Horror Classic Soup: Nosferatu & Phantom of the Opera

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA

DIRECTED BY: RUPERT JULIAN

NOVEL BY: GASTON LEROUX

Rupert Julian's 1925 silent classic retelling of the infamous Leroux novel delves wondrously into the world of everyone's favorite Phantom painting a more dark and violent portrait of the man.

In Julian's tale the Phantom, played by shape-shifting mastermind Lon Chaney, is not the sympathetic antihero, so much as a dark, disturbed, and vile thing whose life has become a thing of shadows and hate.

Erik, the phantom, is driven by two things in life - his distaste for other men and his love for opera singer Christine (Mary Philbin). Christine finds Erik alluring, in his secrecy, but is disgusted once his true figure is revealed. Erik's plea that he is what the world made him are rejected by Christine, and the tale becomes more about Christine's desire to return to her love, and flee this despicable monster, than a tale of torn romance.

Julian's tale sacrifices some of the more romantic undertones of the novel (albeit due to screening results) in preference of more action and adventure. This creates a more thrilling and compelling film, but I fear it loses some of the romantic beauty of the tale.

I can say as silent films age Phantom of the Opera has aged modestly. Some of its more silent-era dynamics, in terms of acting, may come off more cheesy than intended for those less familiar with silent films. All in all though, nothing that will lead its viewer anywhere near the off button.

Overall Score: 8.00/10

-------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 NOSFERATU

DIRECTED BY: F.W. MURNAU

WRITTEN BY: HENRIK GALEEN

Loosely based on the novel 'Dracula' by Bram Stoker, F.W. Murnau's tale of real estate agent Hutter's (Gustav von Wagenheim) encounter with the mysterious Count Orlak, Nosferatu (Max Schreck), is an engrossing adventure/horror tale.

Separated by Acts, Nosferatu relies equally on adventure and chase sequences as it does on eerie circumstances, and groundbreaking (for their day) effects, to gain the thrills necessary. The use of shadows, lighting, and a stare from Schreck that could launch a thousand fears, strikes an unsettling feeling into the viewer. A feeling that darkness and death are immeninent.

This feeling is supported by a wonderfully well laid out lore to Nosferatu. Nosferatu carries with him the Black Death destroying any town he visits. He can only be destroyed by the sacrifice of a young maid. The way his shadow always looms ahead of his movements, assuming he moves at all.

Murnau and Galeen give great weight to the original Stoker narrative, while still supplying their own spin on the tale. Nosferatu is as much about the destination as it is the journey. The mystery in the world, which has been liberally taken from since its creation, still carries the same wonder today as it did then. Schrek's Nosferatu is still as creepy and unnerving as ever, always supplying the viewer with more to fear.

Overall Score: 8.50/10

The Haunting (1963)

THE HAUNTING

DIRECTED BY: ROBERT WISE

WRITTEN BY: NELSON GIDDING

NOVEL BY: SHIRLEY JACKSON

OVERALL SCORE: 8.50/10

Desperate to escape her family issues, Nell (Julie Harris) agrees to join Dr. Markaway's (Richard Johnson) paranormal research project at Hill House. There Nell is joined by Luke (Russ Tamblyn), the house's likely heir with high hopes of selling it, and Theo (Claire Bloom), a clairvoyant with proven ESP abilities.

"It was an evil house from the beginning - a house that was born bad."

The Haunting kicks off a LiE's reviews covering some of the very best in classic horror leading all the way up to Halloween.

Robert Wise's psychological, paranormal, thriller, The Haunting, is an absolute experience to be held. Wise centers on the unseen, wonderfully using the natural dark ambiance black and white photography presents to create a constant sense of fear and tension.

As is not the case with many directors, Wise never feels the temptation to resort of violence, or gore, to sell his fear. Instead Wise centers on noise. Loud, haunting, constant, with no discernible cause... except the unknown. These scenes create a real sense of claustrophobia, combined with fear. Wise delves into what your brain is willing to accept, and what your senses detect. The psychological affect close encounters with the paranormal can have on an individual, and how mental status plays a part in that.

Nell, having just experienced her mother's death, and a childhood poltergeist experience, is the most susceptible, and the house's main target. Harris capture's Nell's psychological and paranormal woes with great attention to the wearing affect it has on the character, while still paying attention to Nell's many personal troubles. As much as Nell fears the house, she also has an odd love for it. Wise and Gidding to a perfect job of letting us in to Nell's inner thoughts, wants, and fears. Harris handles the double standard constantly gnawing at Nell, always looking for attention and acceptance, so perfectly I cannot begin to sing praise high enough.

Claire Bloom stands out among the strong supporting cast for not only playing a lesbian character in the 1960's (implied only), but a strong minded, very aware, one at that. Theo is sexy, smart, and presents a strong front. Though when the paranormal awaken, and the fear begins, Theo, much like Markaway and Luke, must put that strong front to the test.

Johnson and Tamblyn handle their characters with expert fashion. Johnson presents Markaway with just enough sentiment to make him seem equally smart and compassionate. Tumblyn, who is in many respects the comic relief, carries the whimsical nature of Luke perfectly. Luke's sarcastic musings on the paranormal give a sense of relaxation to The Haunting's constant tension. When Luke is ultimately forced to confront the possibility of the paranormal, Tumblyn is there to hit the scene out of the park, bringing the film out of the realm of purely psychological to in your face.

Wise's direction relies heavily on your fear of what's to come more so than what is happening. Wise builds tension through foreshadowing and misdirection. At times the movie veers towards exaggeration, and cheese, but Wise is always there to keep things in proper form.

The Haunting earns its label as a classic horror film several times over. It's wonderful tact with its approach to psychological thrills keeps the movie constantly tense. A few cheep jumps for those who want it, but always a sense of foreboding. The kind of foreboding the gets the sweat in your hands going as you grip that much tighter to the armrests on your chair. Wonderfully designed and executed. If ever there was a film that could be labeled a perfect introduction to paranormal cinema, The Haunting would be it.

The Crazies (2010)

THE CRAZIES

DIRECTED BY: BRECK EISNER

WRITTEN BY: SCOTT KOSAR & RAY WRIGHT, GEORGE A. ROMERO (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY)

OVERALL SCORE: 6.00/10

When strange events begin occurring in their small town Sheriff Dutton (Timothy Olyphant) and his wife Dr. Dutton (Radha Mitchell) must find a way out of town fast, as the military begins their containment procedures.

Let's be honest, the whole military containing a small town with an infectious problem is an angle that's been played way beyond count. And of course that's mostly because it's an angle with an almost limitless set of cliches to build off of. Enter 2010's The Crazies. A remake of the 1973 cult classic, one of the real catalysts in the subgenre. Now being forced to fight decades of plot lines, trying to carve out a niche for itself.

And a niche it just barely finds. Somewhere between its thrills, action, and look at the town, The Crazies finds a way to keep it just entertaining, just though provoking enough, just generic enough not to really lose. Keeping the viewer thrilled, while preventing them with a few of the basic questions, and backing it with a few good characters moments.

The Crazies gains the momentum it needs to grab the viewer by rushing into its main story arc immediately. A little bit of build up, and character expansion in between, but for the most part it knows it needs the thrills and fast. Throw in some creative camera work, and well composed shots using scene lighting, and you've got yourself a horror/thriller.

The downside obviously being the real lack of emotional connection. It's there, and the Crazies wants to make that connection, but it never really develops into something memorable. Ultimately just swaying back and forth, between action and character, until it can find a way onto the next plot development.

Yet it never sacrifices story for explanation, a trait I admire more and more. Sure there's the odd, this is whats happening moment, but it never comes to a hault in order to break everything down. The common cinematic use of treating viewers as if they all have a memory span of 5 seconds.

And by not doing that it keeps things rolling. Plot moving, characters building, and creative fights to bring it all together. Never reaching for more, The Crazies simply achieves a comfortable level of entertainment, and rides it home.

Sustaining a solid balance of mystery, thrills, and character, The Crazies manages to create a decent time out of one of the most overplayed narrative arcs. Admirable, especially these days with more pitfalls than one could imagine to fall through.

Daybreakers (2010)

DAYBREAKERS

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: PETER & MICHAEL SPIERIG
OVERALL SCORE: 5.00/10

As human's slowly approach extinction, and the reigning vampire's struggle to find a viable source of blood. Hematologist Dr. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke) is the leading researcher in finding a blood supplement, and has seen what happens to vampire's if they go too long without blood. After a chance encounter with a group of humans leads him to discover a cure for vampirism, he must decide where his loyalties lie.

I'll admit, despite not being a big fan of the Spierig brothers last outing, Undead (one I openly admit to turning off after 45mins), I found the concept of Daybreakers rather intriguing. A refreshing spin on the generic vampire tales. So, when it finally got its big release, I thought I would wait a bit and check it out. Besides, who am I to turn down a film with Ethan Hawke, Sam Neill, and Willem Dafoe? Alas, most of what you've likely read about the flaws of this movie are achingly true.

When the movie isn't spitting gushes of blood at the camera (I swear they must have had a pool of it somewhere), it's muddling along in its own plot, trying to figure out where it wants to be. A rather Matrix-esque tale, much of Daybreakers isn't as smart as it likes to think it is, nor is it as entertaining as it should have been. While Hawke, Neill, and Dafoe are all entertaining the rest of the cast rank in between horrid and the extreme of mediocrity. Their lines are bland, acting unbalanced, and ultimately they weigh down the film's more emotional moments.

Not to mention there's just not enough there to begin with. The story keeps itself simple, and tries to keep the viewer on their heels, but there's just not enough underneath to do anything with. Much of the film's dramatic moments are held back by skittish acting and writing, while the action scenes are exercises in head ripping and blood splatting. Sure there's some entertaining moments, but I never bought into any of the situations enough to care. As a protagonist, Dalton's actions seem bland, self prophesying, and ultimately pointless. Elvis (Dafoe) is such a generic character, the redneck with a car fetish, I kept begging for them to just let Dafoe do what he does best. While Neill's corporate villain is so cardboard cut, and ill explained, you'd think he came out of a how to guide.

Still there's something to be said for the film's creativity and visual flair. What it lacks in writing, and characters, it, at times, makes up for with some intriguing action sequences, and dark cinematography. If nothing else the use of blue, grey, and black, creates a very intriguing style to the movie, one that I found very enjoyable to look at. If only they hadn't gone psycho orange for the daylight scenes, they may have had something visually outstanding.

Despite some creativity, and intriguing visuals, Daybreakers is weighed down far too heavily by spotty acting, a blood fetish, and a story not nearly as well developed as it should have been.

Pontypool (2009)

PONTYPOOL

DIRECTED BY: BRUCE McDONALD
WRITTEN BY: TONY BURGESS
OVERALL SCORE: 7.25/10

Vulgar morning radio host, Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHattie), is unhappy working in the small town of Pontypool, in Canada. Yet one morning, a morning no different from any other, he and the skeleton crew he works with begin to take calls of mass violence occurring throughout the town. Is it just a huge prank? Or is the city of Pontypool slowly succumbing turning into a zombie-like apocalypse?

Let me just get this out there and say Pontypool is perhaps the most fun I've had watching a horror film in a long time. Finding the right balance between absurdity, hilarious, and tense, Pontypool is just pure entertainment from beginning to end. Of course it helps that, much like those experiencing the events, we spend the entire film stuck in the radio station with the cast. As they experience the varying horrors of the outside world, so do we. This ingenious use of off screen violence (though not all off screen mind you) really sets a harsh tone that carries the movie through its weaker parts.

The lead cast of Stephen McHattie, Lisa Houle (show's producer), and Georgina Reilly (show's technical editor) each perform admirably, though at times their dialogue is a bit on the weak side. Yet Pontypool is really two movies in one. At the half way point, as things begin to get explained, it becomes obvious to the viewer that Pontypool is a movie that's out of its own damn mind... and I loved it. The *twist* (if you will) is one of the more creative, and I'd say absurd, of twists I've heard in a long time, and really provides a lot to the film. It adds tension to the cast, and some good laughs to the viewer. McHattie without a doubt steals the show several times over with his absurd antics, and crazed expressions (he reminds me a bit of Lance Henriksen).

Of course Pontypool does need McHattie's dynamic performance to pull it off. The show's final act is a bit too absurd in its own way, but at the same time it does fit with the twist that has been presented to us. Backed by solid direction from McDonald, this allows for Pontypool to be a refreshingly original horror film, while at the same time being enjoyable for just about any audience type.

While it's twist may be way on the absurd side, Pontypool is an awesome, and highly enjoyable small horror film, well worth the view.

The Curse of Frankenstein (1957)

THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN

DIRECTED BY: TERENCE FISHER
WRITTEN BY: JIMMY SANGSTER
NOVEL BY: MARY SHELLEY
OVERALL SCORE: 5.00/10

Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) and his mentor, Paul (Robert Urquhart) butt heads over Victor's latest dream of creating his own human being. While Paul sees this act as truly unforgivable, he stays behind to protect Victor's life-long fiancee, Elizabeth (Hazel Court) from the certain misery that awaits them all.

After last week's split on Yojimbo and Hound of Baskervilles, me and CommonSense are back into our Hammer/Kurosawa exchange, this week with me watching: Curse of Frankenstein and him watching Sanjuro. Bot containing much importance to their respective fields in terms of cinematic history. Curse of Frankenstein being the dawn of the Hammer Horror films, and Sanjuro being the last time Kurosawa would touch the now infamous wondering ronin.

As movie reviewing goes, Curse of Frankenstein is an interesting piece of film to review. On one hand it's in many respects the corner point of Hammer Horror fans, while on the other it's new take on the classic Mary Shelley tale gives it new life and narrative freedom. Unfortunately that's about the end for where this movie's interest goes. Why it became such a hit and cult classic is beyond me, to be quite frank. I suppose going back to see the violence it displays (or hints at) for the 50's was quite a shocking event. Even still, the word most that can be most aptly associated with my feelings towards this is indifference.

Curse of Frankenstein relies on a very key piece of knowledge: you know the monster will exist and terrorize at some point in the film, but when? So the movie spends nearly the entire first hour of it's roughly hour and twenty minute film, building up to these events. Constant moments of forshadowing (what basically boil down to 3 events), surrounded by characters lacking enough depth for any of us to care. With every turn Victor becomes a less and less likable character, and more and more distant being. He alienates both his family/friends and the audience to the point of dragging out certain events. Paul, whom I found most intriguing, is so incredibly underused he spends the last hour of the film basically saying the same variation on 2 lines with varying levels of gusto. While Elizabeth is such an undeveloped character, her and the other main female, Justine (Valerie Gaunt), wonder from scene to scene, buying time before the inevitable finale.

Always walking the thin line between intrigue and boredom, it's no wonder for fans of the series Curse of Frankenstein is a pinnacle film. Upon repeat viewings I imagine fans would grow a strong fascination for it, while I fear it would get bland and dis-interesting upon a repeat view. Much of the plot points come as little shock to the modern viewer, and the makeup on Frankenstein's monster (a once again unused Christopher Lee) came off rather comical too me. Curse never does enough to earn unabashed praise, nor does it do anything so badly to earn negative remarks. It manages to just flop around between the two, carrying its audience on a simplistic, and predictable, journey until we can get to the grand finale, where it's certain we'll have nothing left in ourselves but sheer admiration. Unfortunately all I had left was the hour and 20+ minutes of non-existent care for those involved.

While it's classic stature can't be argued, Curse of Frankenstein is a muddled affair, trying too hard to make you fear the unknown while laying everything out so it's perfectly predictable.

Paranormal Activity (2009)

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY

WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: OREN PELI
OVERALL SCORE: 6.25/10

A young couple of over two years living together buy a camera in order to record what they fear is paranormal activity occurring in their home. As time goes on the events get more and more serious, and a local psychic informs them that Katie (Katie Featherston) may be haunted by a demon.

There's a plus side and a down side to seeing a movie as hyped as this one some time after it has been released. The plus side is that you catch a lot of the more level minded reviews, but of course the downside is that you've pretty much been told by everyone what to expect. I have to admit I went in to this film with very low expectations. The "found tape" motif is a common, if not overbearing, modern technique, which I must say is highly effective for this kind of film. As well Peli seems quite sure of what to do with the camera, utilizing it carefully enough to give it that very real vibe he's seeking. Perhaps the best thing Peli does for the viewer is his use of sounds. Since the camera is often away from the action, Peli heightens our senses through eerie creaks in the floor, loud screams and dark moans from dark rooms in the distance. This allows the viewer to feel the very tension its main actors feel, as each sound grows closer and closer.

The two lead actors Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat are solid enough to pass the film's short run time, but I could hardly call either of them amazing. Having to improvise dialogue, and film such events in a 7 day shooting schedule I suppose I can't fault them much. However I struggled to find either character likable, or their actions relatable in certain situations (especially Micah's I'm going to take care of this myself stance - and his "research"). As well the film's first 30 minutes are quite tough to get through, I would hardly call a moving door and keys falling on the floor, scary enough to garner attention. Of course once that 30 minutes is up, Peli's scares kick into overdrive and he manages to make something of his muffled start.

Paranormal Activity's finale is definitely one of the better seat jumpers of the year, powered by a great tone set by the film's final act. Peli allows the viewer to feel both one step ahead, and at the same time stuck with the stars. This creates the audience's desire to try and guess ahead, while Peli carefully creates moments meant to scare the audience well after the credits roll. My one real gripe with the film is its use of fast forward. The use of such really removes the randomness of the horror, keep the audience on its heals, instead the audience is told when the camera is not being fast forward through something is going to happen. Instead the horror is related to our senses, our fears, and while it may not provide many immediate scares, it does have a solid lasting effect on the viewer. Sometimes that's the best thing any horror film can do.

While not the scariest movie I've ever seen, Paranormal Activity is effective at what it intends to do, despite its obvious flaws.

Jennifer's Body (2009)

JENNIFER'S BODY

DIRECTED BY: KARYN KUSAMA
WRITTEN BY: DIABLO CODY
OVERALL SCORE: 4.25/10

After being sacrificed by a small time band seeking fame, Jennifer (Megan Fox) becomes possessed by an evil spirit, one that thrives on the eating of humans. Her childhood friend Needy (Amanda Seyfried) quickly figures out what's wrong, but is unsure what, if anything, can be done about it.

If there's one positive about Jennifer's Body it's that it is never boring. There's always something going on that'll keep your attention, and that's about where the quality of it ends. Diablo Cody's second writing effort is muffled to say the least. Caught between trying to be hip and edgy, while maintaining a dark satirical comedy aspect, Cody takes everything to the point of played out, almost reaching comical status. While director Kusama, who seems out to prove her breakthrough film Girlfight was a fluke, does pretty much nothing to help the film. Sticking directly to the script, utilizing nothing to spice up scenes, and horrible placement of music, everything bad about this movie just stands out like a sore thumb.

Worse yet Megan Fox is just not an actress with range. Utilizing what I can only describe as a Paris Hilton look on a young Angelina Jolie face, Fox's role will do little for anyone past puberty. While Amanda Seyfried does show some signs of promise, but the role is too restricting to the obligatory geeky high school friend that it never elevates beyond the same 4 lines. Supporting players do little to help as well. Johnny Simmons doesn't have the experience to add anything, but does play his character well. While Adam Brody's character forced me to constantly ask myself, "is that really Adam Brody?" In fact the only actor to stand in front of the screen that I wanted to see again was J.K. Simmons, who is just awesome to begin with, in absence of a script.

Of course all of their performances have to come with a grain of salt as they have little to work with. As stated Kusama's direction seems lost, while Cody's writing feels uninspired and forced. If there is one real bright spot in Jennifer's Body it would lie in the shooting locations and set designs. The finale at the pool is quite an amazing scenery, which of course I doubt few would be intended to notice with a levitation wet Megan Fox. Perhaps someone can explain this film to me. It was neither a dark comedy nor a thriller, and certainly never both at the same time. Ultimately I'd knock it up to an attempt at inspiring puberty ridden boys to get excited... but if that's the goal why make it R rated? That's probably why it barely made back it's measly $16million budget.

Uninspired, and riddled with failed attempts at being unique and different, Jennifer's Body is just a jumbled mess of good and bad, whose under-achievements stand out far too well.

Pandorum (2009)

PANDORUM

DIRECTED BY: CHRISTIAN ALVART
WRITTEN BY: TRAVIS MILLOY
OVERALL SCORE: 5.00/10

After awaking from extended hypersleep, Cpl. Bower (Ben Foster) and Lt. Payton (Dennis Quaid) can't remember who they are, and only contain vague memories of their mission and why they are on the ship. When Bower is sent out to investigate why the ship has no power he quickly finds he is not alone, with a strange new species on board hunting what few humans still exist.

When it comes to films like Pandorum it's one of those things that's very hard to review. On the one hand it's a film built entirely towards sci-fi/horror audience, and on the other hand it's barely even mediocre at that. Pandorum is the kind of film you catch on HBO one afternoon while you have a cold because nothing else is on. There's nothing entirely special about it, it's often its own worst enemy, and seems unable to find a good balance between horror, action, and questionable acting. By most accounts this is the first real wide release film for Alvart and Milloy, and I have to say I'm not overly impressed with their efforts.

Actors Quaid and Foster do the best with what they are given, but it's seldom much worth noting, and even then they seem to have phoned it in for a paycheck. Meanwhile we have Antje Traue as Nadia, your generic, unattached, butt kicking girl who provides a counter to Foster's aggressive style, but she's nothing special. Cung Lee and Norman Reedus are here as well, but they're basically little more than fodder. Really though in the acting department, the film is weighed down by Cam Gijandet and Eddie Rouse, both of whose characters I couldn't wait for screen time to be over with. Cam seems to subscribe heavily to the Hayden Christensen school of underacting, while Rouse seems to be trying way too hard to impress, and comes off comically stupid.

Though the acting is never supported by a muddled script, filled with "wait, why can he remember that?" moments that just far exceed coincidence. Alvart is good at bringing the story to life, but doesn't get much out of it, settling for standard horror moments, and never going for the real hits. As well Milloy just doesn't have a knack for dialogue. I often felt underwhelmed during key moments as the characters tried to figure out what had happened, and as such I never really gained a care for what happens to them. The acting scenes are fine, but don't expect any of it to blow your mind. Though of course as is standard with the sci-fi horror genre, it's always building up to an ending... the real unfortunate thing is the ending can be seen from about 10 miles out by just about anyone.

Any film of quality really has to play to its strengths, and unfortunately Pandorum just plays.

Vampyr (1932)

VAMPYR
DIRECTED BY: CARL DREYER
WRITTEN BY: CHRISTEN JUL & CARL DREYER
WATCHED FOR: 1001 MOVIES TO SEE
OVERALL SCORE: 8.25/10

Upon his arrival in the town of Courteempierre, Allan Grey (Julian West), a young man fascinated by the supernatural, finds there is more going on than he anticipated. Taken in by a local mansion, he soon discovers the town is haunted by a vampire, which keeps people's shadowy spirits clung to this world.

If you were to grade a film solely on its visual strengths, it would be difficult to not give Vampyr a perfect 10. It's go it all. Effects well ahead of its time, great mood setting, strong use of scenery, and and all around aura of creepy it's difficult to shake. Dreyer is perfect at setting a tone to his film, beginning with the opening shot of an innocent Gray wondering into the town to the constant use of darkness and unique imagery. Though what ties it all together, allowing it to really stick with you, is that Dreyer's never compromises when it comes to the tone. He never cheapens out and utilizes quick scare tactics such as things popping out of nowhere, and instead he utilizes just natural eeriness of the situation. For example: shadows with no bodies, out of body experiences, and the notion of being buried alive.

Unfortunately for Dreyer, his desire to keep the film Silent in structure, with moments of dialogue, doesn't sit well with the tone. When actors do speak their voices constantly feel off, and the actors themselves are not the most talented, with West maintaining a single emotion pretty much throughout the run time. As well while I felt a sense of fear, Dreyer failed to really bring about a sense of danger. The scenes with the vampire are sparse, and not always effective. Instead it's the scenes not involving the vampires that I found most intriguing. The general mood is set so perfectly the vampire angle almost seems unnecessary at times.

Of course for all the negative, we'll never really know what Dreyer intended for us to see. Since it's release in 1932, mostly to much backlash, the original copy of Vampyr has long sense been lost, including Dreyer's personal edits following the first showing. All that exists now are compilations, combining the best from the few remaining copies, and what little dialogue could be salvaged. As such I feel a bit off about reviewing this film as it is presented too us. At best what we currently possess is a "best guess" of the film in its entirety, and as such any review is subject to much opinion, and guess work. Even then though it's impossible to deny the sheer impact of Dreyer's work, his skill behind the camera, and the mood with which Vampyr perfectly displays itself.

While it is unarguably masterful, and important in the development of the horror genre, Vampyr forces itself to overcome uninteresting characters with amazing cinematography and camera skill from director Dreyer.

Halloween (1978)

HALLOWEEN

DIRECTED BY: JOHN CARPENTER
WRITTEN BY: JOHN CARPENTER & DEBRA HILL
OVERALL SCORE: 10/10
TOP 100 FILMS: #57

Years after having killed his older sister, a now much older Michael Myers returns to his home town having just escaped the mental institution. Being sought after by Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence), Myers has found new victims in local teens who are spending Halloween night babysitting.

There are some films that despite their flaws are just legendary. From the opening scene of creative slasher bliss to the finale that screams horror, Halloween is the film that helped to define a genre. Aided by the Hitchcock classic Psycho (which came in at #81 on my list), Carpenter crafted a film so full of awesome moments, and slasher film fan boy love it's nearly impossible to recreate it (as Rob Zombie has proven twice over). What ties it all together though is its simplicity. Halloween doesn't come with any heavy handed morality tales, no prolonged scenes of grotesque violence or random characters shoved into moments simply for body count. Instead Carpenter follows the time tested rule of simple is usually best keeping the characters down to a handful.

With so few characters we get to spend time with them, see what they're like, and decide how we feel about their ultimate fate. Some we cheer for, some we fear for, and others we think the world is a bit better off without. Through this, we as the viewers gain a sort of intrigue, we get to play along with Michael, Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), and Loomis, all trying to figure out exactly what's going to happen next. The speeches given by Loomis, one of my all time favorite on screen characters, give a dark insight to this masked killer, who he describes as "pure evil." As films go Halloween gives more verbal chills than you can imagine.

Of course it doesn't hurt when you have one of the all time great musical scores leading the way. As memorable as the scenes it encompasses, Carpenter's knack of situational music and horror film mood really grabs at the viewer. Michael's distinct evil nature has taken some rather comical turns since the release of the original Halloween, but with Carpenter behind the camera everything is kept perfectly in check. The story all adds up, while maintaining a scary unknown quality that keeps the viewer guessing long after he credits have rolled. Few horror films pull off that sense of fear and darkness as well, and few these days ever will again.

One of the most fluid, scary, and dark slasher films of all time, Halloween is one hell of a genre parent figure.

Dead Snow (2009)

DEAD SNOW
DIRECTED BY: TOMMY WIRKOLA
WRITTEN BY: STIG FRODE HENRIKSON & TOMMY WIRKOLA
OVERALL SCORE: 5.50/10

A group of med students on ski vacation, head up to an old cabin in the middle of the mountains for a short getaway. Though their trip is soon turned inside out when a group of nazi zombies begin to attack.

Dead Snow is another of many modern horror films high on concept, low on execution, and teetering on nothingness. Horror fans will find solace in the film's great final action sequence, and series of crazed gore, but the Dead Snow is a true case of the parts being greater than their sum. As characters they couldn't be more generic: the tough one, the smart one, the geeky one, the horny one - guys taken care of. For girls you have the slutty one, the always scared one, and the strong supportive girlfriend - check again. Then of course you have the film's bread and butter, the concept behind it all, the nazi zombies! People who loved films like Black Sheep which survive solely on the strength of their concept will probably love the idea here, heck I checked it out solely for it. Alas, much like Black Sheep, Dead Snow is a film that's far too concerned with trying to be scary and mainstream, all the while making fun of it, and forgets that's it easier to just be scary, mainstream, and funny.

Certain scenes in the film stand out as unnecessarily disturbing, and a tad gross, and I'm not talking about the zombies even... Once the zombie's arrive the movie turns into a blood bath with a rather disturbing fascination with intestines, about 4-5 scenes involve their apparent various uses. Yet, at the same time, the movie does have a few good laughs, but it's definitely there for the more sick humored individuals. The film benefits from trying to escape the norm by altering some of the more classic zombie characteristics. In this film the zombies organize, plan, attack, and maneuver their way, and as such it adds quite a bit to the intensity of the film.

But of course anyone who watches the film will probably point towards the movie's finale as its main hitting point. Filled with gore, body parts flying everywhere, and a machine gun laden snowmobile (see above photo), it's got everything a horror buff would want. Though this scene only works because the actors, for all the lack of their characters, draw us in to the action. I think even the writers understand if we spent too much time away from the action we'd realize the characters are incredibly weak, and we really could care less about them (a few of them are rather sick). So ultimately Dead Snow becomes a film you watch because you want to see nazi zombies, and because you want lots of action... all concept and action, reminds me too much of modern films.

Despite a great concept and a few over the top action sequences, Dead Snow is worth a view for action and gore fans, but isn't fluid enough to offer anything outside of that.

I Sell the Dead (2009)

I SELL THE DEAD
WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: GLENN McQUAID
OVERALL SCORE: 5.00/10

Hours before he is to be beheaded, Arthur Blake (Dominic Monaghan) recounts his life story to one Father Duffy (Ron Perlman). He discusses his life as a grave robber, his run ins with vampires, zombies, and aliens, and the ill fated island fight against rival Murphy Group.

This is normally not a film I'd bother checking out much. Straight to DVD Irish comedy, but it had Perlman and Monaghan in it, so I figured it was at least worth a look. Despite some rave reviews on IMDB I don't really see the appeal here. It's a screwball comedy, of the Brooks sort, that's never really as funny as it should be, and always feels underproduced. There's nothing really scary about the movie, I don't recall even thinking about jumping once. Then the dark humor, while there, always feels as if McQuaid assumed if he put the cast in funny situations the laughs would just roll out... and I just didn't really laugh much.

A few chuckles here and there perhaps, but I'd argue comedy, especially dark comedy, is among the hardest of genres to review as taste is so insanely wide spread. The characters aren't really likable, and are your basic cliche screw ups who hit it big with one idea. McQuaid's adaptation of his 2005 short film makes you question if the movie wouldn't have been more entertaining in better hands. McQuaid combines a lot of great visuals to make scenes work, but he doesn't possess the talent to bring it all together, to make it mesh, and as such the comedy is just way too hard to get into. Luckily though the films run time is incredibly short, it breezes on through, and I can't really say it's a "bad" film. Perhaps it's best said if you're into low budget indie horror comedies of the Undead variety you'll find yourself well pleased... if not, save yourself the money.

Despite a great cast and a funny concept, McQuaid can't find a coherent footing for the jokes to roll off of, instead trying to force humor by situations alone.

Zombieland (2009)

ZOMBIELAND
DIRECTED BY: RUBEN FLEISCHER
WRITTEN BY: RHETT REESE & PAUL WERNICK
OVERALL SCORE: 7.25/10

Columbus (Jessie Eisenberg), who suffers from a life time of social anxiety, phobias, and loneliness, survives the zombie infested world by adhering to a strict set of rules. One day he meets up with the wild and over the top Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), and the two team up despite their polar opposite personalities. After several run ins with sister con artists, Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), the group of four create an unlikely team as Columbus must challenge his strict rules for the betterment of them all.

So after countless rave reviews, Zombieland went from a 6 to a 10 on my must view scale, and as such I went out to see it yesterday while on fall break with my sister, and mom. Getting exactly what I wanted Zombieland was over the top action packed, riddled with great comedic lines, moments built on its own foundation, and it just plain works. So many comedies these days just hop from spoof to spoof with no point/plot, while Zombieland has its idea and goes with it. Not abandoning it's central idea, the movie is a tale of finding family by four people, each with complicated pasts that highlight their current situation.

Though what makes the movie work is its characters. Breslin + Stone are fun, off the wall, with Stone standing out as the conniving, but beautiful, Wichita. At the same time Eisenberg once again shows he is among the best modern geek performers, almost makes you want to put him in and Cera in a steel cage match. Though the true scene stealer has to be Harrelson as the mysterious Tallahassee, whose over the top fight scenes, and crazy attitude provides an almost incalculable number of laughs. The movie does come with a "surprise" cameo (though you've probably heard of it by now), which is perfectly hilarious, but feels all too scripted.

First time director Ruben Fleischer shows a real aptitude for creating scenes, and a goofy sense of surroundings. While he seems to struggle with narrative, his ability for action scenes, and pure fun comes out at every turn, really aiding the movie's over the top comedic moments. Fleischer gets aid from a great writing effort from Reese and Wernick, who are first time feature writers, and have a great gift for movie messages and taking cliche subjects/characters and giving them new life. At the same time, the characters are refreshingly non-preachy, nor do they come with any over the top insane backstories that make you question why. Instead they're as simple as they care complex, as fun as they are likable, and all around just make for a great film experience.

Fun, smart, and well written, Zombieland is a highly enjoyable experience, that really gets you in the mood for some more zombie comedies.

Psycho (1960)

PSYCHO
DIRECTED B: ALFRED HITCHCOCK
WRITTEN BY: JOSEPH STEFANO
OVERALL SCORE: 10/10
TOP 100 FILMS: #81

After stealing $40,000, Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) runs off to be with her boyfriend, Sam (John Gavin), and start a new life for herself. Exhausted and amidst a storm, Marion pulls into the roadside Bates motel, where she meets the awkward and shy young Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins)... you know the rest.

Perhaps the greatest travesty in all of Academy Award history is that not once throughout his long and amazing career did Alfred Hitchcock ever win an Oscar. That's right, not one. His 1960 masterpiece Psycho wasn't even nominated for best picture! It just goes to show that while the Oscars are great, fun, and exciting, they are by no means the definitive look on a year in film. But I'm not here to talk about the Oscars, I'm here to talk about a film I'm sure you've all seen, Psycho.

Dark, edgy, black and white in time when color was breaking through, violent for its time, creative in its story telling, with a musical score to die for, and dialogue to kill for, Psycho quite literally has it all. Some dark romance sprinkled amidst great tension, a bit of a comical side prevalent throughout Hitchcock's career, all set to the background of one of the most memorable sociopaths in film history. Inspired by the brilliant novel of the same name by Robert Bloch, making a wonderful transition from page to screen.

Not only that but each performance is a exercise in perfection, from top to bottom, each actors personifies their characters. Making for a perfect film, but not perfect careers, Hitchcock is allowed to do what he wants with the cameras without worrying about the actors... perhaps the best gift any actor can give a director. With total freedom, Hitchcock creates a world within the film, a world that absorbs you, twists you around, and plays with your mental strengths. Suffice to say, once you press play on Psycho, Hitchcock owns you, and that's talent.

Let's be honest, there's nothing I can say that does this movie right, it's one of the extreme few perfect horror films ever to have been made, a definitive classic.

Black Sheep (2006)

BLACK SHEEP
WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY: JONATHAN KING
OVERALL SCORE: 5.25/10

Upon returning to the farm village he grew up in, Henry (Nathan Meister) soon discovers his brother, Angus (Peter Feeney) is performing experimental genetic research in order to create the perfect sheep. Things go awry quickly when two animal right activists accidentally release one of these sheep prematurly, unleashing a plague on the farm that turns all sheep it bites into killers, and people into man-sheep monsters!

Just read that. Read it again. As a dark humor comedy horror, with killer sheep, this New Zealand cult smash should have been one for the ages, hilarious to the very core. Unfortunately though, we get a mishandled mess that's more enjoyable for what it tries to be, than for what it actually is. In fact it's been my experience that cult films in general get more love for idea than execution, and Black Sheep just happens to be the prestine example of that.

Funny at times, odd at times, and just dumb at times, Black Sheep does a unique spin on the zombie genre, and entertwines under-acting, mis-drecting, and fun moments to make a quasi-entertaining film that just doesn't evolve into much. The director struggles to get out of the genre confines, containing several subtle visual references to films like Jurrasic Park, but nothing that'll really strike out at you, or put you on the floor laughing.

The movie does have some great lines, and the effects put forward by the WETA Workshop (of Lord of the Rings fame) are simply great, but it's not enough to make it a great film. The characters are more of charicterizations, the tough farm boy, the over the top new age animal lover, and the hypochondriac are great in design, but aren't executed nearly well enough to make them worth the effort. Their conversations feel forced, and the jokes more often than not fall flat.

Yet when Black Sheep is at its best it is up there with great comedies. I would love to tell you about them, but that would have to come with several spoilers, and really it's more the shock value that makes them work than anything. These certain situations are just hilarious, making the movie worth its runtime, and perhaps a cheap dvd rental. In the end though I can't say the bad and the good outweighed one another enough to recommend either way.

In the end it's not up for me to decide whether or not you should watch it, if oddball humor is your thing I say give it a shot. If you're looking for something intelligent, well written, and filled with comedy, you may want to keep looking.

After Hours (1985) 5/10

AFTER HOURS
DIRECTED BY: MARTIN SCORSESE
WRITTEN BY: JOSEPH MINION

Worker drone Paul Hackett (Griffin Dunne) is in for the night of his life after he meets the odd Marcy Franklin (Rosanna Arquette) at a local restaurant. After things go awful at her place he goes on a mind-bending journey through New York, with no money to buy a cab or metro, and constantly running into weird women, he's caught in Soho with the worst kind of luck.

This 1985 interpretive dark dramdey, is one of Martin Scorsese's more overlooked oddball films. Much in the same way as his King of New York, the audience is left with a series of random events, entirely open to interpretation. I can't really tell you whether or not I liked the movie as a whole, it's very very strange, with very strange characters, none of them really likable. At the same time it is contrasted by this overbearing curiosity as to whether or not we're watching a nightmare, a descent into madness, or actual occurrences. Maybe it's all three, but to be honest... I can't tell you.

In the end I found myself staring in a sort of vibrant curiosity, which heavily outweighed my general lack of interest. Right up until the ending, After Hours is just more of a series of interconnected, but seemingly random, stories that make you feel a wide variety of emotions. Sadly though the movie's ambition seems to outweigh its actual offerings. For an interpretive film, the movie relies heavily on generic story constructs, which provide a strong counter to what exactly the movie is trying to do. Granted the fact that the movie lacks a central theme, it is surprisingly boring for a Scorsese film, and will likely only appeal to the art film crowd.

The supporting cast of Cheech and Chong, Linda Fiorentino, Teri Garr, John Heard, Catherine O'Hara, and Will Patton, bring a vibrant life to the scenes, but don't really stand out because they're all completely crazy, and moronic. Almost as if all of them are basically the same character with different varies of weird, who knows though, maybe that's a point.


In the end I'm sad to say I was greatly disappointed in After Hours, but I must say for those of you who love art house films you'll probably find this a gem.

Drag Me to Hell (2009) 7.25/10

DRAG ME TO HELL
DIRECTED BY: SAM RAIMI
WRITTEN BY: SAM AND IVAN RAIMI

Christine (Alison Lohman) is an up and coming bank loan officer, with a great boyfriend, Clay (Justin Long), and an idealistic life. When the position of assistant bank manager becomes available, Christine decides, amongst pressure from Clay's demanding parents, to assert herself and prove she can do the job. Her first decision? To deny a 3rd loan extension to the elderly Sylvia Ganush (Lorna River). Things seem to be going well until one night Ganush attacks Christine, putting a curse on her. The curse? In 3 days a demon will come and take her straight to hell.

Filled with a solid cast, Raimi's return to horror is marked by an exciting tale, filled with great jumps, and Raimi's usual quirky sense of things. Drag Me To Hell will keep you on the edge of your seat with a dark morality tale, and a character in Christine that'll keep you guessing. Alison Lohman, who has made a note of not wanting to do horror films, delivers the goods as the tormented Christine, often asked to do physically demanding stunts.

The best part of Drag Me to Hell is that it's not dumb blonde screaming centric. Sure the main character is blonde, but she's far from dumb, and sure she screams, but no more than anyone else would in her situation. In fact it's remarkable in this day and age a horror film as intense, gory, and well designed as this can exist without the usual over the top sex scene, gratuitous use of the f word, and random side characters to kill. Instead, we're given a one character central thrill ride, with lots of subtle depth, and great character moments.

Of course, a Raimi movie wouldn't be complete without his signature dark humor. Even throughout the darkest scenes of the film, Raimi maintains a little bit of quirk to central story, especially in his standard over the top villain(s). Now, on the down side there is the obvious twist ending, which I could have lived without, but overall it doens't make the movie any better or worse. It's just a fun, thrill packed, ride from beginning to end, built for horror lovers by horror lovers.


Overall Drag Me to Hell is a Sam Raimi film through and through, no compromising, never taking itself too seriously, you'll get what you pay for, and then some.