Day 360: Black Christmas

Black Christmas

I'm dreaming of a Black Christmas

Merry Christmas to those celebrating and Merry Tuesday to those who are not. Hopefully you're spending time with your loved ones or at least people you can tolerate, having fun and eating good food. If you're working, at least you're getting bonus money while reading a blog about horror movies. That's a win in anyone's book. Since today is Christmas, I had no shortage in horror movies to choose from. As I expressed in my review of “Rare Exports”, there are a lot of Christmas horror movies. While holidays like Passover and Columbus Day are frequently ignored by the horror world. Christmas gets all the love. Granted, a lot of the movies are just slashers with someone dressed up like Santa. Creativity only goes so far for some people. The only way to properly celebrate this day is to watch one of the very first slasher films. Before Freddy, before Jason, before Michael Myers, there was Black Christmas.

Black Christmas is a 1974 holiday slasher film written by A. Roy Moore and directed by Bob Clark (Porky's, A Christmas Story). The movie stars Olivia Hussey (Romeo and Juliet, Virus) as sorority girl Jess Bradford and John Saxon (A Nightmare On Elm Street, Enter The Dragon) as Lt. Kenneth Fuller. During a Christmas party at the Pi Kappa Sigma sorority house, an unknown man climbs up a trellis and sneaks into the attic. Jess receives an obscene phone call from a man the girls have dubbed “the moaner”. The calls have been going on for some time and have gone mostly ignored until tonight. An inebriated Barb Coard (Margot Kidder, Superman, The Amityville Horror) begins to provoke the moaner which causes him to utter “I'm going to kill you!” before hanging up. Another sorority sister, Claire Harrison (Lynne Griffin, Strange Brew, True Identity), goes to her room to pack for a trip and is attacked by the man who snuck into the house and asphyxiated with a plastic sheet. He carries her body to the attic and places her in a rocking chair with a doll in her lap. The next day, Claire's father comes to pick her up only to find her missing. A campus wide search begins to find Claire along with a 13 year old girl that was reported missing. Meanwhile, Jess meets with her boyfriend pianist Peter (Keir Dullea, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Good Shepard) who is preparing for an important audition. She informs Peter that she is pregnant and is getting an abortion. Peter is upset by her decision and ends up failing his audition. Back at the sorority house, Mrs. MacHenry, the house mother, is murdered by the killer who hangs her in the attic with a crane hook. The search party finds the body of the missing girl in the park, so Jess, Barb, and fellow sister Phyllis return to the house and receive more disturbing phone calls. Lt. Fuller puts a “bug” in the phone so the police can listen to the calls and trace them. Peter comes to the house and argues with Jess about the abortion. Soon, another call comes in mimicking the conversation she had with Peter. The police are able to trace the calls and discover that they are actually coming from inside the house. Who is the killer and will the girls be able to survive?

"No, my refrigerator wasn't running. Thanks for the tip!"

Being one of the first of anything allows you enormous amounts of freedom to do what you want. You are not hindered by previous ideas or expectations. This freedom allowed Black Christmas to be incredibly creative and extremely influential on future horror films. Up until Black Christmas, most horror movies were fairly straight forward with a strong hero and a clear, decisive ending. This movie gives us neither, which makes it truly disturbing. While Jess is considered the heroine, she spends most of the movie being harassed, by both her boyfriend and the killer. Even at the end, she is still shown as utterly vulnerable. While there is an ending, the movie does not have a true conclusion. We never see the fully killer or learn why he is there. We only have his disjointed, terrifying phone calls which come in different voices and tones. There's occasional talk about a baby and the line "Agnes? It's me, Billy." is repeatedly, though what it means is never clear. Later slashers focused on silent killers, but there is something truly scary about the incoherent rambling of the killer in Black Christmas.

From the very beginning of the movie, we see the film's creativity, shooting from the killer's perspective. Nowadays, that's fairly common, but in 1974, it was new and daring. What makes these shots so interesting is that they are done so in a disorienting way. The camera is uneven and wobbly with a semi-fish-eye lens, showing that the killer as unstable. There is plenty of suspense throughout the movie as we, the audience, know that the killer is in the house, but the girls don't. Added to the suspense is a dark, creeping atmosphere the never lightens, even at the end. There is some good violence and a decent amount of blood spread through out. While the movie is influential for a lot of good things that horror movies do today, it also had a bad influence in my mind: inept police and characters who ignore common sense. While I don't think either of these were intentional, most of the events in the movie would not have occurred if the police were not terrible at their jobs and the girls weren't completely oblivious. From the very beginning, the police do multiple things wrong and leave the girls in a lot of danger. Even the very ending is capable because of a complete failure to a) do a through check of the house and b) stay with the one surviving witness. The willful ignorance of the girls are also frustrating. Jess is told that the killer is inside the house and to just walk out. What does she do? She screams for her sorority sisters and then goes upstairs. Come on, if the police told you a murderer was in your house, would you make as much noise as possible and go wandering around? These things don't hurt the viewing experience, but it is fairly aggravating.

He must have seen mommy kissing Santa Claus

Black Christmas is a fun and creative horror movie that really set the standard for all future slashers. It's basis comes from real-life murders in Quebec which help give credence to the plot. It's funny how many horror movies involved prank or obscene calls, a plot device that is now moot thanks to Caller ID and cell phones. The acting is good and the direction is really solid. It's funny to think that the director behind such wholesome movies as A Christmas Story and Baby Geniuses also directed such a dark and disturbing movie. I really like that we never see the killer or learn his motives and the ending is quite unsettling. The obscene phone calls are also very uncomfortable and make the movie that much more frightening. There are some good kills and a decent amount of blood in the movie along with a few laughs. Black Christmas's influence can still be seen today in horror movies, an incredible accomplishment for a Canadian horror movie that received mixed reviews. Merry Christmas and Merry Tuesday to all and to all a terrifying night.

8/10

Day 289: Maniac Cop

Maniac Cop

At least Maniac Cop has a sense of humor

The 1980's were a special time. A B-level actor was president for 8 years, Madonna and Michael Jackson had not yet become complete freaks, and the slasher craze ballooned and then popped. Every writer, director, and studio wanted to have the next Friday The 13^th or Halloween. Every holiday got their own slasher film. Almost every profession had a slasher movie whether it was a janitor or a teacher or a doctor. By the time the late 80's rolled around, the genre had already run it's course, and had settled back to a more even level in terms of volume and quality. One also included a young Bruce Campbell.

Maniac Cop is a 1988 slasher starring Bruce Campbell (Evil Dead, My Name Is Bruce) as NYPD Officer Jack Forrest and Tom Atkins (The Fog, Creepshow) as Detective Frank McCrae. A man in a police officers uniform begins killing civilians in brutal fashion, sending the city into a panic. Detective McCrae begins investigating the case, discovering that the killer is incredibly strong. Jack Forrest is a young officer that constantly works the night shift. Jack has a strained relationship with his wife Ellen, who suspects that he might actually be the cop behind all the murders. One night, she follows him to a seedy hotel only to find him in bed with Theresa Mallory (Laurene Landon, Airplane II, The Ambulance) a fellow police officer. Ellen pulls a gun on Jack, but leaves the hotel in a hurry. She is murdered by the maniac cop and Jack is taken into custody. Things don't add up and McCrae continues the investigation, leading him to a former police officer Matt Cordell (Robert Z'Dar, Tango & Cash, The Summoned). Cordell was a hero police officer, known for shooting first and asking questions later. When he started going after the mob, Mayor Killium (Ken Lerner, Buffy The Vampire Slayer: The Series, The Running Man) set Cordell up and had him sent to prison. In prison, he was viciously stabbed all over his body and was pronounced dead. Jack discovers that Cordell did in fact survive and escaped prisoner, thanks to the help of a female police officer in love with him. Will McCrae and Jack be able to stop this maniac cop form continuing his reign of terror?

"I am the law!"

My initial reason for watching Maniac Cop was because I believed that Bruce Campbell was going to be the villain. Most movies I have seen starring Campbell have portrayed him as the hero and I was a little disappointed that he wasn't the maniac cop. Having a police officer as your killer is certainly different, but unfortunately, the movie does not continue with a trend of originality. They portray Cordell as a nigh-invulnerable killing machine, similar to Jason from Friday The 13^th. We see him shot in the chest several times and Theresa even claims to have shot him in the head twice. There is no reason to explain why this is. Is he magical? Is she just an incredibly terrible shot with horrible eyesight? If they wanted to go the supernatural route, they should have made it clear how this happened and perhaps give him more abilities. If they wanted the story based in reality, just say he had a bullet-proof vest on or something to that effect. The character is stuck somewhere in the middle and just left me confused. I will say that the movie did a great job of hiding the killer's face for almost the entire movie. It allowed the audience to portray whatever image they wanted onto the killer, similar to what John Carpenter did with Michael Myers in Halloween. When they finally showed Cordell's face, it was nothing scary or shocking. They clearly didn't have Tom Savini doing makeup.

There is a decent amount of violence in Maniac Cop with some fun and creative kills. There is some blood, but not much in the way of gore or extreme violence. The problem is that they kind of forget about the slashing in the middle of the film. The movie focuses way too much on the actual investigation instead of the horror. In the beginning we have a few kills and at the end we have a lot. What about the middle? Instead, we get a rather bland and typical cop drama. Tom Atkins is the quintessential police officer, playing one in multiple movies. Bruce Campbell is good in his role, but doesn't get to flash any of his trademark charm and wit. The rest of the cast is fine, but the problem lies with the story, not the production. Nothing unexpected happens and the story runs it's course exactly as how you would expect. 

"Boomstick says what?"

Maniac Cop is a decent slasher in the beginning and end, but is lost in a mediocre mystery for most of the time. The villain had a lot of potential, but the movie doesn't deliver. It's never clear how he is so strong or why bullets don't hurt him. I really would have liked Bruce Campbell in the role because the added personality would have made the movie far more interesting. There are some good scenes of violence, but they're mostly lumped together, leaving long stretches free of killing. Maniac Cop had a lot of potential, but missed too many opportunities. It's still watchable and has a few good moments, but it's nothing special.

6/10

Day 275: Frailty

Frailty

Matthew McConaughey is made out of birds! I knew it!

It's not often that a horror movie can make you question your ideas of right and wrong. Heck, it's not often any movie can do this. Horror movies aren't always known as though-provoking or emotional. The average person thinks of horror as a violence-fueled orgy of corruption that is ruining our youth. We all know that's not true (well, for most movies), but we horror fans can sometimes be hard-pressed to produce examples of movies that have a profound effect on a wide audience. I think I may have found one.

Frailty is a 2001 psychological horror movie directed by and starring Bill Paxton (Apollo 13, U-571) as Mr. Meiks and Matthew McConaughey (A Time To Kill, We Are Marshall) as Fenton Meiks. On a dark and stormy night, Fenton Meiks enters the Dallas FBI office and tells Agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe, Deadwood, 24) that his brother Adam is the God's Hand serial killer. Fenton explains that he is coming forward now because Adam recently killed himself. Doyle is initially skeptical and Fenton tells him of their childhood. One night, their father (Bill Paxton) told them God had spoken to him and given him the task of rooting out demons and killing them. Mr. Meiks uses an axe that he was led to by a shaft of light and employs his sons Fenton and Adam in finding and killing these “demons”. They bury their first victim, a young woman, in the rose garden next to their house. Adam readily believes his father while Fenton is extremely skeptical. He is scared of his father, but tries to stop him numerous times. Angered at his insolence, Mr. Meiks forces Fenton to dig a large hole in the yard and then places a shed over the hole, using it as a type of prison. Fenton finally goes to the town sheriff who doesn't believe his story. When he arrives at the Meiks' home, Mr Meiks kills the sheriff and puts Fenton underneath the shed. Fenton is kept in the makeshift prison for a week and nears starvation until his father finally releases him when he has a vision of God. Are these the visions of a mad men or could they actually be true and is Fenton Meiks really who he says he is?

The family that slays together stays together

There are a lot of risks taken in Frailty that most other horror movies would have shied away from. This is Bill Paxton's directorial debut and he does a great job. It's always iffy when an actor decides to get behind the camera, but Paxton is able to weave an interesting and complex movie. The horror in Frailty is more psychological and internal than your average horror movie. That's not to say there isn't a few jumps and some violence, but those are just the bloody icing on the terror cake. (I'm trademarking the term “Terror Cake” right now.) It's not scary in the traditional sense with more of the fear coming from anxiety and tension. The movie is fairly low-budget but manages to tell a good story with what it has. It surprises me that I've never heard of this movie, but I can see how it would fly under the radar with it's lack of explosions and monsters.

The character development is slow and steady, complimented by very good performances from Paxton, McConaughey, and Boothe. The two young actors who played young Fenton and young Adam, Matt O'Leary (Brick, Live Free Or Die Hard) and Jeremy Sumpter (Friday Night Lights, Peter Pan) both shine in this movie as they give their characters a sense of realism not felt in a lot of horror. Frailty succeeds because it manages to question one's feelings and beliefs. What is good and what is evil? What is right and what is wrong? You think you know how the movie is going to play out and are then legitimately surprised when things are finally revealed. I thought I had everything figured out in Frailty and was almost proven right until the moral rug was pulled out from under me. The movie does run a bit too long and is slow at times. Frailty probably could have ended about 10 minutes sooner and left more to the audience's imagination.

He died doing what he loved: holding his crotch

Frailty isn't your typical horror movie. There is some action and bloody violence, but it's the implications and suspense that really make the movie frightening. Bill Paxton and Matthew McConaughey both put in very good performances while the two child actors make the movie. The movie manages to make the audience both think and feel, not an easy accomplishment for a genre known for it's gore and special effects. If you prefer your horror with lots of gore and over-the-top creatures, Frailty isn't for you. If you like slow, creeping anxiety and good twists, it's worth digging to find this hidden horror.

8/10

Day 245: The Burning

The Burning

So the killer's head is a volcano? The Sun? What the hell am I looking at?

A group of horny teenagers are brutally murdered by an unseen killer. Sound familiar? During the “slasher boom” of the mid-70's and early 80's, a lot of horror movies followed this simple formula. Black Christmas is widely considered to be the first true slasher film, followed by Silent Night, Bloody Night and Savage Weekend. Thanks to successes like Halloween and Friday The 13^th, studios desperately tried to cash in on slasher movies, amping up the gore while keeping the same basic story. Despite being a subgenre, slashers are one of the most popular and best-known styles of horror. Does it matter if a slasher is generic as long as there's lots of gore?

The Burning is a 1981 slasher starring Brian Matthews (The Young And The Restless, Days Of Our Lives) as Todd. When he was a teenager, Todd and a group of campers played a prank on Cropsy, the camp's caretaker. They placed a rotting skull with candles in it's eye sockets on Cropsy's table, hoping to scare him. When Cropsy woke up, he inadvertently knocked the skull onto his bed, setting himself on fire. He managed to survive, though he was permanently scarred and disfigured. 5 years later, Cropsy was released from the hospital and Todd has become a counselor at a summer camp. Alfred (Brian Backer, Fast Times At Ridgemont High,The Money Pit), an outcast camper, is caught peeping on one of the girls at camp and is threatened with expulsion. He tells Todd that he was just playing a prank to get back at another camper, a meathead named Glazer, for giving him a hard time. That night, Alfred sees someone outside his cabin, but no one believes him. Todd and his girlfriend Michelle (Leah Ayres, Bloodsport, The Brady's) take a group of campers down river for a few days. Unknown to them, Cropsy is out in the woods, stalking them. When their canoes go missing, a small group builds a raft to get back to camp. They spot one of the canoes and head towards it. When they reach it, Cropsy jumps out, brutally hacking and slashing them to death with garden shears. Cropsy kills more of the group, killing Glazer and his girlfriend Sally. Alfred sees this and grabs Todd. When they find the bodies, they are attacked by Cropsey. How will they survive and how will they get back to camp?

"Laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"

If this story sounds familiar, it's not your imagination. Friday The 13^th came out in 1980 and it's sequel came out the same year as The Burning. The then new company Miramax Films was looking to cash-in on the slasher craze of the time. Harvey and Bob Weinstein (Gangs of New York, Kill Bill) wrote and produced the movie and put about $1.5 million into making it, a much higher budget than some of it's slasher brethren. They also hired makeup and special effects wizard Tom Savini (Dawn Of The Dead, Friday The 13^th) away from Friday The 13^th Part 2 to provide all the gore and makeup. Slasher movies rarely require much in the way of story, but it's so similar to the Friday The 13^th series that it feels like I'm watching the same movie. There are oversexed teen counselors being murdered by a sharp metal object in the woods. That's not “like” Friday The 13^th, that is Friday The 13^th. Despite essentially being the same movie, The Burning has a lot more bloody violence and gore, some of which got them in trouble with the Motion Picture Association. While the scenes are tame by today's standards, they were pretty shocking for 1981. The violence is pretty entertaining thanks to Savini's creative makeup and effects. The violence is pretty entertaining thanks to Savini's creative makeup and effects.

Speaking of effects, the makeup used for Cropsy's disfigurement looks less like a burn victim and more like a pink California Raisin. Apparently, Savini only had about 3 days to work on the makeup giving Crospy a melted look instead of burns. We go through most of the movie never seeing him and it was disappointing when his face is finally revealed. The film uses the first-person perspective from Cropsy's point of view when he is stalking his victims. Friday The 13^th did the same exact thing. The movie's final scene takes place in a mine shaft, reminiscent of My Bloody Valentine, which came out in the same year. Either these are incredible coincidences, or the Weinsteins just didn't care and took from other movies. The acting is decent throughout, though Brian Backer is a little annoying. His delivery is a little too desperate and sweaty. Part of that is the writing because he's supposed to be a somewhat sympathetic character, but still comes off like a creep. The Burning has smaller roles played by future stars like Jason Alexander (George from Seinfeld) and Holly Hunter (Raising Arizona, O, Brother Where Art Thou?) and it's fun to see them before they got their breaks. 

At least you can still do the "I'm talking on the phone" hand gesture 

The Burning is a by-the-numbers slasher movie very similar to other slashers. It's not terribly original, but what it lacks in creativity, it tries to make up with blood and gore. The violence is very entertaining and quite messy for the time period. Tom Savini works his magic with some very good effects, though his makeup for the villain is lacking. The acting and directing are fine and it's fun to pick out some famous actors in smaller roles. The Burning is by no means a bad slasher movie. It gives the audience what it wants: blood and guts. While some scenes in the movie are cliché or don't make sense, like why Cropsy killed a random prostitute in the beginning, the movie's quick pace tries to erase lingering questions. It's not a classic and doesn't have great name recognition, but The Burning is still worth a watch if you're feeling nostalgic or want to catch a lesser-known movie from the slasher boom.

6.5/10

Day 244: Child's Play

Child's Play

Wanna play?

Believe it or not, but I didn't always like horror movies. When I was young, I was actually terrified of scary movies. I specifically remember being scared even when commercials came on for scary movies. Freddy Krueger was very scary with his burnt face and blade-covered hand. There was one other horror icon that scared just as much as Krueger if not more: Chucky. As silly as it sounds now, the thought of a doll coming to life and trying to kill struck a chord with me. I mean, it's an R-rated horror movie sort of geared towards kids. While movies like Toy Story show the fun and lovable side of toys coming to life, Child's Play showed the much darker and scarier side.

Child's Play is a 1988 horror movie starring Brad Dourif (Deadwood, Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers) as serial killer Charles Lee Ray. Charles Lee Ray, also known as “Chucky” and “The Lakeshore Strangler” is being pursued by Detective Mike Norris (Chris Sarandon, The Princess Bride, The Sentinel). Shot by Norris and abandoned by his cohort, Eddie Caputo (Neil Giuntoli, The Shawshank Redemption, Next Of Kin), Chucky breaks into a toy store for cover. Knowing he is about to die, Chucky uses a voodoo ritual to transfer his soul into the plastic body of a “Good Guy” doll. The next day, Karen Barclay (Catherine Hicks, Ryan's Hope, 7^th Heaven) buys a Good Guy doll from a street peddler for her son Andy's birthday. Having to work the night shift, Karen asks her friend Maggie to watch Andy. Andy tells Maggie that his doll told him his name was Chucky and that he wanted to watch the 9 o'clock news. Maggie laughs it off and puts him to bed. Later, she is shocked to find Chucky in front of the television, watching the news. A small figure is seeing toying with Maggie throughout the apartment, eventually hitting her with a hammer and knocking her out a window. Detective Norris speaks with Andy, who is the prime suspect for Maggie's death. Andy insists that Chucky killed Maggie, but no one believes him. The next day, Andy skips school with Chucky and goes to the house of Chucky's former partner, Eddie Caputo. Chucky sneaks into Eddie's house and turns up the gas on his stove, causing it to explode and kill Eddie. The authorities find Andy at the scene and place him in a psychiatric ward for children. Karen is the only one who believes Andy and tries to get Chucky to talk to her. She discovers the doll's batteries had never been used and when she threatens to throw him in the fireplace, Chucky comes to life and attacks her and escapes. Detective Norris is soon attacked by Chucky with a large butcher knife and crashes his car. Norris is able to shoot and injure Chucky, much to the doll's surprise. Chucky visits the man who taught him voodoo and discovers that his transformation is becoming permanent and must find another body. He decides to transfer his soul into Andy's body. Will Karen and Det. Norris be able to stop the killer doll before it's too late?

Becoming a doll was actually an improvement, looks-wise

The killer doll genre is nothing new, but with the Gabage Patch kids craze going on during the 80's, Child's Play struck a current note in the public's eye. Chucky is probably the most famous killer doll in horror thanks to multiple sequels and toy sales. The movie has a good mixture of subtle, “lurking in the shadows” horror and in-your-face slasher horror. Child's Play works so well because, despite being a silly premise, it's treated like a serious horror movie. Sure, it has its over-the-top moments and a fair amount of sick humor, but there is plenty lot of suspense and action to keep things entertaining. The movie reminds me of the “Talking Tina” episode from The Twilight Zone where only the father hears the doll talk about murder. Child's Play uses the same principle of no one believing the doll is alive. We, the audience, know Chucky is alive and are frustrated when the characters don't know. This knowledge allows the movie to play up the fear factor and lead to some good scares. Oringinally, though, the script was more mysterious, stretching out the possibility that Andy is actually the killer. I think that would have been much more interesting to watch with the potential for more scares, but I don't think the movie would have been as fun.

Another factor that helped the movie be entertaining was the acting. Chucky is scary thanks to Brad Dourif, who is no stranger to the horror genre. His style is a mixture of glee and psychotic rage. The movie's usage of a little person to show Chucky in full motion certainly helps him appear more life-like. Both Catherine Hicks and Chris Sarandon play their roles well. My biggest issue with the movie is Andy. Why do all kids in horror movies have to be extremely annoying? On a scale of 1 to 10 on the annoying scale, Andy is an 11. I blame it on a mixture of lazy writing and poor acting. I don't understand why they couldn't just treat him like a normal, if troubled, child. I almost felt like cheering for Chucky to get him just so I wouldn't have to listen to him anymore. The movie has a good amount of blood and violence with a lot of variety. 

Paul Ryan's eyes look exactly the same

Child's Play is a fun horror movie based on a silly premise. It's mixture of horror, action, and off-beat humor created an entertaining experience that spawned a long line of sequels, toys, comic books, and even an appearance in WCW. While the sequels have become a parody of themselves, the original movie was serious enough to be considered a solid movie. The scares are good and there is plenty of violence to go around. Brad Dourif is great, using just his voice to create an iconic horror character. The character of Andy is incredibly annoying, to the point where I didn't really care what happened to him. While not a “thinking man's” horror movie, Child's Play is good fun and highly enjoyable.

8/10

Day 228: Shocker

Shocker

It's electric, boogie-woogie-woogie!

Do horror and comedy ever truly mix well? I'm hard-pressed to find a movie that fits both genres well. The closest I can think of are spoofs of well-known horror movies such as Repossessed and the Scary Movie series. Those movies are really just comedies with some horror tropes and references, so I suppose they don't really count. The character of Freddy Kruger is funny throughout the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, but they are certainly not comedic in nature. Scream had it's funny moments, but they were more self-aware clever remarks than straight comedy. Comedy is a science, needing the right amount of wit, timing, and delivery. Horror is broad with lots of variables that can make a movie disturbing or scary. For whatever reason, the two genres are like water and oil, but that doesn't stop people from trying to mash them together.

Shocker is a 1989 horror comedy written and directed by Wes Craven (Scream, The Last House On The Left). The movie stars Peter Berg (Cop Land, Fire In The Sky) as Jonathan Parker and Mitch Pileggi (The X-Files, Sons of Anarchy) as Horace Pinker. A series of brutal murders has gripped a small California suburb with no clues as to who is committing the crimes. Jon Parker is a college football player who has a strange dream-like vision of a bald man murdering his mother, brother, and sister. He see's the man's van outside the house, revealing he is a TV repair man named Horace Pinker. Jon tries to stop the killer by when he lunges at him, he awakens in bed with his girlfriend, Allison (Camille Cooper). When he returns home, Jon discovers that his family has in fact been murdered. His father, Lt. Don Parker (Michael Murphy, X:Men:The Last Stand, Batman Returns) had been working on the serial killer cases, and the killer murdered his family when he got too close. The police go to arrest him, but he escapes, and kills Allison. Jon uses his strange connection to Pinker to help his father and the police force find him again. Pinker kills a few police officers before being arrested and given the electric chair. Before dying, Pinker reveals that he is Jonathan's biological father and that, as a child, Jonathan shot him in the leg to stop him from murdering his mother. Pinker also reveals that he sold his soul to the devil and when the switch is flipped, Pinker becomes pure energy. His new powers allow him to travel through electricity as well and possess people. Pinker, through other people, tries to kill Jonathan through various means, murdering his friends along the way. How will Jonathan be able to stop this supernatural serial killer who can become anyone at any time?

Being executed by the state is a laugh riot. Well, at least in Texas

I really wasn't sure if Shocker was supposed to be a comedy or not because it is simply not funny. It tries some slapstick with Jonathan running into the goalpost during football practice and tries to have funny one-liners ala Freddy Krueger. Both fail miserably. If the movie wanted to be a comedy, it should have focused on that because the horror is not much better. The basic premise of the story is fine with Jonathan having a supernatural connection to a supernatural killer. Unfortunately, the execution of the events in the movie is so clunky that nothing really makes sense. Nothing is ever really explained with things getting progressively weirder. Why are the police so inept? Why does Jonathan continue to run head-long into danger? How is Jonathan able to have the weird visions of both Pinker and his dead girlfriend? Pinker can now jump from person to person, even though he's supposed to be made of energy? And he can now jump out of televisions? What? How? Why? When? It's amazing that this was written by Wes Craven who has a long track record of great horror movies. It's like he took 10 ideas for different movies, threw them in a blender, and then spit it out onto the screen while giving everyone the finger.

While the movie lacks in humor and logic, it does have a good amount of violence. It has lots of gun play, stabbings, and a few explosions. There is nothing particularly gory about the violence, which is surprising considering it's a movie about a supernatural serial killer. The acting throughout is very questionable. Both Peter Berg and Mitch Pileggi have had long careers in show business, so it's not like they didn't know how to act. I chalk up their bad performances to terribly written dialogue and poor direction. Pinker's lines mostly revolve around horrendous one-liners and and curse words. Jonathan spends most of the movie running and looking shocked, but in the last 10 minutes or so, he is all sorts of confident in knowing how to fight Pinker. The special effects used in the movie are decent for the time, but many scenes are obviously in front of a blue screen. The movie is entrenched in the 80's, complete with it's own theme song performed by Paul Stanley from Kiss with members of Def Leppard, Whitesnake, Van Halen, and Motley Crue. It also had an unintentionally funny cover of Alice Cooper's “No More Mr. Nice Guy” performed by Megadeth.

Comedy!

Shocker has very little in the way of comedy and the horror portion of the movie is poorly done. There is nothing particularly funny in the movie, and if there was, I completely missed it. The story is all over the place, leaving logic and reason by the wayside in favor of 80's special effects and chase scenes. It's amazing that Wes Craven was at the helm of this movie and downright shocking (sorry, couldn't help it) that he actually believed this movie would be the start of a series. The dialogue is horrendous and the acting is pretty bad. If you're looking for something to laugh at instead of laugh with, Shocker is your movie.

3/10

Day 208: Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer

Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer

Wait, this isn't the Hank Aaron story

The United States has a long history of serial killers. From Son of Sam, to the Zodiac killer, to The BTK Killer, all have cut a bloody swath in their time, terrorizing the masses and sparking intense interest in what makes them do what they do. They have also been the basis for countless horror movies such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween. What is it about serial killers that fits so well in horror movies? Perhaps it is because they can be anyone, like a co-worker or a neighbor. Unlike monsters, serial killers look like you and me. Horror movies use this to their advantage and are able to craft scary, realistic movies that other subgenres of horror cannot.

Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer is a 1986 horror movie starring Michael Rooker (Slither, Mallrats) as Henry. The film begins with various scenes of dead woman, who have been brutally murdered, interspersed with shots of Henry going about his daily life. Becky (Tracy Arnold) has just left her husband and has come to Chicago to stay with her ex-convict brother, Otis (Tom Towles, The Rock, Night Of The Living Dead), who lives with Henry. Becky becomes close with Henry, who confides in her that he killed his prostitute mother when he was young. Becky tells him that her father would rape her when she was a young girl. Becky finds work the next day at a salon and starts raising money in hopes of bringing her child out to Chicago and finding her own place. That night, Henry and Otis pick up two prostitutes. Unable to control himself, Henry kills both women. Unfased, Otis joins Henry in his murders, even bringing a video camera along to tape their acts of depravity to watch them later. Becky informs Henry that she quit her job and is leaving to return home. She tries to seduce him, but he rebuffs her advances. A drunken Otis enters and an embarrassed Henry leaves. Despite being her brother, Otis advances on Becky and rapes her. Henry returns, catching Otis in the act and murders him. What will happen to Henry and Becky?

What a happy, deranged family

Based in part on the life of serial killer Henry Lee Lucas, the movie is a vicious and often times brutal look at the serial killer. Based on a gritty 1980's Chicago backdrop, Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer can most accurately be compared to the movie Maniac. The opening scene, is very powerful, where we see Henry's victims while sounds of their murders play in the background. It is a hauntingly effective idea that surprisingly is not used more. The story itself is very basic and to the point by establishing characters just enough to keep the plot moving. The movie focuses more on the sick depravity of Henry and Otis's murders which do become uncomfortable at times, but that is the entire point. The audience wants to stop these two evil men, but are forced to watch and endure. The movie does make the distinction between Henry, who kills, but has some sense of morals, and Otis who is a depraved deviant. It is a strange feeling to be cheering for Henry at the end, knowing what he has done and what he is capable of. It's like cheering for Tony Soprano.

Michael Rooker's performance really makes Henry work. He is the right amounts of distant, awkward, and vicious. Apparently he stayed in character the entire time during the movie and made some crew members feel incredibly uneasy. Tom Towles is very good as Otis combining murderous glee with sick depravity. The movie was made on a shoe-string budget, but it works to the film's advantage as it is dark, grimy, and simple. The movie is difficult to watch at certain points similarly to The Last House On The Left. I felt uneasy at times, especially knowing that there would be no resolution or true hero to put an end to the chaos. It's this fact that makes the movie all the more real and all the more depressing. 

Just another day at the murder office

Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer is a realistic view into the mind of deranged killers. There is a large amount of blood and violence and is difficult to watch. This certainly should not be considered a “date movie” by any stretch of the imagination. It is sick, dirty, and harsh. Michael Rooker and Tom Towles are both very convincing in their roles and the movie would not be what it is without their performances. If you like your horror “real” you'll probably enjoy Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer.

7/10

Day 188: Sorority House Massacre

Sorority House Massacre

Phi Beta Whoa, Mama

If you only watched horror movies from the 80's, you'd think serial killers were terrorizing sexy girls at every turn. You would think there were horrible mass murders going on in every location imaginable. The 80's were practically a massacre jamboree. Even when “Massacre” wasn't in the title, like Sleepaway Camp for example, you still knew what it was. Crazed killer slashing his way through a bunch of supporting cast members trying to get to one specific character. Despite this cliché, many of these movies were and are still fun to watch. Of course, those are more well-known “Massacre” movies. How about one that sounds like it would fit right in, but you may not have seen.

Sorority House Massacre is a 1986 slasher starring Angela O'Neil as Beth, a young college girl who just joined a sorority. When she moves in to the sorority house, she begins to have strange, realistic dreams involving murder inside the house. She is unaware that as a child, her brother Bobby (John C. Russell, killed their family inside the very same house and was committed to a mental institution. Her sorority sisters Linda, Sara, and Tracy try to determine what the dreams mean while the rest of the house occupants go on a trip. Meanwhile, Bobby has snapped out of his mental stupor and escapes the institution. The girls are joined by a few boys, each one fitting an 80's cliché. Beth's dreams intensify, leaving her clues to what happened when she was a child. Through her dreams, she is able to find the knife Bobby used to kill her family. Bobby arrives at the house, looking to finish his business and kill Beth. He terrorizes the house, stabbing and killing the boys and most of the kills. Will Beth be able to stop him?

And will she still look like Tom Cruise?

If it feels like I skipped over a lot of story or missed something, I didn't. The movie is only about an hour and fifteen minutes long and there really is no violence until about 25 minutes left. You would think that by having a shorter movie, they'd get to the killing quicker, but no, they take their sweet time telling a story that we've all seen before in far better movies. It's not like they filled in that time with important dialogue or foreshadowing. We're “treated” to a scene where the girls try on different horrendous 80's clothes set to wailing sitcom saxophone. I guess they needed an excuse to show the girls topless, but come on, trying on clothes? That does not make for good movie watching. The story and certain scenes are very similar to Halloween. Shooting from the killer's perspective, never really seeing his face, killing as a child and going to a mental institution. Even the knife is similar. Unintentional laughs insure when Bobby walks into a hardware store and, instead of grabbing a mask like Michael Myers, he just smashes a glass case with his hand and steals a knife. They weren't exactly going for subtlety or atmosphere.

The movie tries to go a different route with the dream sequences, but they are confusing and not put together well. It is difficult to tell what is going on between dream and reality, but not in the good, crazy “whoa that was just a dream” way. It's more like “What the hell is going on. Oh, it's a dream. So?” Many scenes are too dark and the direction is too shoddy to always follow what is happening. The acting is passable, which is actually a compliment considering that the actors did not have much to work with in terms of story or dialogue. The wacky dreams bring to mind Slumber Party Massacre II, which came out not too long after Sorority House Massacre. I don't know, maybe I just have “S-word noun Massacre” movies on the brain. It actually took some effort not to type Slumber Party Massacre instead of Sorority House Massacre while writing this review.

 How can 3 sorority girls look so unsexy?

The 70's and 80's were a great time for slasher flicks. Somewhere towards the middle of the 1980's, though, the movies became lazy, repetitive, and cliched. Sorority House Massacre falls into all three of those descriptions as the story is too similar to Halloween. We've seen this type of movie many times before and when you don't do anything special to make it stand out, it's not going to end well. It takes too long to get to the slashing and there is a serious lack of blood and gore. There are no creative kills and a lack of suspense. The dream sequences were an attempt at creativity, but they failed to elicit any real depth or emotion. There is a good reason why the majority of people haven't seen or even heard of Sorority House Massacre.

3/10

Day 179: Maniac

Maniac

Aw, he got raspberry jam all over his shoes

The 1970's and early 80's were a crazy time, especially in New York City. The economy was in the dumps, racial tension was high, crime and drug use was rampant, and disco was popular. It was the perfect setting for plenty of great movies such as Taxi Driver, The Godfather, Death Wish, Raging Bull and Dog Day Afternoon. The grim and gritty backdrop was perfect for movies in need of a “real” setting. It's only natural that a horror movie would use that same setting to create fear and terror.

Maniac is a 1980 horror serial killer film co-written by and starring Joe Spinell (The Godfather Part II, Rocky) as Frank Zito. Frank is a homicidal schizophrenic, killing women, scalping them, and fixing the scalps to the heads of mannequins that he keeps in his tiny apartment. We see him carrying on conversations with his long-dead, abusive mother. The body count rises and police are unable to pinpoint who the killer is. One day, Frank sees a fashion photographre named Anna take his photo in the park. He finds her bag and is able to track her down. He controls himself long enough to appear normal and intelligent, even going out to dinner with Anna. While visiting her on the set of one of her shoots, Frank becomes enamored with one of her models, Rita. He steals her necklace and uses it as a reason to go to her apartment. Once she lets him in, Frank ties her up and speaks to her as if she is his mother and he has finally been reunited with her. He stabs her to death before scalping her and dismembering her body. Frank takes Anna to his mother's grave where his grip on reality completely slips as he tries to attack Anna. She is able to hit Frank with a shovel and runs. Frank weeps at his mother's grave and hallucinates that she is now a zombie and is trying to kill him. Will Anna be able to survive and who, or what, can stop Frank?

I love what I've done with your hair

The biggest problem with Maniac is the story, or lack thereof. Maniac is essentially a combination of real-life killers Ed Gein and Son of Sam. There is no real story to speak of until the last 30 minutes of the movie. Prior to that, we basically watch Frank stalk and murder a few different women. Any female character that is introduced is just killed by Frank, so it's not like we have any connection or feelings towards these characters. What compounds the problem is that these killing scenes are far too long. They all have good suspense because we know what is going to happen and are just waiting. And waiting. And waiting. I actually lost suspense, if that's even possible. There are some jolts, mostly due to the makeup and effects by Tom Savini (Dawn of the Dead, From Dusk Till Dawn), who even makes an appearance in the movie. That appearance is cut short when Frank blows his head off with a shotgun in a scene that is both gruesome and impressive as Savini's “head” explodes like a paint-filled melon.

The movie mostly focuses on Frank's schizophrenic conversations which, admittedly, are very terrifying. It's like being part of a peepshow, peering in to the cracked psyche of a madman. Joe Spinell does a superb job convincing me that he was insane, especially since many of his scenes are by himself. It also helps that he looks like a sweatier version of Ron Jeremy. His transition from seething lunatic to polite, even charming man is very impressive, but it comes out of nowhere and was unexpected. Why not start the movie with his relationship with Anna instead of waiting until the very end? The movie really goes off the rails in the last 10 minutes with the addition of Frank's mother and victims appearing as zombies. Zombies?! Where did this come from? For a movie that went for gritty and “real”, the ending did a complete 180 and crashed into a cliff made of “Huh?!”

F-F-fuck

Maniac does fit in with the other dirty New York City movies of the era, but goes more for shock and blood than story or feeling. It focuses far too much on stalking and violence for the first hour, leaving the last act to feel rushed and out of place. It would have been better if this was reversed because for a majority of the movie, there is no plot other than Frank killing women because he's nuts. Joe Spinell puts on a great performance, both visually and emotionally. Tom Savini's makeup and effects are as good as always with lots of blood and gore. Ultimately, Maniac has a few good things about it, but it's not enough to make it a complete watch.

6/10

Day 132: Midnight Movie

Midnight Movie

One-stop chop-shop

Taking bits and pieces from other films rarely makes a for a good watch. How many times do you hear someone say something like “It's like 'Jaws', but with aliens!” or “It's like a mixture of 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' with “'Lord of the Rings'”? Most of the time, writers and producers are saying the same thing in order for their movie to get made. Call it a lack of originality, in search of a quick buck, or just being lazy, but it's how a lot of entertainment is created today. Horror is a genre where mixing different ideas could either lead to a fun watch or something incredibly terrible.

Midnight Movie is a 2008 slasher horror movie starring Rebekah Brandes (Grim Reaper, Slaughter Party) as Bridget and Daniel Bonjour (Dragon Quest, Beast Beneath) as Josh. In the 1970's, a slasher movie named The Dark Beneath was released, directed and starring Ted Radford. The movie drove him mad and sent him to the psych ward. Years later, a doctor thought it would be therapeutic for him to watch the movie again, ignoring the warnings of Dr. Dave Wayne. Rather than soothing Radford, he throws him into a homicidal rage, killing 70 people and disappearing. Five years later, The Dark Beneath is being show at a grindhouse movie theater. Bridget and Josh attend with their friends Mario, Samantha, and Sully. Also in attendance are a biker named Harley, his old lady Babe, Detective Barrons, who worked on the original Radford case and Dr. Wayne. As they watch the movie, it switches from a first person point of view as the skull-masked killer murders his prey. As it turns out, Radford is actually leaving the movie, entering the real world, and killing people, much to the amusement of the audience who thinks it's all an act. When Sully is killed, they finally realize that this is no special effect and are in real danger. It's made even worse when Bridget's little brother, Timmy, sneaks into the theater. Bullets do not hurt Radford and he starts to kill off the audience one by one. He uses his powers to lock them in the theater while simultaneously shielding them from being seen by the outside world. Will Bridget and Timmy be able to escape from this horror movie come to life and will anyone believe their story?

No tongues!

This movie is a weird mixture of The Ring, 70's slashers like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Friday the 13^th. It's an interesting take on multiple genres, I'll give them that. One good thing about giving your own twist on the supernatural slasher subgenre is that you can create your own rules. We all know that you have to shoot a zombie in the head or drive a stake through a vampire's heart. By going off into your own, relatively original, idea, you have the freedom to say what can or cannot happen. The problem that Midnight Movie runs into is that by making up their own rules, it feels like they just tossed ideas against the wall and hoped some would stick. It's never really explained why Radford could jump in and out of the movie, why he couldn't be hurt, and how he was able to block the police from seeing inside the movie theater.

The idea for Midnight Movie reminded me a little bit of Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns. The idea of a movie driving someone insane and causing them to kill is somewhat similar, though in Cigarette Burns they tease the movie throughout, making your really want to see it, but also terrified to what you may behold. In Midnight Movie, there's about 10 minutes of mystery, before they show most of The Dark Beneath, and it's a pretty boring movie. Even one of the characters in the audience points out that it's kind of weak. It's not a big deal, but they could have put a little more effort in the movie within a movie.

The kills throughout are pretty good. Lots of blood and gore to keep slasher fans happy with some nice creativity to keep things from going stale. His weapon of choice is a big corkscrew, which is different, though not as imposing as a machete or butcher knife. Radford has a half skull mask and some sort of Do-rag covering the rest. Why not just give him a whole skull? The acting is good enough to keep me from being distracted, so that's a victory. 

Skull masks - half off

Midnight Movie is a mixture of better horror movies that you'd probably rather watch. The plot is kind of weird and at times confusing and nonsensical. Things are never fully explained or even partially explained. The movie-within-a-movie could have been handled better with a little bit more effort put into making The Dark Beneath actually scary and entertaining. The violence is pretty good and I give them credit for trying something different. The movie ends on a pretty big down note, which was unexpected, but appreciated. I like when movies don't take the easy and expected way out. Ultimately, Midnight Movie is able to entertain despite the lack of a coherent story. It was better than expected and you won't feel terrible for watching it.

5.5/10