wish I could remember. . .) I came into the understanding rather quickly that yes indeed, this would be no comedy. No one would be getting pants-ed. No half-naked actors . . . well. Not in the way you want them to be naked. *Shudder* That lady in the bathtub — thanks, but no thanks. What’s even more bizarre, in hindsight, is at the time I didn’t know at all what it was that I was getting myself into. Had no idea this film was a classic. Had no idea Jack Nicholson could be like. . .this.

Today’s food for thought: The Shining.

Causing hotel keepers to go insane since: forever. . .and ever. . .and ever. . .

[DVD]

At the time I also had no idea there were deviations from Stephen King’s novel. Or that Mr. King himself wasn’t much of a fan of the finished film product. Of course I’ve paid no heed to the spirits that haunt this film reel for it is indeed one of the greatest of all time. That kind of high praise has for so long surrounded its director (I don’t know, some guy named Stanley Kubrick) that, to the uninitiated, it’s almost as if the center might collapse at any moment, like a doughnut jam-packed with a bit too much jelly.

At this point The Shining has almost become a mythological creature, existing now as a shrine to the frightening heights of Jack Nicholson’s madness and a podium before which Shelley Duvall may stand and proudly shout her name. I haven’t seen her in anything since nor have been so moved to do so, but in the same way I am not allowed to forget troubled writer Jack Torrance, I can’t scrub the pallid complexion of Wendy, his wife, from my brain. The horror has endured because these characters have, and for 34 years they have been thriving on the off-chance poor saps may make the mistake of revisiting The Overlook Hotel again on Netflix. Or, better yet: for newbies to take their first look around inside.

Me? I have spent the last several years successfully avoiding the interior of that place. It’s more like I’ve been running around in the maze out back, looking for some kind of way out of here. Yet, the imagery (and of course the quotes — “Here’s Johnny!!!”) has remained vivid and complex, mysterious but significant.

In need of extra income, Jack Torrance takes his family and secludes them in the beautiful but remote Overlook Hotel as the staff have been looking for a caretaker for the off-season, wintry months from December through May. This, Jack figured, would be as good a place as any to get focused on his writing. But the distractions soon become numerous and of an ominous variety, the source of which seems to be the Indian burial ground upon which the expansive hotel had been built. Over the coming days and weeks, Jack’s behavior increases in bizarreness and hostility, shrinking what was left of Wendy’s sense of self-preservation into a circle only she could fit into. And the Torrances’ only child is some kind of disturbed visionary who doesn’t ‘approve’ of the new surrounds. If that doesn’t promote cabin fever, what does?

Danny can’t exactly see dead people but he can sense the malevolent presences within this lonely building. His psychic abilities are referred to as ‘shining,’ and are also shared with certain members on staff, including the hotel chef — a man named Dick Hallorann (Scatman Crothers). Danny’s been able to foresee terrible things occurring here, but is he able to prevent them? Unfortunately that’s all out of his little, future blood-stained hands. Dad’s too blinded by his own frustrations as a failing writer (I can relate, dude) and thus is spending more time on his own, away from his wife whom he keeps having violent outbursts towards.

Stanley Kubrick on this occasion built suspense like nobody’s business, while simultaneously implementing some of the most recognizable set pieces you’re likely to find in horror. What we have here may not be everything that is presented in the novel. In fact a lot has changed, apparently. But what is used is also hellishly effective: the torrent of blood escaping the elevators; retro, 70s-style carpeting; hedge mazes, that also double as escape routes, by the way; the fire ax going through a bedroom door.

If blood and guts don’t creep you out, the stifling atmosphere had a better chance of chilling your internal body temperature by a few degrees. The Shining simultaneously dwelled upon and benefitted from the dress of decay. Everything from the abandoned space, to the season in which these disturbing transformations occur helped impress upon us that here is a family with no way of ridding themselves of harm. Of grisly, twisted and unpredictable violence.

If Jack were successful in completing just whatever it was he had committed to writing — a book, a collection of poems, perhaps? — I can only provide speculation as to how his real-life ending might have fit. A little bit bloodier? No doubt. More predictable? Eh, maybe. If all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy, the more sane of us have been left wondering what this man would be like if left without that typewriter of his. At least here, he was temporarily distracted.

The beauty in Kubrick’s adaptation, accurate or not, has been the ability for audiences to imagine themselves in such a situation and what they would do. The supernatural forces driving former residents mad was a concept abstract and terrifying enough for two different auteurs — one a writer and another a filmmaker — to base stories off of and yet come away with two different experiences, both arguably equally successful. That’s damn impressive and a true testament to the power of well-conceived horror.

Recommendation: Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining is — and this is a boring way to put it, I know — a true classic. It not only stands the test of time, it almost becomes scarier each time you revisit it. Something else just keeps popping up, some detail you never noticed before. On that basis alone, if you haven’t still seen this movie I urge you to do so pronto. If you are a horror buff, I think we’re done here. If you’re squeamish, you should watch this anyway. Just so you’re not so squeamish in other, lesser horrors. Thicken that skin!

Rated: R

Running Time: 144 mins.

TBTrivia: A tale of horrifying edits. Apparently the original script was edited so many times it began to irritate Jack. It got to a point where he’d only read the new pages that were added to the script daily. He later cited the role as one of the toughest he’s ever undertaken.

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.imdb.com

TBT: Rosemary’s Baby (1968)

Posted on October 9, 2014 by Tom

Feeling in a bit of a paranoid mood? Then you’ll love what’s on offer for today’s Throwback Thursday segment! And you know what they say about paranoia, right? Well . . . actually, what . . . what do they say? I’m not sure if they say anything about it. Is there an expression that “they” say? Just who are “they,” anyway??! What the hell is going on? That’s a good question. So I’ll just cut right to the chase: gimme my baby back!

Today’s food for thought: Rosemary’s Baby.

Rocking the cradle since: June 12, 1968

[Netflix]

My introduction to the filmography of one Roman Polanski has sent shivers down my spine. Fourteen hours later I’ve been able to get rid of them.

Rosemary’s Baby is a trip. Not a vacation; a trip. A veritable hallucinogenic as intoxicatingly cinematic as it is a tutorial on how to create atmospheric suspense and feelings of dread and paranoia by using real-world settings and little else. One of the most prolific filmmakers of all-time — having crafted works in Britain, France, Poland and the United States — Polanski’s psychological horror detailing a young housewife’s concerns about strange circumstances surrounding her pregnancy remains to this day a nightmarish descent into paranoia and paralyzing fear.

Though culture and tradition in the nearly 50 years since its release have certainly changed, the emotional core of the film harps on notes that ring true as ever. In this ridiculously effective thriller, a nightmare for the average pregnant woman is only the beginning. Mia Farrow is Rosemary Woodhouse, wife of struggling actor Guy Woodhouse (John Cassavetes) who is at first reluctant to move into what was once a single-unit apartment now subdivided into thinly-walled quarters within a ramshackle building known as the Bramford. Rosemary so badly wants this apartment in Manhattan that he relents.

The ensuing weeks and months the Woodhouses are ingratiated by their next-door-neighbors, an elderly couple who take a very keen interest in Rosemary’s desire to have a child. Following what can only be described as a harrowing dream sequence you don’t really want to relive, she indeed becomes pregnant. She and Guy are congratulated by Minnie and Roman Castevet (Ruth Gordon and Sidney Blackmur) and promptly given all kinds of advice on how to take care of the pregnancy.

The fascination begins when we see Guy and Rosemary’s reactions to the — er, hospitality start to diverge; while Guy forms a bond with the oddball Roman who has good stories to tell, Rosemary becomes increasingly off-put by the prying eyes of a very creepy Minnie. Clearly I wasn’t around back then, but I can still feel the impact of this supporting performance and would have to agree with the Oscar she received. Gordon is positively chilling and Blackmur supports more than significantly.

I would be lying if I said I was won over by Farrow’s performance, but on a strictly objective level (because that’s what we are all about here at Digital Shortbread. . . . . . ) she is a strong character whose determination and horrific circumstances render her irreplaceable. (To that end, I am looking forward to other performances from her.)

Rosemary’s Baby is ruthlessly tense and masterfully chopped up into segments that fuse together like the night into day. Natural transitions yield great expanses of time and we begin to learn the true scale of Rosemary’s problems. Put into simple terms, this is a poor woman’s descent into hell as her pregnancy consumes her very existence. In 2014 the confronting nature of this particular pregnancy still hits hard, without the film ever digressing into a tug-of-war for or against abortion. There are, however, whispers of those concerns buried deep within this truly haunting tale. The film happens to be capped off by one of the best and most unexpected endings I have ever seen.

For all the above reasons and a few more, I find this to be a true masterpiece of cinema.

Recommendation: Roman Polanski’s psychological thriller is brilliantly directed, beautifully and eerily shot, incredibly scored and tremendously effective as well as engrossing. Clocking in at well over two hours, it’s a substantial horror installment. But the elite-level performances — in particular, Farrow and Gordon — coupled with an alarmingly convincing story make the time fly by. I highly, highly recommend getting your mitts on this one if you have the thing sitting there right in front of you on Netflix like I did. I am so thrilled I checked this out. Also, let me recommend Netflix.

Rated: R

Running Time: 136 mins.

TBTrivia: Mia Farrow was actually eating raw liver in that scene. Mmm, bon appétit!

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.pinterest.com; http://www.athenacinema.com

TBT: The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

Posted on October 2, 2014 by Tom

OooOooOOOoooOOoooOo the chills are running down my spine as we enter into October for the. . . second time on TBT. I’ve got the chills because of the films I know I have to watch and/or review in the coming month; I’ve got the chills because I’m not looking forward to days in my car without heating when it gets cold. I’ve got the chills because horror films are, aside from religious films, probably my least favorite genre. But I’m always up for a challenge and will happily sit through four new films this year once again for a Halloween-themed month of throwbacks!

Today’s food for thought: The Hills Have Eyes.

Scaring the hill out of tourists since: March 10, 2006

[DVD]

Okay, so maybe there are worse things to fear than the state of the nearest gas pump you come across when breaking down in the middle of nowhere. Carnivorous bastards, for one.

The relatively recent remake of Wes Craven’s The Hills Have Eyes, the story of a most unfortunate family who are left to fend for themselves against monstrous hill-dwelling creatures after being tricked into taking a “short cut” and subsequently stranded, will forever be remembered by this reviewer for its excruciatingly brutal trailer-invasion scene. Ick ick ick ick ick ICK!

French director Alexandre Aja (who will be helming the forthcoming Horns, starring Daniel Radcliffe) set his sights on making his film a brutal and gruesome one. Between the grotesque appearance of the cannibalistic beasts — ostensibly humans with a bad case of nuclear mutation, in this case — the savage attack sequences and the desolate wasteland upon which Aja has set his pawns, I. . . uh, yeah. . . the guy succeeded.

The stockpile of victims here is the Carter family (same as in original version), spearheaded by Bob and Ethel, who are on their way across the country celebrating their anniversary. It might go without saying for the uninitiated that the characters aren’t bred to be much more than sitting ducks, awaiting their grisly fate at the hands of these sadistic. . .things. Sure they may not have to do much but scream and meet their maker in the form of creepazoids named Jupiter, Pluto, Lizard and Goggle, but the relatively unknown cast turns in what is necessary in order to effect desperation and terror as they succumb to their isolation in this former nuclear testing site.

*Shudder.* This movie is just gross. (Thanks for these memories, Tom.)

Recommendation: The Hills Have Eyes might not be what I would call essential viewing but it is if you’re into horror. Then again this might be a redundant recommendation as I might imagine this film has been ticked off somewhat quickly after having seen Wes Craven’s 1970s version. As a horror skeptic, I find the end result of this film to be an adrenaline rush that I don’t particularly need to experience again. I’m appreciative of the first time around and will save my eyes for some other hillside terror. Again, *shudder.*

Rated: R

Running Time: 107 mins.

TBTrivia: The development of condominiums in the original desert location of Wes Craven’s film forced the film crew to scout other areas.

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.pinterest.com; http://www.imdb.com

TBT: Let the Right One In (2008)

Posted on October 31, 2013 by Tom

Happy Halloween everyone! In trying to properly celebrate the world’s most bizarre ‘holiday,’ today’s entry nearly did not happen, as I couldn’t find a copy of the original Halloween and I’m not into the whole bootlegging thing (yet). . .that, and I don’t watch a lot of T.V. Then the second choice was going to be Child’s Play. Netflix again failed me by informing me that there was a “very long wait” associated with that particular rental. So I was forced to go to other options. After pouring over many great suggestions from you fine folks, I decided to go in a completely different direction and I wound up watching a movie about. . . vampires. I know. I know. These, if anything, seem to be the type of ‘horror’ film that I would instantly be turned off by. Predictable, utterly cliched, and usually just. . .weird as hell, I’ve yet to find a vampire film that I could really enjoy. And then I stumbled across this little gem, something that many people might not necessarily associate with ‘horror.’ Nonetheless, today’s TBT turned out to be a great choice and I’m glad I made it.

Today’s food for thought: Let the Right One In.

Release: January 26, 2008

[Netflix]

This review is coming at you right off the heels of the end credits, which only finished just seconds ago; therefore this is going to be the freshest any film has been on my mind since I started doing Throwback Thursday. And as such, this is probably going to be a sloppy review. All the same, the beauty and sublime perfection that is Tomas Alfredson’s Let the Right One In is likely to leave a lasting impression upon me. This is one of the most beautiful films I have ever laid eyes on. And again, vampires do did almost nothing for me.

A Swedish film, Let the Right One In is about a young boy who finds his first romance in a girl who’s not quite human. Alfredson’s work here is stunning for a couple of reasons. Let’s start with the cinematography, considering this element is all but impossible to gloss over.

It’s obvious that Alfredson is about as taken with the elegance of winter — what, with all its crystal-tipped trees, snow-blanketed wonderlands — as any person might be who may consider themselves a romantic. The winter is harsh and unforgiving — especially the further north you go — but the director is intent on capturing the exquisite beauty, if but to simply distract for a moment or two from the world as it were. It’s also a perfectly spooky setting in which to make a horror film. The wintery environs throughout compound the effect of the many bizarre murders that happen in this small town near Stockholm. Bodies are discovered buried in snowdrifts, in thick ice; the chilled breaths of the characters provide an instant discomfort from the opening scenes.

Fortunately there is a story woven like fine fabric through this frozen wonderland of troubled youth, despair and oppression. Twelve-year-old Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) is introverted and a little strange, resulting in his constant bullying at school. He wants to do something about it but can’t find it within himself to actually take action. Then one night he comes across a very strange girl on a playground just outside of his decrepit apartment block — a girl about his age (“I’m 12, more or less. . .”) and the two become friends, even despite her initial not wanting to even go that far. She’s actually a vampire, destined forever to live off the fresh blood of humans, otherwise she’ll die.

Of course, none of this information she reveals at first, which is part of what makes this such an interesting watch. Bit by bit we see this innocent/vampiric personality coming together. Alfredson selects the perfect moments to reveal the characterizations of the “vampire,” using the experiences of this disturbed boy to reflect the nature of humanity versus that of the undead (what exactly are vampires — are they dead, or not? If someone can riddle me that one, I’ll give them. . .a Twix, or something. . .)

Instead of associating laughable, questionable special effects with the actions of these kinds of creatures, the girl (an excellent performance from Lina Leandersson) her character is very much reacting to and interacting with the real world, in real time. Her attacks are not only necessary but understandable. We know why she’s sucking so much blood from the necks of these otherwise-harmless passersby. And we see the effects her presence takes on the town. Each murder becomes more and more strange, and as they do, Eli (Leandersson) knows her stay in this tiny, frost-laden town is dwindling. Only, she begins to fall in love with a real person — Oskar.

The relationship is beautiful, as much as the scenery is a pleasure to watch. I could stare at the introductory scene all day. And while this couldn’t seem more of an odd choice for the night when we celebrate All Hallow’s Eve, the only thing more terrifying than it is the prospect of sitting through a shit horror film on that night. Fortunately, my experience tonight was completely the opposite. I want to reveal so much more about this film, but alas I cannot, for fear of ruining the entire experience for you.

Recommendation: This will not be the scariest thing you can find on Halloween, but if your goal is to watch a quality flick, here is one rare example of applying classical elements to a story very much steeped in reality. The locations help to make things interesting as well, as Sweden is a beautiful landscape of architectural splendor, barren isolation and unrepentant cold. In short, this is the perfect location to find some creep creatures lurking around. Forget about coffins and Dracula. This is a vampire movie for the 21st century, and it really works.

Rated: R

Running Time: 114 mins.

Quoted: “Oskar, I do it because I have to. Be me for a while. Please, Oskar. Be me, for a little while. . .”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.impawards.com; http://www.imdb.com

TBT: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Posted on October 24, 2013 by Tom

I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the number of my followers drop after I admit that today’s entry is a movie I had never seen until now. . . Somehow, some way this classic from the mid-80s has eluded me. I can report that after all this time this movie remains just as terrifying as it was when first exposed to audiences in the day. Its easy to look past the dated acting, corny dialogue, and campy 80s effects because the story here is just so thrilling, and quite honestly scary. I had a blast with this TBT. ’twas a much more memorable one than last week’s, that’s to be sure.

Today’s food for thought: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).

Release: June 1, 1984

[Netflix]

No rest for the mentally disturbed/possibly stalked. . .

The spirit of a vicious child serial killer resurfaces in the nightmares of teens in modern-day and is responsible for their subsequent and shocking deaths in this tense, spooky thriller from who else, but Wes Craven (I’m actually not that familiar at all with his style, but since this is a horror film for the ages I figured I’d best get ahead and jump on the bandwagon as quick as possible to make up for lost time).

I think it’s a general desire to distance myself from having too many nightmares myself that kept me away from this vintage piece of cinema. You will not find me in my most comfortable state during scenes of teeth-grinding suspense and dramatically low-lit, creepy stalking sequences, but I had to make an exception here. Craven’s direction is superb, fully taking advantage of a disturbing premise and several buckets of blood syrup to create scene after scene that’s filled with dread, suspense and gore in ways that are rarely seen in today’s horror offerings. Within the first ten-ish minutes, I yearned immediately for a time machine to go back in time and just have horror films like this exist and nothing else — this, coming from a non-horror movie watcher. I’m sure that I’ve said this often enough, I just want to make it even more clear how much fun this movie is.

After Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) experiences the death of her friend Tina, she’s not fully convinced it was the murder that everyone understands it to be, and sooner rather than later she finds herself deeply personally involved in the mystery also, and the dream world she goes to when sleeping starts to blur with the real world.

Years ago, a terrible hat-wearing man (yes his hat was terrible) who killed children was tracked down by enraged parents, who then cornered him in a basement and set fire to the house. Now he lives on in the nightmares of other kids living on Elm Street, killing children as his revenge. With each passing day and seeing more and more disturbing things in her dreams, Nancy is increasingly scared to go to sleep and her mother (horror regular Ronee Blakely) becomes increasingly worried about her daughter’s mental state. Finally enough is enough for Nancy, and she becomes determined to both prove that Freddie is indeed still alive (no one believes her since, well. . you know. . . he was a pariah from yesteryear and is long gone now), and that she is not insane. Nancy makes attempts several times to have someone watch over her as she sleeps and attempts to drag her monstrous stalker from the dream world to the real one so the terrorizing can be stopped, once and for all.

The Dreams:

A very young Johnny Depp, as Nancy’s boyfriend, Glen Lentz. His big-screen debut.
The bedroom scenes and “I’m your boyfriend now, Nancy. . .”
Charles Bernstein’s score is really damn cool and suitably eerie.
The fact that Freddy Krueger is played by an actor (Robert Englund). Thank god this guy isn’t real. . . . . . .right?
There’s a heavy use of cheesy 80s props/effects here but they are so well-used these have ended up scarring me temporarily. Hopefully I’ll recover in a few days.

The Nightmares:

Some acting bits are pretty questionable but in general these don’t even really bring the intensity down. Also, it is a film from the 80s. I should probably have expected a bit of camp in the dialogue every now and then.
The fact there are so many sequels to this that I will likely never watch because I have this general understanding of how terrible they are.
How dumb must you be to stay in the same town after you’re being suspected of murdering your girlfriend? (Rod Lane, I’m talking to you.) Why didn’t you just blow dodge? Hiding in the bushes, and then whispering to a passing-by Nancy doesn’t seem to be a terrible effective way of hiding yourself from the cops. I think he would have avoided his death if he hadn’t been so foolish.
The ultimate show-down between Nancy and Freddy was a little silly. I was actually hoping for something more, but it still worked.
The ending!!!!!! I am a person who appreciate finality, having some knowledge of things being over, whatever. Uh, this didn’t really satisfy that, but at the same time its not a bad ending at all. I’m very, very torn on how A Nightmare on Elm Street goes out. Still, I refuse to see the sequels.

Well, that’s it. That about wraps us up for this disturbing week on Throwback Thursday. Thanks for revisiting this one with me, and for still reading after I told you it took me almost 30 years to see it.

Recommendation: Simply a classic, Craven’s low-budget and extra-creepy psychological thriller is both atmospheric and unnerving, and should be a permanent installment in any horror fan’s list of films to watch in the run-up to Halloween.

Rated: R

Running Time: 91 mins.

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.pophorror.com; http://www.imdb.com

TBT: The Amityville Horror (2005)

Posted on October 17, 2013 by Tom

My concept for TBT has yet again proven itself to be worthwhile with today’s entry. This Thursday I watched a film I could have sworn was actually good years ago. I know, I know. This month was supposed to be inclusive of nothing but GOOD horror films — not bad, not even mediocre. Good ones. But I say again, going back in time and rewatching films I haven’t laid eyes on in years has proven to be beneficial. Some films take a second viewing to make their impact (even if those viewings were parceled out over the course of almost a decade). I suppose if I wanted to truly keep to this theme of purportedly “good” horror films, I would have just crafted a review based on my first watch, but seeing that I couldn’t remember anything at all that happened, I decided to give it a quick re-watch and see what came of it. Apparently, not a great deal of excitement.

Today’s food for thought: The Amityville Horror (2005).

Release: April 15, 2005

[Netflix]

Ryan Reynolds. . . .in a horror film? How is this possibly going to gel at all? When I was eight years younger, I calmly brushed such concerns aside, slipped the disc into the player and sat patiently, watching as the film opened in considerably grim fashion. A bloody opening scene explains the events that would set-up the story for Reynold’s character and his family later in the film. A man inexplicably slaughters his entire family one random night, and is later described by police as having severely disturbed psychological behavior, the source of his behavior being generally understood to be related to demonic possession. It’s not exactly subtle exposition and foreshadowing, but compared to the terrible way in which it ends, this part of the film should be allowed to slide by.

George and Kathy (Melissa George) are a young married couple facing the typical financial stresses. However, they become infatuated with an old, rustic estate on the water’s edge and, spurred on by a desire to move onward in the “next step in our life’s plan,” they buy the house impulsively and cannot wait to settle in, to start making improvements on the grounds. Soon, though, the house causes disturbances in this family — most notably in George and their youngest child, Chelsea (Chloe Grace Moretz), and soon they’ll be left with only one option: abandon their dream house. Hopefully everyone will still be alive by then.

Given the curious against-type casting of Mr. Van Wilder here, I was nearly convinced this film could offer up something refreshing, performance-wise at least. (I hold out very little hope for experiencing stylistic revelations in horror film remakes). His typical pretty-boy appearance now disguised in the requisite grayscales and dim lighting of horror film sets, Reynolds’ George Lutz actually seemed capable of being a serious character, one that loves, hurts and is able to handle the responsibilities of his life — in essence, virtually the opposite of every character we’ve been accustomed to seeing Reynolds portray. As shocking as it might sound now, back then I thought this would work out.

I should probably back up just a bit though, before I tear Reynolds apart from my frustration of having sat through another plodding, quote-unquote scary film.

The ultimate failure with most films of this genre boils down to either a lack of acting ability (which on the odd occasion can make a film inadvertently more entertaining) or a lack of good writing. It’s those two factors more than anything else that throw off any given horror film’s desired effect; we can all look away from bloodshed if we so choose to. The remake of The Amityville Horror contains a mix of both, but its nearly impossible to argue that the writing is the most uninspired element. Reynolds is saddled with dialogue that is both unconvincing and at times plain stupid.

Of course, his character is taken on a journey that will leave you both confused and moreover, bored. The first complaint previously stated is owed more to the poor writing; his execution of a rather mundane story, though. . .well that’s more on Reynolds. As he slowly becomes more and more affected by the demonic forces within his house, he slowly starts to reveal the cracks in his dramatic repertoire. Aside from looking far too stoned for the duration of the flick, he can’t convey much in his eyes. Reactions and facial expressions are critical to selling the experiences of the victims on screen. All Reynolds can do is simply alter the volume of his voice.

Ultimately, my experience years back with this film is made all the more dim by the passing of time. The fog that has gotten in the way between today and whenever the heck it was when I last sat through The Amityville Borer has grown thick enough to make me think this movie could have survived on Reynold’s presence alone. Fortunately, though, the movie does get some brownie points for the young introduction of Chloe Grace Moretz, who gets more than her fair share of screen time here as the ever-so impressionable Chelsea. Everyone else involved is dreadfully forgettable, however.

Recommendation: Unlikely to be on anyone’s list of favorite remakes, this edition from 2005 is frustratingly mediocre. The acting is predictably crummy and the scares are sparse. This all said, there’s a decent bit of tension here and there that might make for a decent horror film night on the run-up to Halloween itself, but there’s really not much more value here than that. You might be better off renting the original.

Rated: R

Running Time: 89 mins.

Quoted: “Catch ’em and kill ’em. . .”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.kickasstoo.com; http://www.fathersonholygore.com

TBT: Saw (2004)

Posted on October 10, 2013 by Tom

Returning to my self-imposed hell by revisiting effective horror films from back in the day, we move onward through October rather painfully. (And of course this month would have FIVE Thursdays in it.) Still, at least today is a film that A) I’m far more familiar with than the previous entry and B) I actually really enjoy, although I don’t go back to it at all anymore. Not even in October. Nope. No siree. However, getting to review today’s film brings back some good memories from freshman year when my good friend Patrick and I, all crammed into those tiny little dorm rooms on campus with nothing but bottles of Captain Morgan and a flimsy DVD player, watched it over and over again. I guess we hadn’t really discovered it much before then. At least I hadn’t seen it until right around that time. Still, it’s a rare “horror” film — okay, more like a torture-porn — that I loved watching time and time again. The twist never got old. Not to me and Patrick. Nope. No siree.

Today’s food for thought: Saw.

Release: October 29, 2004

[DVD]

Nothing shouts ‘horror film’ more than shitty lighting, even worse acting. . . and an obvious lack of funding. Faced with all of these realities and more, then-amateur filmmakers James Wan and Leigh Whannell knew that their first stab at horror wouldn’t quite be the typical film festival entry; they also had no idea how much of a sleeper hit they had tucked underneath their armpits at the time, either. Brutal, dark and grotesquely thought-provoking, the pair’s 2004 slasher-slash-psychological thriller rose to cult-status in a hurry after its nationwide debut in theaters, later spawning a run of sequels that’s close to being unprecedented in film history (please keep it up, Fast & Furious!).

I could just as easily create a post about the entire series of Saw films here; but. . . meh. As much as I was swept off my twisted feet with the original, the immediate sequels (2 and 3 are the only ones I’ve seen) I didn’t much care for, and any subsequent releases became so painfully obvious as a marketing gimmick (annual releases around Halloween for seven years straight) that I don’t even want to acknowledge their existence.

The very mention of anything Saw– or Darren Lynn Bousman-related in the years after I witnessed the “first trilogy” conclude pretty much made me ill. The once-brilliant, granted perverted, conceit that was crafted by the Aussies had indeed succumbed to being one of its own tortured, wayward victims, soon to be corpses. A final gasp of breath offered up a 3-D gimmick in 2010. Who wants to see people getting hacked up three different ways to Sunday in such a format — is it more convincing if body parts are actually flying outward at you?

But seriously, how can anyone enjoy such violent stories? What’s the point?

If you were into horror, 2004 was an exciting time to be accustomed to seeing blood, gore and suffering on the big screen. The arrival of the Jigsaw killer and his ‘games’ marked a new era in filmmaking; granted, the subculture that grew out of this production might be even more cause for concern. It’s a disconcerting thought to have: knowing there are crazed fans for all types of forms of entertainment and the genres within. I wonder what that implies about the die-hards of things of this nature. . . shudder

Nonetheless, this particular film is brilliant, if not rough around the edges, and might be the most polarizing film made in the last decade. Why does one like Saw? Simple. The justification behind the violence. The victims picked in this film supposedly deserve the places to which they are exiled. I suppose depending on your worldview, the number of people “who deserve” any of this will widely vary — either that or your tolerance for humanity’s capacity for erring will completely inhibit your enjoyment of it at all, which would be understandable as well. The whole point of the misery is for the betterment of those suffering; those who are in these traps are meant to survive them and learn from them.

That concept’s a tough sell for a good number of viewers, but clearly Wan, Whannell and company are not concerned about that. And neither are followers of the Saw legacy. Ha! The legacy. What a joke. At least, I’m not concerned about the criticism myself. I can really side with both parties on this movie in all honesty.

What’s the deal with the Jigsaw Killer? He’s just a sick man, that’s all. . .

Again, polarizing. I bought into the set-up here, though. The fundamental principles of what this guy was doing in the very beginning (this film is maybe the best example of why sequels to horror films never should be approved) made sense to me. I wouldn’t exactly consider myself a psycho, though. Please don’t mistake me.

Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is an enigmatic figure, who, after discovering he has a terminal form of cancer, goes about creating vicious traps to put people he deems “unworthy of the life they are given” into, in an attempt to save them from themselves. One can sit and argue all day whether or not the guy has any right to put people through such trials or to even judge their lives, but then that’s all part of the thread of morality spinning itself through the gory story.

By now, Jigsaw’s one of the more memorable characters ever created in horror and the acting on the part of Tobin Bell is what largely makes the complex character such a satisfying watch. Plus, the way he is introduced into the story is quite possibly one of the most inventive and hair-raising turns ever created in the genre. It’s simply amazing the first time you experience it and seems to remain riveting on each return visit.

The traps. . .? Can someone explain this to me, this stuff is just messed up.

This element of these films is probably the most controversial of them all. First of all, it takes something of a warped mind to conceive of such devices from a writing standpoint — so a round of therapy might still be in order for Whannell and Wan at this juncture. But I digress. The traps are the tests for each character, meant to symbolize or reveal that person’s greatest weakness or flaw.

The most classic example revolves around a woman named Amanda, who is kidnapped by Jigsaw and, upon awakening, finds a metal bear-trap-like device on her head. She must remove it in something like a minute or so, or the trap will permanently snap open. In each of the traps (at least, in the original few films that I’ve seen anyway) a television set and a recording of this creepy-as-f**k clown on a tricycle accompanies the victim, which explains to them exactly their predicament and what they need to do in order to escape. The combination of the psychological element associated with the delivery of this information and how they potentially are going to die, along with the sickening originality of their plight has tempted many a horror director to try and incorporate similar extremes into their own repertoire (The Collector/The Collection; The Human Centipede). There may have been some success, but I haven’t much been interested to investigate beyond this one.

All the same, the traps invariably became more complex as the franchise’s budget became more lavish as time went on. As such, it became increasingly difficult to believe that Jigsaw was the man behind all these fancy killings; how does he exactly construct half of these things if his motif has been to build devices out of only items he has in his warehouse?

Recommendation: Well this most definitely has its devotees and it has its strong opponents. There will be very little to convince either to switch sides; it’s not like playing Red Rover here. Even still, if you haven’t yet exposed yourself to this, and are able to handle gratuitous violence and bloodshed, Saw is worth a watch for the compelling psychological element that lurks in the background. It’s a strong debut effort for the Australians, besides.

Rated: R

Running Time: 103 mins.

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.imdb.com

TBT: The Others (2001)

Posted on October 3, 2013 by Tom

I won’t lie to you. Halloween and the days and weeks leading up to it, give me the heebie-jeebies. For a holiday that’s all about celebrating Satanic practices and dressing up in disguises with the specific intention of obscuring our true selves, I have to say, All Hallow’s Eve is my least favorite eve of ’em all. Not even the candy you get/got as a trick-or-treater is/was all that worth it — candy corn? Ugh. Gobstoppers. . .help. Who knows what that stuff is laced with. And then, of course, you get the wonderful folks who go around and. . .smash pumpkins and destroy other decorative items people invested time and money into putting on their houses. I also think it’s probably the quickest holiday to “age out” of. Going around trick-or-treating at my age is more likely to get you arrested than earn you a nice plump bag of candy. One tends to grow out of this phase prettttty quickly. Especially if you’re a male. I guess haunted corn mazes are still pretty fun. They made for some fun date nights. However, each year that goes by, to me Halloween just gets that much more evil and more kitschy. Finally, though, I’ve kind of got a reason to celebrate it as we head into October with TBT. Each post this month will be a good horror film that I’ve seen from back in the day. I hope you enjoy these entries, because honestly I’m going through a lot of pain and bad memories reviewing these particular films. I’ll start off with what I consider the “least” scary of the upcoming entries, and will try to crank up the severity of the scares as we go on. Hey, what doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger, right. . .?

Today’s food for thought: The Others.

Release: August 10, 2001

[DVD]

Possibly the very first horror film I have ever seen, The Others is one of the few that succeeded in giving me chills. Remaining low-budget, having a strong script delivered through convincing performances and not to mention, being released in an era prior to this obsession with gratuitous gore and torture in horror films, this film sneaks up on you like a bad dream in the middle of the night and benefits from exemplifying the genre’s strengths.

Directed and scored by Spanish filmmaker Alejandro Amenábar, the British psychothriller serves as proof you don’t need high-tech special effects and complicated schemes to scare up an audience. The Others relies on a steady, balanced diet of tension and — admittedly, yes, okay — jump scare moments to create an engaging story about a mother trying to protect her young against supernatural forces within her house.

Grace Stewart (Nicole Kidman) is a devout Roman Catholic mother of two children who both possess an extremely rare health condition: sensitivity to sunlight, and so she whisks herself and children away to an old mansion that’s isolated from civilization (as the settings for most of these kinds of movies typically are. . . can’t we for once have like the old haunted place next to Hardee’s or something?) and she has all the windows sealed off from the daily sun rays.

Grace believes she has Anne (Alakina Mann) and Nicholas (James Bentley) safely guarded; little does she know — and is about to find out about — the servants whom work for Grace have a little secret of their own. It will take the length of the movie to understand the dynamic between the staff and the Stewart family, but it’s well worth the undertaking, in this coward’s opinion. . .

Also, as a non-Kidman fan, from what I do remember of her performance in this from over ten years ago, she managed to really sell her genuine dread and fear, and ultimately her despair and denial. The children were also magnificent, acting as two really young witnesses to some shocking and unexplainable events around the house. Grace first believes her children are seeing things and is initially angry at them for spooking her. But then when she starts to experience odd things herself, she starts becoming suspicious of virtually everything that moves within the house. The staff are her first priorities, and she relieves them of their duties after a couple of sequences confirms her worst fears. But The Others doesn’t stop there. The mystery keeps unwinding piece-wise, and it won’t be until the very end before all the significant pieces are put into their correct places.

Let me dust off the old memory and see what I can recall as my highlights of this creepy little flick:

the old woman looks creepy as. . . . smashed pumpkins, and especially at the time, when I was a much more impressionable teenager. . .
not big on the single-scene films, nor haunted-house-type movies much either but The Others has a great set piece. the house is really creepy and spacious.
the séance/paper-tearing as the big reveal
Nicole Kidman’s accent was not obnoxious
xeroderma pigmentosa (what the children suffered from)
creaky floorboards, doors ajar and someone’s underneath that sheet over the piano.. . .. right?!
Charles isn’t dead. Or is he?
the setting is rather neat (post-World War II, British Crown Dependency of Jersey. . . and, in the middle of the woods)

I also figured, now is as good a time as any to bring back the Caption Contest. Let’s go with these three stills from the film. Throw them creative little bits in the comments below! Have fun, and welcome to October.

Caption A: __________________________

Caption B: ______________________

Caption C: ____________________

That about does it for installment #1 for the.. . shudders horror segment on TBT, hope you lovely people stick around for the next!

Recommendation: Nicole Kidman in a very good role makes this movie a haunting one to experience but it’s not gruesome, nor big on special effects, either. If you’re keen for watching a more low-budget horror in a similar vein to Jessica Biel’s The Tall Man, you should give this one a shot.

Rated: PG-13

Running Time: 105 mins.

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.imdb.com

Thomas J

My Journey Through Film

Tag Archives: #tbthorror

TBT: The Descent (2006)

TBT: The Exorcist (1973)

TBT: The Shining (1980)

TBT: Rosemary’s Baby (1968)

TBT: The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

TBT: Let the Right One In (2008)

TBT: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

TBT: The Amityville Horror (2005)

TBT: Saw (2004)

TBT: The Others (2001)