January 31, 2010

Night of the Creeps: Best of Tom Atkins

I uploaded this video to my YouTube in 2008, but I figured I'd share it here for everyone. This is basically a compilation of just about all of Tom's best scenes/lines from 'Night of the Creeps.' I know a lot of you hardcore 'Creeps' fans out there will enjoy this.

January 24, 2010

I have dreams... of a rose...

"I still hear from her occasionally, screaming. I think the dead should shut up, unless there's something to say.

I have dreams... of a rose, and then of falling down a long flight of steps. It's the smiles that keep us going. The bits of giggles and good cheer.

I like plays. The good ones... Shakespeare... I like Titus Andronicus the best; it's sweet. Incidentally, did you know that you are talking to an artist? I sometimes do special things to my victims: things that are creative. Of course, it takes knowledge, pride in your work... For example, a decapitated head can continue to see for approximately twenty seconds. So when I have one that's gawking, I always hold it up so that it can see its body. It's a little extra I throw in for no added charge. I must admit it makes me chuckle every time. Life is fun. It's a wonderful life, in fact... for some.

I kill at random... no motive... that's the fun. Catatonics are so easy to possess...

Death, be not proud, though some have called thee mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so.

Well, there I was so awfully dead in that electric chair. I didn't like it. Would you? It's upsetting. There was still so much killing to do, and there I was, in the void, without a body. But then along came - well - my friend. You know. One of them. Those others over there. The cruel ones... the Master. He thought my work should continue. But in this body. This body in particular, in fact. Let's call it revenge. A certain matter of an exorcism, I think, in which your friend Father Karras expelled certain parties from the body of a child. Certain parties were not pleased, to say the least. The very least. And so, my friend, the Master, he devised this petty scheme as a way of getting back, of creating a stumbling block, a scandal, a horror to the eyes of all men seeking faith, using the body of this saintly priest as an instrument of, well, you know - my work. But the main thing is the torment of your friend Father Karras as he watches while I rip and cut and mutilate the innocent, his friends, and again, and again, on and on! He's inside with us! He'll never get away! His pain won't end!

Gracious me. Was I raving? Please forgive me. I'm mad."

-Patient X/The Gemini Killer

January 23, 2010

The Halloween series...

Last night, I took a good 15 minutes of my friends time away from his life, and explained the entire HALLOWEEN film series to him. Beginning to end, the good and the bad, and the why the hell? And it really all started simply because HALLOWEEN 5 was on television, and he asked me, "Why does he do what he does, anyway?"

Which, of course, allows me to show off my (sad) pop culture knowledge. But, to keep him on the edge of his seat, I had to spice things up a bit with humor and witty sarcasm.

So, I got an idea. He told me, "If you could cut that down to maybe 5-10min, that would be awesome." Which, lead me to the idea that I should do that for my next video on my YouTube account. It's an idea I have been kicking around in the old crazy noggin' of mine, I've just never gone ahead and done so. And...my YouTube account could use a worthy video updating. For crying out loud, the last video I did had to do with food.

So anyway, I think it's something I am going to do. I'll definitely have to find a way to cut down most of the things I said to him to make the video a worthy length, and also all the more entertaining.

(Don't worry, I won't skip this one. How could I?)

January 22, 2010

If I were to ever cast a Slasher flick...

Final Girl/Guy: Patrick Fugit
Best Friend: Paul Rudd
Romantic Interest: Lizzy Caplan
Intro Kill: Isla Fisher
Revealed Killer: Robert Knepper
Token Black person: Mos def
Cop/Sheriff: Giuseppe Andrews
Cameo: Jack Nicholson.

January 21, 2010

My Review: Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN 2

"I know he's not gonna come back just because of some stupid holiday..."-Laurie Strode
"What a fuckin' horrible film." - Myself.

Years ago, Rob Zombie delivered his vision of the Halloween franchise; it was a project greeted with almost universal animosity, as many (included yours truly) felt that his style wasn't fit for the popular horror series. This ended up being the case, as the film was a complete mess all the way around: the script was weak and lacked direction, the film was incompetently lensed, and there was ultimately very little redeeming value. The only silver lining was the fact that Zombie himself claimed he wouldn't return to do a sequel, which would hopefully leave the franchise with someone better suited for the material. Of course, this didn't end up happening at all, as Rob Zombie's Halloween II was announced late last year, igniting an internet firestorm whose flames were fanned at every turn as news about the project began to leak. A hobo, unmasked Myers taking orders from an undead Sherri Moon Zombie, Laurie Strode being infected with Zombie's trailer trash bug, and a mysterious white horse had filled horror headlines for months.

I went into this movie, praying that I would come out liking it. Sadly, that was not the case. Now, I might bitch a lot about some things in RZH. I'm a die hard fan of the original, and nothing will change that, so of course I was hesitant when a remake was announced. However, I welcomed the thought of change. I was never happy with most of the sequels, and felt that the series got boring and stale at the end. Not to mention that I think Halloween: Resurrection was the worst piece of shit.

Walking out of the theater, I could ultimately decide how I felt about the film. This was one of the most frustrating films I have ever seen.

Frustrating in the sense that I'm, at heart, a die hard Halloween fan. I may bitch about the sequels a lot, but they sit proudly on my shelf (including Resurrection, haha). Frustrating that this could very well be the last Halloween film we see for a long time. Frustrating that this film had a good concept, but poor, poor execution.

The plot of Halloween II at its core is pretty much the same as many of the sequels: Michael's back in town and looking to kill off a relative. To be clear, this definitely not a remake of the original Halloween II, as the only similarity between the two is a nightmare sequence set in a hospital at the beginning of the scene. In a way, it's almost the opposite of Zombie's original film in that he gets the familiar elements out of the way first before moving on the completely new material. Unfortunately, the nightmare sequence at the beginning of the film is probably the film's high point, as it's a fairly well done stalk and slash sequence that's unburdened by all the unnecessary plot elements that follow.

I don't care for explaining Myers's psychosis, whether it be a crummy childhood or pagan curses. Myers works best when he's just a walking avatar for pure evil with no sense of humanity whatsoever; reducing him to a child in a man's body as Zombie does represents the ultimate removal from what the character essentially is. Plus, it would seem that Zombie got his wires crossed--as if Myers bursting through doors and otherwise hulking around wasn't enough like Jason Voorhees, Zombie basically reduces him to a mama's boy in the vein of the famous Friday the 13th anti-hero.

His visions just do not work well at all. They essentially feel like waking dreams that follow Myers around, and it's a very awkward and hokey way to convey what's going on in his mind. It lacks any sort of subtlety and exposes Michael's humanity even further; in fact, the film's opening screen provides a written explanation for the significance of the horse itself, and it comes off as if Zombie is over-explaining things and spoon-feeding the audience. I understand what he was going for here, but the execution is very poor. Plus, the character as presented here truly runs counter to Zombie's aim to ground the series in reality, as we never get an explanation for how he survived multiple gunshots (including one to the head), nor do we know how he recognizes Laurie as his sister. To top it all off, a psychic bond seems to form between brother and sister, with the latter actually sharing the former's visions, which is just one of a few ways that Zombie borrows from the previous Halloween sequels he claims to dislike.

The opening of the film was fairly strong. I liked where this was heading. It wasn't until halfway through the van crash, that I started to grow weary. When Michael sees the hallucination of his mother and white horse, I was like "Oh god, no..." The shot where he walks up to them just seemed awkward. When we get to the hospital, the film starts to pick up again. This was a pretty brutal and unrelenting sequence that I found to be the strongest point in the film. Then we find out it was all a dream. This is where the film just goes on a downward slope.

Laurie is a mess after what she went through in the last film. Scout's performance is still still pretty bad. She was just annoying and highly obnoxious throughout the whole thing. I really had no sympathy. I really think Rob Zombie's weakest point is his writing abilities. He seriously needs to consider having someone rewrite his material. "This girl is too coolio for schoolio." It doesn't work. I just didn't buy into her character at all. Her friends were just terrible, and underdeveloped. They came off as characters you'd find in a Friday the 13th film.

Which leads to another complaint I have. This film felt more like a Friday the 13th film than a Halloween film. I'm all for different, but this was a perfect example of how different isn't always better. The characters were very uninteresting, and were only there to be killed off by Michael (which he does a lot of, by the way). Rob Zombie says he doesn't like the Friday the 13th series, but this film shows otherwise.

Also, what the fuck was with Laurie seeing the visions of Deborah and little Mikey? It made zero sense. There was nothing to insinuate that she shared a psychic bond with Michael. It was an unnecessary, and distracting plot hole.

Sheri Moon Zombie and whoever the new little Michael is, were godawful. Another moment in which I couldn't stomach was when Michael goes to the barn, and sees his mother with the white horse, and she says the "time to bring us home" (or something to that effect) line, and little Michael responds. I understand that these were supposed to be deranged visions that Michael had, and they were supposed to be caricatures of Deborah and Little Michael, but that acting was atrocious.

Malcolm McDowell was an asshole in this. He's just a fucking prick, and really served no purpose in this film other than to be killed off by Michael. His death was actually one of the moments where I was HAPPY to see a character die, simply because it was terribly used and written, and nothing like the classic Loomis I know.

There's also a huge problem with the Loomis character. Many will no doubt dislike his sleazy nature, but the even bigger problem here is that he has absolutely no relevance to the story whatsoever besides serving as a running punchline throughout the film. While he's no doubt unfairly accused of being responsible for Michael's reign of terror, it's hard to feel sympathy for a guy that's this sleazy; however, the character could be justified if he ever contributed anything to the film, which he doesn't. In fact, he's largely removed from the main storyline until the very end. Thankfully Brad Dourif is around once again as Sheriff Bracket, who ends up feeling more like Loomis than Loomis himself does. Without a doubt, Dourif is the heart of the film and actually provides someone to root for. It's too bad that the entire movie couldn't be a Dourif vs. Myers showdown because the other lone bright spot from the original film, Scout Taylor-Compton's Laurie Strode, is almost unrecognizable and feels like another one of Zombie's trashy cliches. While the character has some decent moments and manages to elicit a bit of sympathy, she ultimately feels lost in all the chaos. Zombie has already commented that his director's cut will flesh out Laurie and make the film even more about her, so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

I was happy to see that Danielle Harris got a lot of screen time. Brad Dourif put in a pretty good performance. I'm trying to figure out who was more pointless in the overall scheme of things: Loomis or Annie. At least Annie's death resulted in an uber-pissed Dourif.

Unfortunately, the ending sets up for a possible sequel.

My Rating: 3/10

I'd like to see this.

I don't care how ludicrous the idea may sound, or how unnecessary it would be to the world of film... but, like I said, I don't care. I would just love to one day see a film on Mason Verger, the character from HANNIBAL portrayed (wonderfully) by Gary Oldman.

Now, yes, we did get a good amount of back story to his character via the HANNIBAL film, enough to warrant a film based solely around him pointless. But, I find it interesting, okay?

Friday the 13th (film series) thoughts...

If you ask most die hard fans of the Friday the 13th films, they will tell you that the later films made by New Line Cinema aren't that great or are just plain awful. I have personally analyzed and thought about each film that was made by New Line and did draw the conclusion that they are pretty awful. The lack of continuity, the crappy dialogue, and don't get me started on the abysmal acting (not saying that the original series by Paramount (parts 1 -8) didn't have it's faults though).

It really occurred to me that New Line had no idea what in the hell they were doing and were mainly just trying to exploit the character of Jason Voorhees just as Paramount did and possibly squeeze a few pennies more out of the Franchise.

Jason became a product, look at all the merchandise that has come out since the early '90's. Exploiting the character, especially with Freddy vs. Jason. I like Jason goes to Hell more as a standalone film. Jason X has its moments butFreddy vs Jason is a mess. The movies don't have the F13 'feeling' Parts 1-8 had. But talking about that, the true F13 feeling for me ended with 5. None of the Paramount films were great works of art. The first five follow a relative simple and static formula that has a few differences, but don't deviate too greatly. Even if they were the best damn films ever made, it would eventually get tiresome and run it's course.

Starting with the fifth entry and moving all the way up to the eighth, Paramount tried to change things up. Jason was now completely different in character as his actions kept becoming more violent, his demeanor was of someone who just had to tear everything to pieces in a fit of rage, and he started even moving differently.

The story, continuity, and all that fun stuff was retconned back even once again creating a cluster fuck of what really happened to Jason. Heck, trying to piece together six, seven, and eight into a time line that works equals into having your head exploded by Michael Ironside via his Scanner's power.

So what did the New Line film's do that was so much worse? Jason Goes To Hell? Made the history of Jason even more convoluted, but by that point, it was already in the shitter so big whoop. It has a heal demon/whatever? Up to this point we have some retarded mongoloid who died, but didn't, but actually did die taking fatal damage and continuing to live only to eventually die, but get brought back to life even stronger and get stopped by some occult method to get set free to fight Carrie before being brought back to life again to drive a boat out of a lake. Yeah, by that point a hell baby wasn't that far fetched to me.

Oh, but maybe it's because Jason didn't act like Jason in any of the New Line films? Jason didn't act in a consistent manner in the Paramount films. First it's him taking on those that moved in next door to his old camp. He then goes after folks who are further down by the lake. Then it's folks in a morgue to eventually attacking people who aren't even right next to the lake. It got to the point where if you were in his way or somewhat, sorta, kinda near Camp Blood that he would come after you. Of course, why didn't he go after those folks who've lived there around the lake before? Shhhh shut up, that's why. Same deal up until he goes to Vancouver (New York). Here, you would think Jason would have a field day as there's tons of people between him and his prey and he even went out of his way to venture out from Camp Crystal Lake's area......oh wait, nope, he really doesn't mess with anyone in New York unless they actually try to get in his path. Now he's being picky.

So what about Jason X? It's nothing more than a regular Friday flick with a sci-fi backdrop. He's still roaming around killing expendable meat bags. Oh, his look changed? After his look changing between each film however many times, this shouldn't be an issue. Heck, by the end he's back at a planet that, while in the far future, has the fashion sense of what the late 80's-mid 90's brought us. Freddy Versus Jason. It's an event film. What the hell did you expect? Freddy fighting Jason is in the title so there you go. Did you want the film to portray Jason differently? Fair enough. Given what the film is about though, it's not going to be drastically different from what we got.

Then...we got the remake. That...I'm saving my thoughts on that abysmal piece of trash for another time.

Ryan Reynolds is... BURIED

Been hearing A LOT about this one for what seems like forever now, and their is finally some sort of update on the whole thing.

With the Sundance Film Festival about to go down, there are trailers and clips online for a slew of films that will be showcased there. One of which, is BURIED, starring Ryan Reynolds as Paul Conroy who is a U.S. citizen working as a contract driver in Iraq. After a swift and sudden attack on his convoy, he awakens to find himself buried alive inside a coffin with nothing more than a lighter, a cell phone, and little memory of how he ended up there. Faced with limited oxygen and unlimited panic, Paul finds himself in a tension-filled race against time to escape this claustrophobic deathtrap before it's too late.

If that doesn't sound interesting to you, then damn, get your head out of your ass. Reynolds would be carrying the film (which will more than likely be an hour and a half) in the coffin. And from what things have been said online about the film, that's all it'll be. It may seem like a 'blah' kind of approach, which to some, may grow tiresome after some time, but I think Reynolds will be able to keep us intrigued.

MTV has recently put up the Teaser trailer for the film, as well as an exclusive clip. I'm putting the clip first, then the trailer...because they kind of blend in with one another.

January 19, 2010

Here ya' go...

These aren't really all that new to me, as I am usually surfing the crazy world of YouTube on a daily basis for all things Horror. BUT, I figured I'd post these here for those of you who may not have seen them just yet.

Horror: Will it ever be taken seriously?

Okay, let's face it, even though the horror genre has a huge following, it's still frowned upon by most critics, and a lot of people still like to claim they create killer's when they don't. In any case, I think it's going to take a really strong horror movie that breaks ground to get the critics & some of the general audience to view horror films more seriously.

I'd like to see more story based horror films. Yes, I love horror films with blood, gore, violence, etc, but at the same time, I wouldn't mind seeing more mainstream horror films that don't have a bunch of that, or if they do, there's a good story around it as well.

I dunno what it is about horror, but it does seem like everyone focuses on the shittier movies to come forth from the genre and tend to use them as a reflection of it. It's not like every other genre out there just pumps out quality stuff at every turn, but I guess they're just not looked at as trash cinema like a lot of horror is.

Of course, none of this matters because if there's one genre that won't ever die due to poor critical reception, it's horror. It's been a staple since the beginning of cinema and will continue to do so, and if you ask me, it's at a good place right now if you take in the entirety of the offerings out there. Sure, there's always going to be a lot more shit than high quality movies, but that's just how it's going to be for any genre.

The horror devotees grasp onto something that most just don't get. It's kind of like how I just can't do sci-fi movies in general. Now, that's not to say I can shit on Back to the Future, I fucking love it, but there's just a part of those movies that is completely alien to me. I suspect that's the way it is with critics and horror. A guy in a mask slashing women in the woods just won't appeal to all of those who have broad tastes in real film. For me, an 8/10 in a drama and a 8/10 in a horror are completely different things.

For me, there are only a handful of horror films I would rank up there with the best films of all time. The stairway is just too crowded to put a Jason movie in. Actually, putting a Jason movie amongst the top 50 horror films of all time would be a damn near impossible thing to do, at that. And to most people, Jason and cronies are horror. The best horror films are usually the ones that made no money and nobody watches or have been forgotten or never bothered to have been explored by different generations. And you go to a guy like Ebert's "Great Movies" list and you will find horror in the form of Faust, Nosferatu, Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula, etc. But how many "horror" fans even bother with those? Not that many, no siree.

People will always frown at this genre. It's always been one that's been driven by fans, and it's certainly the one where fans need to stick with each other to get a valid appraisal of a movie. Most mainstream critics are going to be overly critical of a majority of horror flicks simply because they're not into them; this is not to say they don't comprehend them, but they don't see any validity in watching Jason Voorhees chop up kids. At best, you'll get a serviceable review where the reviewer comes down off the high horse and praises a slasher for excelling at what it sets out to do. And even that's not likely to garner high praise and set the film alongside a real movie.

It's like when Ebert gave the latest F13 a semi-positive review--you could tell it was analogous to pulling teeth for him, but I think he finally understood the context of those films and a 2 1/2 star rating (or whatever he gave it) for that wouldn't be the same thing as a 2 1/2 star rating for a drama or any other genre.

And when those rare great horror films do come out, it's something special. It's probably the least represented genre when you try to figure out the top 100 films of all time, but it's probably not that much less represented than others. If you look at AFI's top 100, it's a pretty diverse list. Off hand, I would probably guess it leans a lot towards dramas, but there's also westerns, musicals, sci-fi, and action. Lump in the suspense thrillers with the horror, and the genre is pretty well represented. It doesn't help the general perception of course, but that's what happens when a good majority of horror films really aren't great movies.

For every Halloween or Psycho, there's 50 really bad slasher movies; for every Evil Dead or Nightmare on Elm Street, there's a bunch of really low grade creature features from the 40s and 50s. I don't get why most people focus on all the crap more so than they focus on all the shitty movies churned out by other genres, but that's the way she goes I guess.

January 17, 2010

Random thoughts on: The HELLRAISER series, and more.

The book (The Hellbound Heart) by Clive Barker was nothing short of amazing.

The first two films, I think, are by far the best of the entire series. Even though HELLBOUND had a different director, it still had the same look and feel as the first one. And I feel that is where the great lore and everything that comes with that in pertinence to Hellraiser ended.

With part 3, you get the strong inkling that they're really trying to make Pinhead out to be a 'memorable' Horror Villains, and not just of the cult status kind, of which the cenobites held with 1 and 2. Pinhead is greatly different in part 3, almost comical, and his demeanor just seemed very off from what I loved about the character in the first place. And please, Pinhead...STOP LAUGHING before/after everything you say! The Cenobites in this one were terrible as well.

Now, I know for Bloodline that there is practically a totally different version in existence, but I really don't care. I couldn't stand Bloodline. It was too all over the place for me, and was added way too much into the history than it needed, and took away a lot of the mystic that I loved with Hellraiser.

The rest of the sequels...well, what hasn't been said about them. They're TERRIBLE. 'Nuff said.

As for the remake...I'm really NOT looking forward to it. But, what I can say is this:

If a HELLRAISER remake is ever going to happen, I will be very hard pressed to ever get behind that one...unless Clive Barker is involved. If he is involved either with Writing or Directing, then I might be interested. But if not, color me not interested, because then you would be physically raping the very viber of my Horror being. There is no way that any film studio could go ahead with a brilliant idea of HELLRAISER in today's day and age with what we were originally given. That film is a cult classic, and has become highly recognized in the Horror genre. You can't bring any of the elements from Clive's novel, or film, to a movie executive today and expect them to be okay with any of it. So, in turn, that means that they would only be cashing in on the name and characters, not what the story is known for in certain Horror circles. But, if it were to be made, and the right way for that matter, I think that there is only one way to go with it. Have all the elements from Clives novel in tact (most of the things the original film was missing, but didn't hinder the film at all), but have Pinhead now be an older essence of evil. Simply because Doug Bradly has aged a pretty good amount since the first Hellraiser film, so I think they could work that into the remake. Have the evil that is Pinhead be an older evil, more dark and foreboding, and has been around for ages, and is more powerful than the original incarnation of Pinhead that we know and love. Of course, still have all the Cenobites there, including Butterball and Chatterer and the Female Cenobite, because altering them, or even taking them away from the story, would be blasphemous. And yes...KEEP all the Necrophiliac-ish things in tact, as well as the small incestuous story points. If you take those away, the story really loses a lot of it's punch. And, if that were given to today's American audience, people will be really blown away.

God Damn it...I should write my own treatment for a HELLRAISER remake. Eh...just some self made food for though, I suppose.

I know Clive really wants nothing to do with Directing anymore, and I know he cares deeply about Hellraiser and things of the sort...I just wish that one day he will come to his senses (because he is a VERY smart man) and clean up all the mess leftover by so many other writers and film makers.

January 16, 2010

Review: Jason Goes To Hell

I haven't watched this entry in the Friday the 13th franchise in some time. Now...I remember it being truly bad...but not that bad. Still...it's not as bad as Jason X. But still...it's quite different than any of the other installments, and warrants some attention...and basically SOMETHING to have this film make some sense.

With this film, at least some theory can be made to fix all the writing total lack of attention that has been given to the previous films.. Yes, Jason is now a creature of some sort. Yeah...you read that correctly. Sure, there's the Necronomican (from The Evil Dead) that was thrown in as an inside joke between the director and good pal Sam Raimi. With that, and the supposed idea that Pamela Voorhees went so far off the deep end she tried anything to get her son back, one could say that she used some passage to resurrect him after some amount of time since his death. He drowned, he was dead, some form of energy of him still haunted the place, Pamela brought him back via some occult method yet how was she supposed to know it worked? Is that good writing? Oh god, no. Is that far fetched? Sure...but...isn't the rest of the series?

Oh, by the way...Jason can now "body hop". Let's be honest, this character has been gaining more abilities since his introduction in part 2. First he's dead. Next, he's a grown man that many fans insist is just a regular human mongoloid. He possesses abnormal strength to the point of crushing skulls and taking multiple fatal injuries such as a broken neck, a slice into his shoulder and upper body that would have blood filling his lungs, and an ax to the head...as well as a slew of others.The guy somehow still lived. In The Final Chapter, he gets whacked in the side of the head with his own machete, it imbeds in his skull, and he falls on his machete which slices through his head. It's hard to say if he actually died then or not as he twitches. Bodies twitch sometimes right after death. Sometimes not. Tommy Jarvis then hacks at his body and he's now officially dead.

For some reason, his maggot filled, husk of a corpse is brought back to life thanks to lightning in Jason Lives. I don't mean he's now a living husk, but he's full of muscle. He's also even more stronger and durable. Eventually, he gains the power to teleport in Jason takes Manhattan. Yes, you can say it's bad film making, via very poor editing. Point is, he's either teleporting or moving at lightning speed here. By Jason X, it's discussed that he may have the power to regenerate his own cells despite lack of evidence in that film or the previous ones.

To think that if his body was blown up that there would be something else to this guy who's obviously supernatural to some degree not only at the start, but midway through the series isn't a stretch. It would be one thing if, say, Pamela was brought back in Friday the 13th II and was running around as a demon. That's a stretch since we went from completely normal human to that. With Jason, he's been evolving more ever since.

Voorhees daggers? Hell? Bloodlines? None of that is worse than what we've seen. There's always been some supernatural element to him and more so if occult methods are brought into play. Him having relatives should have been an assumption in the first place given that we're not told anything about Pamela's relatives nor his father and who he may have gone and slept with. Though still...just springing the whole 'sister' angle on us was a retarded move.

It's not like the other films. Seriously, you want to watch Jason hack off folks at a camp...watch the previous installments for those. By the time he turned zombie-fied, something was going to change..and of course not for the better. He can take the damage even more. The New Blood already took abnormal activities a step further introducing a Carrie-wannabe. VI-VIII all tried something different and they each have their fans. If you want the previous formula, those films are still around, but story wise it makes little sense for Jason to go through the same mess each time given his newly made up abilities.

Yes, this film just takes the path the previous entries made by trying new things. And to some degree there are plenty of reasons to condemn this one. The new supernatural element isn't a bother other than why didn't it appear when Jason was hacked up, but given that this series already had that type of element, it's nothing new. It even offers a window into explaining the terribly written history of Jason into something more coherent.

But still...it could have been executed a whole lot better.

House/Hausu (1977)

Was just introduced to this film via a Message Board that I frequent. I must hunt down and find this film. If a movie contains a scene LIKE THIS...who knows what else it could showcase.

January 15, 2010

Why I associate so much with Horror Movies...

Anyone who knows me best...and can see my DVD self...you'll notice that a GREAT Deal (but not all) of it consists of simply horror movies. Whether it being from the 80's, 90's or certain recent flicks, I can't get enough of the genre. Especially the cheap-o cheesy ones. Horror films have been a staple of my life dating back to my childhood, so it kind of sticks with me to this day. Hell...even when I'm posting links to movie news on the main Facebook feed, or to movie trailers...they mainly consist of Horror.

It happened one night when I was about 6 or 7 years old. After years of living my life with a handful of kids movies and things kids are usually doing at that age, my Mom decided to allow me to actually choose a film when we went to the corner video store. Of course, I inevitably chose "Hallowen" based on the cover alone (I now have a Tattoo of the Knife-Pumpkin art on my left arm). Of course she wasn't happy with my movie choice, but at that age I bitched and moaned until I got what I wanted. So... I sat down to watch it.

I'm not sure what it was about that night. Maybe it was the perfect, late night setting, but the film chilled me to my bones. In fact, that's one of the last times I can ever remember being completely scared by a horror movie, and it invigorated my love for the franchise. It seemed like week after week I was watching the next sequel all the way up to part 5. The sixth film in the franchise was released in 1995...and I went to the theater with my Mom and Brother to see it. And my god...the moment Michael Myers showed up on screen, it was surreal. I was finally seeing the character that scared the ever loving shit out of me...on the big screen.

These days, I regard it as the most complete and perfect slasher film ever created. It's the one that I appreciate the most as a masterwork of the genre, as it led me to SO many other films.

With me personally, I strive to express my opinion on a movie truthfully, and it's not incredibly hard since I'm into pretty much anything. While horror fans generally aren't too hard to please, and I think it's a nature of the art form and not a slander on the quality we require, I always would hate it when a friend would watch a movie like "Prom Night" and say it wasn't as good as "Halloween." To top a "Halloween" or "Dawn of the Dead" in the horror world would be like a new drama overthrowing something great like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" or a hot-shot star becoming the next "Dirty Harry." These movies are classics for a reason, and I sure don't go into a film with the notion that it could ever top something like that.

So, when I expressing my opinion on something pretty out there, I am not worried about it topping "The Beyond," I'm more concerned about covering whether or not it even deserves to have the name Lucio Fulci attached to it. With others, I'm not really expecting it to take the place of "Psycho," I'm more interested in how it works in the mid-tier slasher realm. Basically, I express my honest horror opinion for the obsessed guys who are wanting to know if the couple bucks is worth it or if it's just a total disaster and not even worthy of your time. Having been (and still being) in that position of checking out people's reviews; it's my way of giving back to the horror community what I took so much from as a beginner.

Every movie has a place and deserve to be treated as so. At the same time, I don't want anyone to confuse my positive opinion for "Pieces" to be anything like a positive opinion for the original "Black Christmas." As a kid, I remember just absorbing and vegging out on all the Halloween's, Freddy's and Jason movies I could get my hands on, not because I was bored, but because there was nothing I'd rather do besides maybe play some Nintendo or see if CineMax was airing Porky's. Like all other horror fans, I have romantic memories of these days.

To be perfectly honest with you, I'm pretty content with whatever trend makes the round at any particular time, because Hollywood working in a different direction, although always well tread, is pretty much all you can hope for. I'm genuinely scared one day they will stop trying to even bother with shifting trends and just give us PG-13 slashers until we all expire. I really dug the zombie craze that went on for a few years that brought us a new Re-Animator, Dawn of the Dead remake and a few others. That fad wore out and the slasher took over and now gimmicks seem to be making their rounds. Actually, the revival of older franchises that is still going on today I'm not too keen on it.

I would just like for a Horror film to finally come along again, and at my age now...genuinely scare the shit out of me.

Maybe I should do it?

Okie Dokie...

I just got this thing all set up, so it may take me a while to get into the swing of things here. I know exactly what I want to do with this thing...it'll just take some getting used to. I gotta get my hands dirty.

Anyway, what you can expect here sometime soon:

  • Horror Movie Reviews
  • Random Horror Movie Thoughts
  • Random Thoughts in general.
I hope that at least sounds somewhat interesting to some of you out there. Either way, I'm really doing this for myself, but if I somehow manage to grab some peoples attention, well then that's still fine by me.