Day 330: The Changeling

The Changeling

Ch-ch-ch-changes

Haunted house movies usually fall into one of two categories: evil spirit and spirit looking for help. Personally, I prefer the evil spirit because they create a true sense of fear and urgency among the inhabitants of the house to get rid of it. Maybe I'm just too jaded, but I feel that if I was in a haunted house and the ghost needed me to do something, I'd just move out rather than trouble myself. You're on your own, ghosty. Many movies see the problem and force the characters to help out (or in the case of American Horror Story, they're just really, really, unbelievably stupid). Whatever the case may be, haunted house movies need to create a wider story than other horror genres because escape is too easy. Sometimes the results are good and other times you're left bored and disappointed.

The Changeling is a 1980 horror movie starring George C. Scott (Dr. Strangelove, Patton) as composer Dr. John Russell. During a vacation in upstate New York, Russell's wife and daughter are killed in a tragic accident. Devastated by the loss, Russell moves across the country to Seattle to teach at a university. With the help of a young woman named Claire Norman (Trish Van Devere, Going Ape, The Hearse), Russell rents a large and slightly eerie Victorian-era mansion. As he slowly puts the pieces of his life together, Russell begins to hear and see strange things in the house. He hears a deafening banging every morning for about thirty seconds that abruptly stops. Doors open and shut for no reason and when Russell tosses his daughter's old ball into the river, he finds it back inside the house. During a seance, it is revealed that the ghost of a young boy named Joseph Carmichael from in the early 1900s. While doing research, Russell discovers that Joseph was a sickly boy and as per the terms of his inheritance, if he died before his 21st birthday, the money would go to his mother's side of the family. Rather than risk losing the money, his father drowned him in a bathtub. Supposedly, Mr. Carmichael replaced his now deceased son with an orphan in order to gain the inheritance. Using more clues, Russell is able to find Joseph's bones in an old well that belonged to the Carmichael family. He tries to reach out to wealthy United States Senator also named Joseph Carmichael about what he has discovered. Scared that the truth will come out, the Senator sends a policeman after Russell, but he dies under mysterious and possibly supernatural causes. Will Russell be able to reveal the truth about Joseph Carmichael and free the spirit from his home?

Oh, balls

The Changeling put me in the interesting position of really liking the horror part of the movie and really disliking the rest of it. The movie pops up on a lot of "Best horror movie" lists and director Martin Scorsese has it on his list of scariest movies of all time. The haunting is quite good with some legitimately scary moments. While a lot of haunting/ghost movies like to bait-and-switch or start off with horror and then sputter out, The Changeling is very up front with it's scary intentions. The fear starts out like a trickle with strange noises and soon becomes a waterfall leading to an intense and slightly bizarre ending. The movie doesn't really rely on any film-making tricks, relying on good old-fashioned storytelling and spooks to get the audience riled up. The house in the film is actually a set which is surprising considering how great it looks. It really adds a Gothic touch to the entire story.

I didn't particularly care for the rest rest of the story though. Most haunting movies involve a family and I found it odd that the story surrounded a single, older man. I think including a family would have allowed the film to be scarier, putting children in danger and such. I also thought it was strange that the police officer sent after Russell was supposedly killed by the ghost while driving. If the ghost is that powerful, why not just go after Senator Carmichael? The back story with the Senator is slightly interesting, though it wasn't enough for me to continue enjoying the story. The movie came out in 1980, but looks more like 1970. Something about the clothes and the quality of the film made it look much older than it really was. The acting is fine, but I wasn't blown away by any particular performance.

  Here's your problem right here.

The Changeling is a good haunted house story, but only a so-so overall story. I wouldn't say it's bad, it just becomes rather boring once the haunting is over. Perhaps the longer-than-usual run time of the film had something to do with it. The movie has some good scares and a nice, creepy feel to it. The sets look very good and help create an appropriate atmosphere. I can see why the movie finds it's way onto a lot of horror lists simply based off it's scares. Beyond that, though, I wasn't particularly impressed with the movie overall. The horror is good, but I wasn't thrilled with back story and felt it hurt the movie overall.

6.5/10

Day 200: The Exorcist

The Exorcist

That tanning light is set to "Jersey Shore"

Banned in certain countries. Fainting in the audience. Injuries. Death threats to actors. It takes an incredibly powerful movie to achieve such a response. Nowadays, just about anything can make it to theaters or be sold in stores, no matter how depraved or ridiculous (I'm looking at you, Human Centipede). Back in 1973, a horror movie was released that some believe had the Devil imprinted on the film. Not a demon or some sort of evil power, the Devil himself. It's hard to imagine such a response in today's desensitized and jaded world, but there is still one movie that capable of scaring people into hysterics. Of course, I am talking about The Exorcist.

The Exorcist is a 1973 horror movie starring Linda Blair (Repossessed, Hell Night) as Regan MacNeil and Jason Miller (That Championship Season, Toy Soldiers) as Father Damien Karras. It is adapted from the novel of the same name by William Peter Blatty. At an archaeological dig in Iraq, Father Lankester Merrin (Max von Sydow, The Seventh Seal, Flash Gordon) discovers a silver Catholic medallion along with a small stone amulet of a creature. In Washington D.C., actress Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, Requiem For A Dream) begins to notice strange changes in her 12 year old daughter Regan's behavior. She brings Regan to the doctor for a series of tests. The doctors believe that Regan has a simple condition that is treatable through medication. Her condition worsens as she now has violent outbursts and mood swings. Doctors perform invasive tests, believing that she has a lesion in her brain. The results yield no answers and a visit from a psychologist ends violently. Paranormal occurrences begin with strange noises, unexplained movements, and Regan's bed shaking. With no medical answers, the doctor's recommend an exorcism. Burke Dennings, film director and a friend of Chris, visits Regan and dies falling down a long flight of stairs under mysterious circumstances. Chris reaches out to Father Karras to perform the exorcism. Karras is going through a crisis of faith due to the recent death of his mother, but he agrees to see Regan. Karras observes Regan who now speaks in a raspy voice, has facial lesions, and refers to herself as the Devil. He sees the words “Help Me” on Regan's stomach and decides to ask the Church to allow the exorcism. The Church reaches out to Father Merrin who conducted an exorcism years ago in Africa, though it almost killed him. Will Father Merrin and Father Karras be able to exorcise the demon and save Regan?

"The power of rice compels...wait, that's not right"

The Exorcist has been named “The Scariest Movie of All Time” for good reason because the movie is legitimately scary. What makes it so scary isn't the jump-at-you moments that so many horror movies rely on, though it does have plenty of those. The movie is incredibly unsettling in it's content and execution. This is achieved through superb special effects and sound effects. Iconic scenes like Regan crawling down the stairs backwards (Spiderwalking if you prefer) and her head rotating and so unnerving in their unnaturalness that is strikes a nerve deep within the audience. I don't think I've seen another movie where sound has been so essential to make scenes work as in The Exorcist. Regan's possessed voice was provided by actress Mercedes McCambridge is so gravelly and rough that, mentally, it doesn't sit well with the audience when seen coming out the mouth of a 12 year old Linda Blair. There are split-second flashes of a demonic-looking face throughout the movie which may be the most terrifying thing in the entire movie because it the image stays with you long after the movie is over. I am actually surprised more movies don't try this subtle, yet effective trick.

The movie succeeds thanks to a combination of the solid acting, believable characters, and believable, if not wholly known, content. Linda Blair is great in her role, despite her young age and Mercedes McCambridge makes the demonic role work. Jason Miller plays Father Karras well and is probably the most identifiable with the audience as he is questioning his faith and is not sure what to believe. Director William Friedkin gets the most out of his actors through Kubrickian filmmaking. When both Fathers enter the Regan's room and steam can be seen from their breath, it's due to multiple air conditioners cranking out below freezing temperatures. When Ellen Burstyn screams out in pain after being struck by a possessed Regan, she is in actual pain due to breaking her coccyx. You can say there was a method to Fiedkin's madness because he gets great performances out of his actors and is able to capture some amazing shots on camera.

Oh, hi!

It is not often that a horror movie can scare, and while I may not have shrieked in terror, I was unsettled by The Exorcist. You know a movie is good when it stays with you long after the credits have rolled and The Exorcist is able to do that. Any exorcism movie that has come out since The Exorcist has been compared to the movie and while some receive praise, they cannot reach it's greatness. The great special and sound effects, the superb acting, and great direction all lead to an enjoyable, if unnerving, watch. It is a classic for a reason and deserves all the praise it receives. A perfect horror movie for my 200th review.

10/10

Day 166: Silent Hill

Silent Hill

At least she doesn't have to go to the dentist

As I've said in my Resident Evil reviews, I'm not much of a gamer. It's not that I don't like video games. I actually like them a lot. I have fond memories of playing Nintendo and Super Nintendo as a kid. It's just one of those things where new systems are always coming out and they're all expensive and blah blah blah. Some people take their gaming very seriously, with their special gaming chairs, headsets, and all sorts of accessories. Many of those same people take their horror movies very seriously. When a famous video game is made into a movie, heads explode in anticipation and usually disappointment. Just ask the Super Mario Brothers movie or the Double Dragon movie. The Resident Evil franchise has done well on the big screen, so why not try a video game that is truly scary.

Silent Hill is a 2006 adaptation of a video game by the same name starring Radha Mitchell (Pitch Black, Man on Fire) as Rose Da Silva. Rose's adopted daughter Sharon suffers from sleepwalking and speaks of a place called “Silent Hill”. Silent Hill is a ghost town, vacated after a coal fire that continues to burn after 30 years. Against her husband Christopher's (Sean Bean, The Lord Of The Rings, Black Death) wishes, Rose drives with Sharon to West Virginia in hopes that visiting the town will bring her some sort of clarity. As they approach Silent Hill, police officer Cybil Bennet (Laurie Holden (The Mist, The Walking Dead) pursues them. Rose speeds towards the town when a little girl appears in the road. She swears to avoid the girl, who disappears, and crashes her car. When she wakes, Sharon is gone and Rose realizes she has made it to Silent Hill. It looks like it is snowing, but it is in fact ashes falling from the sky. Rose meets a woman named Dahlia Gillespie who talks about her own daughter Alessa being abused by the town and alludes that both of their daughters are the same person. Rose tries to get back to her car, but Cybil handcuffs her and they search for the road out of town. They are attacked by an armless, faceless creature that spits black acid out of it's chest. They explore the town in search of Sharon and fight off various deformed monsters while Christopher scours the town with officer Thomas Gucci. Rose and Cybil seek refuge in the town church while the monster Pyramid Head tears a woman apart. The church is home to a religious cult led by Christabella (Alice Krige, Deadwood, Stay Alive). Rose escapes, but Cybil and Sharon are captured It is revealed that Christabella and her followers believed Alessa to be a witch and burned her, which accidentally set the town aflame. Alessa survived, but her pain and rage led the the creation of her dark side while Sharon is the manifestation of the last of her light. Alessa must gain her revenge and enters Rose's body. Will Rose be able to save Sharon and help Alessa gain some measure of peace?

I never miss the Hot Ladies With Short Blonde Hair convention

Video games are becoming more and more like movies, so you might think that a video game actually becoming a movie would be easy. Horror is a good genre for the transition to occur, but it's still hard to pull off. I've never played Silent Hill before, so I'm not going to compare and contrast the differences. While Resident Evil was a zombie movie, it focused more on action scenes and guns. Silent Hill is a crazy monster video game and it's a crazy monster movie. The monsters are very scary looking and unlike typical horror movie creatures. They are the stuff out of nightmares and the entire makeup and effects team deserve a lot of praise. The look completely inhuman and make the film far scarrier. If you're like me and unfamiliar with the video game, you won't know who these monsters are. I don;t think they ever referred to the monster Pyramid Head by name and if they did, I missed it. I only know his name because I've seen clips of the game. I don't need the names and origin stories of every monster, but a little hint now and then would have gone a long way.

Speaking of long, this movie is far too long, clocking in at about 2 hours. There was no need for the movie to be this long. There are a number of scenes that could have been shortened or cut out completely. I like Sean Bean and he acts well, but his character could have been completely eliminated. I read a while ago that the movie was supposed to only have women leads in it, but the studio insisted on adding a husband character. I understand why, but it unnecessarily extended the movie far beyond the point of toleration. There are some good scares and plenty of scenes that will make you feel uncomfortable. There is a good amount of action and the acting is good throughout. The score, taken almost entirely from the video games, sounds great and really stands out. The story itself it just alright, starting out with a good, thrilling mysterious, but crashes and burns when all is revealed. On top of the weak reveal, the ending left me feeling empty and a bit confused. I think I understand it, but I'm not entirely sure.

At least he's not named "Pyramid Balls"

Making a movie based on a video game is never easy. The fans have very specific expectations, but the film must be made in such a way that non gamers can enjoy them. I have no idea if Silent Hill fit gamers' expectations, but as a horror fan I was unsettled by some scenes and bored with others. The movie is far too long and goes off into unnecessary scenes that kill the flow of the movie. Certain scenes definitely feel like a video game, running from building to building and coming up against different “bosses”. The acting is good and the makeup/special effects are great. The story starts out well, but loses steam towards the end. It has it's scary moments and a decent amount of action, but the ending is disappointing and vague. Ultimately, it's a decent horror movie with a few serious flaws that keep is from being great. Expect a sequel some time in 2013 or 2014.

6.5/10

Day 161: Re-Animator

Re-Animator

Want a sip of my orange soda?

Why is it so hard to translate H.P. Lovecraft's stories to the big screen? There are plenty of stories with enough horror to terrify audiences for years, but for some reason, most movies adapted from Lovecraft's work are terrible. Granted, the stories need some updating if they're set in modern times and not everything will translate well, but those are small hurdles. Those reasons are certainly not enough to keep Hollywood from cranking out movies. Why haven't we seen a blockbuster Call of Cthulhu or The Rats In The Walls? We were supposed to get At The Mountains of Madness from Guillermo del Torro, but that looks like it will never happen. In the meantime, we have to suffer through terrible “adaptations” like The Tomb. At least we have Re-Animator.

Re-Animator is a 1985 cult classic starring Jeffrey Combs as Herbert West (Feardotcom, House On Haunted Hill) and Bruce Abbott (The Prophecy II, Bride of Re-Animator) as Dan Cain. It is based off the short story “Herbert West – Reanimator” by H.P. Lovecraft. Herbert West, a student at the Zurich University Institute of Medicine in Switzerland, successfully reanimated the dead corpse of his professor, Dr. Hans Gruber. Unfortunately the dosage is too high and Gruber dies due to horrific side-effects. West travels to Miskatonic University in Massachusetts to further his studies and research. He rents a room from Dan Cain, a fellow student who is dating Megan, the daughter of the dean of Miskatonic, Dean Haley. Animosity grows between West and his professor, Dr. Carl Hill (David Gale, The First Power, Bride of Re-Animator), over the concept of brain death, with West accusing Hill of plagiarizing Hans Gruber. West is able to convince Dan of his ability to reanimate corpses by bringing Dan's cat back to life, albeit with a far more aggressive and erratic demeanor. Dean Haley hears of their experiments and bans them from school. They sneak into the morgue and continue their experiments, successfully reanimating a human being. The zombie is violent and incoherent, thrashing both West and Cain. Dean Haley walks down to the morgue and is killed by the zombie before West can kill it. They inject Haley with the reagent, bringing him back from the dead, but without coherence or sanity. Haley is committed and despite Megan's wishes, Dr. Hill performs a lobotomy on him. Hill then goes to West's basement lab, where he blackmails him for his notes and reagent serum. Enraged, West decapitates him with a shovel and administers the reagent to Hill's head and body. The reanimated body knocks West out, grabs Hill's head, and realizes Dean Haley from his cell. Seemingly under Hill's control, Haley kidnaps his daughter Megan and brings her to the morgue where Hill has been injecting corpses. Will Dan and West be able to save Megan and stop the zombies?

Grrrrr....RUFF RUFF RUFF!

I'm a big fan of H.P. Lovecraft, so I was excited to see a popular horror movie based on his work. Unfortunately, the movie is very, very loosely based on his work. Some of the character's names and some places are the same, but a lot of the original story is left out. Sure there's reanimation and some nods to the work, such as the headless zombie and the violent rages, but not too much beyond that. Lovecraft considered his story to be rather poor and was written as a parody of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Despite a tenuous grasp on the source material, Re-Animator is still a fun horror movie with plenty of shocks and loads of gory violence. There is plenty of action throughout with lots of blood and gruesome shots. It's a zombie movie in the sense that dead bodies have come back to life, but it's not the traditional cinematic zombie genre. No brain eating or shots to the head, but that's not the purpose of the story anyway. The makeup used throughout the movie is excellent with lots of detail to wounds and body parts. To get a sense of how gory the film is, 24 gallons of blood were used in the movie. 24 gallons!

The acting is pretty good throughout. Jeffrey Combs is very good as the frantic Herbert West. On slight problem I had was in the beginning he had an accent and towards the end he lots it. Maybe it was just my ears deceiving me. David Gale puts in a surprisingly good performance as the villainous Dr. Hill. He goes from jerk to maniacal super villain quickly, but flawlessly. I was concerned with the famous scene involving Megan and Dr. Hill, and while it's certainly not for younger eyes, it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Still, it was kind of ridiculous and really didn't need to be in the movie. Beyond that, the story moves at a good pace and never drags. There is a good sense of horror and fear throughout, both physically and psychologically. The fantastic music by Richard Band is a big reason why the movie has a constant creepiness to it. I could listen to that score all day.

You're going to feel a slight Ecto-Cooler Hi-C sensation

H.P. Lovecraft fans will be disappointed with the adaptation shown in Re-Animator. Beyond a few names and a basic idea, the movie really doesn't have much in common with the short story. It's unfortunate because the story could have easily been turned into a movie. Despite this, Re-Animator is still a good story with loads of violence and blood. There is plenty of action and horror to keep the audience entertained and terrified. The acting is good and the music is great. Other than a few little nitpicks and “that scene,” I thoroughly enjoyed Re-Animator. Check it out if you get the chance.

8.5/10

Day 145: House On Haunted Hill

House on Haunted Hill

 

It's more of a slope than a hill

(Blogger's note: Ms. Meghan was kind enough to fill in for me today. I have seen both the original House on Haunted Hill and the remake. The original is infinitely better. This should be on everyone's must-see list if you're any type of horror fan.)

Hi everyone, it's Ms. Meghan here! Jordan asked me to write a post for him, and since I am a nice person, I agreed. So I decided to go OLD SCHOOL on you all and watch the original House on Haunted Hill starring Vincent Price.

 

"I love it when you threaten to kill me darling." 

The premise of the movie begins, like the best of movies, with an eccentric millionaire, Frederick Loren (Price) and his vivacious (4th) wife Annabelle (Carol Ohmart). Loren throws a party in a giant decrepit old house that may or may not be haunted by ghost of previous inhabitants that were gruesomely murdered. The attendees of the party have been promised $10,000 (which would be ~$78,000 by today's standards) if they stay the night and survive. The attendees are Lance Shroeder (Richard Long) a pilot, Dr. David Trent (Alan Marshal) a psychiatrist studying hysteria, Nora Manning (Carolyn Craig) a secretary for one of Mr. Loren's companies, Watson Pritchard (Elisha Cook Jr.) the owner of the house whose brother and sister-in-law were murdered in the house, and Ruth Bridgers (Julie Mitchum) a columnist. All of the attendees (with the exception of the Lorens) are strangers to each other, even Nora, who works for Mr. Loren's company but has never met him.

 

They just found out Chris Katan starred in the remake. 

The story gets tense as the night goes on, the partgoers are locked into the house by the elderly caretakers, with no electricity or way to get out until 8 am the next morning. The partygoers have all been spooked by a large chandelier falling and nearly killing Nora and later in the evening Lance disappearing and reappearing with a strange bump on his head and no memory of how it got there. Morbid Mr. Pritchard is definitely not helping, because he won't stop talking about the ghosts, and how they're going to claim one of the partygoers before the night is through. And poor Nora keeps getting spooked, but has no evidence to prove it, driving her more and more "hysterical". She seems primed to be "the one" the ghosts will claim, but it could be anyone!

 

"Enough with this ghost nonsense and get me a drink!" 

The effects are minimal and there's certainly no gore as this is 1959, however the scares are genuine, if few and far between. There's a scene with Nora that even impresses the legendary Tom Savini with its spookiness. This film was also best know for an effect the director used called "Emergo", where a skeleton was swung over the audience at the appropriate time*. I think this is kind of excellent and would love to watch this in a movie theater and have this effect used. 

 

Here's some Vincent Price, just because. 

I think this film does feel dated at times, but it definitely stands the test of time, I do wish I could have seen more of the Lorens bickering and being a ridiculous married couple, those scenes are especially good. I think this film is also appealing if you aren't really into modern horror that is constantly trying to outdo itself with gore and general awfulness. This film is definitely a classic and well worth checking out.

7/10

 *Thanks to the IMDB Trivia Page on the film for this info.

Day 11: Hell Night

Hell Night

Not the sequel to Purgatory Afternoon

Hell Night stars Linda Blair as the innocent Marti, who is attending a Halloween party at a college fraternity. She is taken by the frat members to the supposedly haunted Garth Manor with three other people. They are told the that twelve years earlier, Raymond Garth, the head of Garth Manor, murdered his family and hanged himself. When police arrived, the could not find the body of Raymond's youngest son, Andrew. Marti and her companions are locked in Garth Manor and must stay there until sunrise. A night of pranks and hazing soon turns to terror as people are murdered by a mysterious lumbering monster. They all must survive until sunrise and escape their night of hell.

This film is tame by today's standards but for 1981, Hell Night had some seriously violent scenes. Hell Night is not overly bloody or gory, but that does not stop the movie from indulging in some creative killing. And while the film may not be in the same legendary category of 70's/80's horror movies such as Halloween, Friday the 13^th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street, it still deserves a lot of credit. Many movies you see today have the same elements that make Hell Night work. Atmosphere, music swells, teens indulging in drugs and sex, and a monster that cannot be stopped. If you watch the trailer for the fake grindhouse movie Don't, you can see a lot of scenes were inspired by Hell Night.

Gates! My one weakness!

Linda Blair does a fine job as the heroine Marti. She is the stereotypical innocent young woman in horror movies, which works for the purpose of telling the story, but it feels like she was limited in what she could do with the character. We all know from The Exorcist that Linda Blair has some wide range and Hell Night wasted her potential a bit, leaving her helpless and shrieking for most of it. Speaking of shrieking, there is a lot of that going on in this film. Make sure not to watch the movie with headphones unless you want broken eardrums.

The monster in the movie is a mix of Solomon Grundy and Michael Myers: an unstoppable smashing machine that seems to keep coming no matter what you throw at it. They do hide the monster fairly well, with just quick shots of a hands grabbing and smashing victims. When you do finally see him, though, its a bit disappointing. They were probably going for a more realistic look, but it doesn't really work when the monster has unrealistic abilities. 

 Bitch, please!

Pacing is a bit of a mess in Hell Night. I know they were hoping to have a slow build, but there are scenes where nothing is happening for far too long. Clocking in at an hour and forty minutes, they could have easily cut about 20 minutes of walking, standing, and other superfluous scenes. The flow of the movie is hurt with these extra scenes and you find yourself slipping into boredom.

Overall, Hell Night is still worth your time to see. A classic 80's horror movie, you get some good frights and kills. Boredom does tend to creep in at times, but stick with it and you'll enjoy yourself. I have had the Misfits' song “Hell Night” stuck in my head ever since I started watching this movie. I hope you're happy, I know I am.

7/10

Day 6: Freakshow

Freakshow

More like Shitshow

Freakshow starts with a gang of thieves who plot to rob the leader of circus they work for. What a circus it is! There's freaks, geeks, amputees and he-shes.The female thief, Lucy, seduces the leader and cons him into getting married. The circus freaks overhear their scheme and coerce Lucy into admitting her prejudice towards freaks. Two of the thieves steal some food and are caught by a little freak girl. They need to keep her quite and, in a stroke of pure absurdity, one of the thieves stabs the girl who lets out an ear-piercing shriek. They kill the girl, but for some strange reason, stay at the circus. The freaks vow their revenge and kill the thieves.

Oh boy. Where to start? I guess I should start with the good because I can finish this part quickly. There is great old-timey music throughout the movie. It really gives the movie a Depression-era feel and mixes well with the dusty scenery. There are some funny lines, but I'm not sure how many are intentionally funny. The acting is just OK, but nothing awful.

Freakshow is a “modern retelling”of the classic 1932 “Freaks” so that explains the constant feeling of deja vu. There's the beauty who wants to marry the circus leader for his money, the downpour during the freaks' revenge, and even the sock-like creature. Hell, there's even a spooky chant by the freaks, but instead of “One of us, one of us! Gooble gobble, gooble gobble!” its just “Welcome!” Why not just call it a remake and follow the movie?

You might want to get those checked out

Also, I don't seem to recall Freaks have so much nudity. Nothing X-Rated, but enough to qualify for a late-night Cinemax movie. Nudity in horror movies is fine. It can be used to show that a character is at their most vulnerable. In Freakshow, its used just to show some titties. While I do feel silly to complain about seeing some naked bits, it feels really unnecessary. Also, if you're going to have nudity in a movie called "Freakshow" at least have some fun with it and have freakshow nudity. I'll bet the woman from Total Recall with 3 breasts needs work. Give her a call.

The end feels very rushed. Most of the movie is spent talking and planning. By the time the last 25 minutes roll around, you can almost hear the director yell, “Oh shit! The movie is almost over! Quick, hurry up so we can get to good stuff!” And let me tell you, the ending is ridiculous. I said when I started this blog that I had no interest in watching “torture movies”. That plan got shot to hell thanks to Freakshow. The final 10 minutes are devoted to a graphic torture scene that I honestly skipped. Great job on the makeup and effects, but I really have no desire to see any of that. Maybe it was just a literal interpretation of what the movie has done to the viewer.

 Don't worry. No one will see this terrible movie.

I appreciate the desire to remake a classic scary movie that many people have probably never seen, but what's the point if you ignore everything that made the original great? Good makeup, quality effects, and some legitimate “freaks” save the movie from being a complete bust, but not by much. The prolonged, gruesome torture scene is over the top and not enjoyable. We are supposed to feel sorry for the freaks, but this makes them into the monsters Lucy said they were. I have seen movies that were far worse, but for different reasons. Avoid Freakshow at all cost.

2.5/10

Day 5: Scarecrows

Scarecrows

Crow to hell!

Scarecrows is a very simple movie; it's a horror film framed by a heist, but mostly it's just a mess. The main characters are a group of commandos stealing money, a plane, and people, mostly in that order. Honestly I'm not really sure what's going on, except that it's a movie and people are doing bad things, and it is these bad things that eventually lead them to the scarecrows.

The scarecrows come to life and start using their magical psychic scarecrow powers to drive the commandos the father, and the kidnapped teenage girl nuts. Did you know scarecrows have psychic powers? That one is new to me. I guess they're just straw, so you have to give them a little something extra, but the “voices in the head” seems to come out of nowhere.

Grandpa looks a little dry today

There is no back story, no reason for the heist, where they got their weapons, or where they're going. We don't know why the plane was so easy to commandeer and why the father and daughter were just hanging around. I understand the desire to get to the monsters, but that doesn't even happen right away. What's the point of rushing the story if you don't get to the good stuff quickly? I know sometimes it's best not to question motives in these movies, but seriously, an extra five minutes of story would have made all the difference. We never find out why these scarecrows are alive and going around killing people, or how they are doing it in the first place. I can suspend my disbelief as much as the next horror fan, but I need at least a little something to work with.

One small problem (other than the horrific acting by the daughter) with the film itself were scenes involving the plane. The movie takes place during one dark night. When they show the plane, its still light out, but when they show the actors, it's pitch black. Didn't anyone notice? 

 I. Am. Act. Ing.

There are some fun kills by the scarecrows, nice special effects and a decent amount of blood and gore. There is a good use of sound, music, and atmosphere that definitely help you believe that scarecrows can actually be scary. I give them credit for working with what must have been a shoestring budget. I can see how it has gained a cult following and while there are some good ideas, at lot is left to be desired. If you don't think too much, you can enjoy Scarecrows for what it is: a cheap 80s horror movie with a ridiculous premise and some fun acts of violence.

6/10

Day 3: Creepshow 2

Creepshow 2

Creepshow 2: Electric Boogaloo

I had very high expectations for Creepshow 2. I finally saw the original Creepshow earlier this year and thoroughly enjoyed myself. A screenplay writen by one of the godfathers of horror, George Romero based off of stories by Stephen King. How can you go wrong? Answer: You can't! Well, maybe now you can because Hollywood would want someone like Robert Pattinson or Shia Labeouf to star in it and M. Night Shyamalan to direct. Now THAT would be scary.

Creepshow 2 consists of 3 short stories and a series of connected, animated shorts that play between each of the stories. The stories are told by the Creep, played by makeup master Tom Savini. This is a bit confusing because the Creep appears in both live-action and animation. Savini doesn't do the voice of the Creep, so other than Romero having his buddy in the movie, what's the point? And why have a live-action Creep in the very beginning and very end of the movie, while the rest is animated? Seems kind of unnecessary to me. The animation is very similar to that of Heavy Metal fame, so perhaps they were trying to recapture some of that movie's magic. The animation is somewhat bizarre and just take a look at the Creep's chin. 

 Honestly, what does that look like to you?

Regardless, the first story is entitled “Old Chief Wood'nhead”. This is a thoroughly enjoyable supernatural revenge story that takes place near an Indian reservation. George Kennedy (Ed from The Naked Gun trilogy) does a fine job as the lovable general store owner who is wronged. It's kind of interesting since they had Leslie Neilsen in the first Creepshow. I know there's a third Creepshow and wonder if OJ Simpson has a role in it. That would complete the Naked Gun-Creepshow trilogy.

The second story “The Raft” sets 4 teenagers on a raft in the middle of a lake. They're slowly being picked off by some sort of oil-slick creature. The makeup and effects really come out in this story which really add to the overall fear. And thanks to the wonders of movie-making you still share in the terror that these teens are experiencing, in spite of all four teens being unlikable thanks in part to a creepy, almost successful sexual assault.

The final tale “The Hitchhiker” follows a yuppie woman who accidentally hits a hitchhiker and runs from the scene. The Hitchhiker follows the woman as she frantically tries to escape him and her responsibility. This is much like the first supernatural revenge story, but with roles slightly altered. It's still fun to watch the villain get what's coming to her, but it would have been nice to get a completely different story.

Both Creepshow movies are worth watching, but for different reasons. Creepshow had some real star power such as Leslie Nielsen, Ted Danson, Ed Harris, Adrienne Barbeau, and Hal Holbrook and gave you a real sense of fear and dread. Creepshow 2 definitely lacks in star power, and scares, but it's definitely more of a fun movie with a side of creepy. The nice thing is if you like your scary movies on the less scary side or if you like your scary movies funny, Creepshow 2 is definitely worth your time.

8/10

Day 2: Parents

 Parents

Parents just don't understand

I was set on watching a different movie when I happened across Parents. It's a 50's horror-comedy, shot in the 80s? There are cannibals and it's starring Randy Quaid?! Oh yeah, that other movie can wait. Horror-comedy is a bit of a misnomer for this film because there aren't actually many laughs. The movie is less “ha-ha” and more “heh...(awkward silence)”. That's what most of the movie is; a lot of creepy and awkward moments.

Parents follows the story of Michael, a child so odd, he'd make Vincent Price uncomfortable. Michael refuses to eat his dinner at home and has nightmares. Most of the horror in this movie comes from the nightmares and they do not skimp on the blood. These nightmares are not “The Boogeyman is going to get me” nightmares, but “Sausage links are trying to strangle me” nightmares.

Speaking of food, meat should have gotten it's name on the poster because there are some serious closeups of the food. There are so many shots of meat that you'd think the movie was either a Beef Industry infomercial or a “Meat Is Murder” documentary from PETA. I seriously regret eating while watching this film.

Michael is afraid of his father and I don't blame him. Randy Quaid is the real star of this movie. He is a far better actor than he is given credit for and it really shows in Parents. Quaid oozes so much creepiness that we should bottle his sweat and market it to Craigslist Casual Encounters posters. He is the quintessential overbearing father in every coming-of-age indie movie. Everything looks just swell on the outside, but beneath the surface bubbles anger and hatred. You are truly afraid to be alone in the same room with him.

Music really helps set the tone for Parents. The minimal spooky keyboard music is juxtaposed nicely with 1950's pop music. The wholesome 50's clothes and furniture hide the dark and twisted underbelly of the movie. Good camera angles and film tricks create a sense of fear and dread, but sometimes tread a bit too closely to Sophomore year at film school.

The only thing that hurts the movie is that Michael is just so. Freaking. Awkward. It gets to the point where you just want to grab him and scream “BE NORMAL FOR 2 FUCKING MINUTES!”. I guess its a compliment to the actor, but it comes very close to “cheering for the bad guy to get him” anger.

Overall, I'd say the movie is worth watching just to see some real good acting from someone who has been mired in mediocre comedies. Attention to detail such as the clothes, the furniture, and the music are much appreciated and make the horror scenes much creepier. However there are plenty of awkward scenes that make you feel overly uncomfortable and if you're a vegetarian, you should probably just stay away.

6/10