Paranormal Activity 2

How does a movie cause a grown man to be scared to go to bed at night? Do you know how, when you climb into bed, your mind starts reviewing the things you've seen and done and said throughout the day, as you begin to drift off to sleep? And do you know, the way that a nightmare makes you feel? When you wake up from it, and your skin is tingling, and you're sweating, and you turn the light on just to push away the darkness? And you try extra hard not to think about what happened in your nightmare, because the mere thought of it gets you frightened, and you know, that if you don't push it out of your mind, the second you close your eyes, it'll come back, and you won't be able to get back to a peaceful sleep?

Now imagine a movie that makes you feel the way a nightmare makes you feel. It gets you frightened and all tingly. And then think about trying to go to bed after watching that movie. Your thoughts keep straying unavoidably toward the movie, and each time you think about it, you get scared all over again. The only way to sleep like this is to try your hardest to push those thoughts out of your mind, long enough to slip into a hopefully dreamless and restful sleep. Hopefully.

Paranormal Activity 2 follows the same basic formula as the first one. This is a good thing insofar as the first one's formula was a success (I mean at being scary, not at making money, regardless of whether or not that is also true), so it's basically taking a winning formula and using it again. The potential drawback is that the movie may become overly repetitive and predictable. The predictability didn't bother me much, seeing as, even if you know the direction it's headed, you still can't know exactly what's going to happen when; and the repetitiveness didn't bother me either, as I felt they added enough new elements to this film to make it a novel experience in comparison to the first.

One of those is the cast. In the first movie, you had a lonely couple struggling with their ghost problems. In this one, you have a whole family - mom, dad, vulnerable toddler, loyal watchdog, and, my favorite, cute teenage daughter. You might think more people means less scary, but that didn't really turn out to be the case. We also get, in addition to the handheld camera POV we had in the first movie, a whole security system set up inside the house, with multiple stationary views of the house, with night vision, allowing for more consistent coverage of the hauntings.

And another thing, I felt that they successfully upped the ante in terms of the hauntings in this movie, which is exactly what I would expect from a sequel. It's hard to talk about the scares without spoiling the surprise, so if you haven't seen the movie yet, you might not want to read the next few sentences. The whole pool cleaner thing was far more funny than scary, but it was clearly intended to be that way, and the humor enhanced the audience's sympathy for the characters, I think. My favorite specific haunting is probably when the cupboards shoot open. I felt that was very creepy/effective. But I really can't say anything bad about any of the scares. I felt satisfied by the climax, which, as frightening as the first movie's was, this one was even more chaotic and exciting.

One of the other interesting aspects of this movie is that it manages to be as much a prequel to the first one as a sequel. Most of the action in the movie occurs before the setting of the previous installment, and the plot fleshes out much of what happened in that one, giving it more perspective, and answering some questions. Yet, the movie experience itself, the way that it expands on the first, feels very much like a sequel, so I think it's interesting that the movie manages to be both sequel and prequel simultaneously. And without spoiling too much, the ending very obviously leaves room for a third installment.

I had an observation while watching this movie, which is worthy of mentioning. We go to a movie like this to be scared - essentially for the purpose of entertainment. Of course, if we sympathize with the characters, the idea of being taunted and terrorized by a ghost or demonic spirit is sick and sadistic, and our natural feeling is to say, "stop, why are you doing this?" And you start to think, what is it like from the demon's perspective? Is he scaring these people just for his own amusement? And then you realize, we're sitting here watching this movie, and scared as we are, in the backs of our minds, we're secretly thinking, "I hope the demon does something horrible", because we know it will make for a great scare, and will thus greatly entertain us. And so, it seems, we are participating in the torture, we are, in effect, allying with the demon's sadistic games, and while simultaneously fearing for the characters we want to continue watching their torture...

Paranormal Activity 2 was a great film. I think it was even better than the first, and it's fully possible that it was even scarier (to me) than the first. That's a hard thing to gauge, because fear is subjective, but there's no question that it was at least as scary as the first. I'm excited to be able to say that I went and saw it at its opening midnight showing - and I survived my first night after viewing it! No nightmares so far, but I had to go to sleep with the light on and the radio playing.

It was fun watching the movie last night with a packed audience. As is always the case, sometimes they'll react in certain ways or at certain times that interfere with the flow of the film as you're perceiving it, but it was a mostly constructive atmosphere, in which they laughed at the jokes and jumped at the scares - and it's always fun to experience that type of communal atmosphere, when you can tell that other people are enjoying the movie, too. I think there were actually some girls crying, and possibly somebody who had to run out in the middle of the show (can't say for sure it was due to fear, but one can speculate). I myself felt the tears streaming down my cheek at one point. I wasn't crying out loud, but just the intenseness of the fear was permeating my body, causing me to have that kind of a reaction. Terrifying. Awesome. I'd like to see a third installment in this series, but the bar is set high. I can imagine some angles that would work, though. I guess only time will tell.

Slumber Party Massacre

This is one of those movies that, before seeing it, I thought for sure that it would be too good to be true. I was convinced that it would be some tacky low-budget cash-in on the slasher craze that erupted after the popularity of John Carpenter's Halloween in 1978. But I was wrong, it actually turned out to be a serious slasher with that vintage 80s movie feel. Perhaps not free of cliches (I just shook my head at the cat-in-the-closet gag), but I give it the benefit of the doubt considering that it was made in 1982 - before even the first A Nightmare On Elm Street. Nevertheless, it was an entertaining movie, that builds to an exciting climax (if a rather abrupt ending), and I recommend it to fans of the classic slasher genre. And the fact that the girls are played as eighteen is made up for by the actual inclusion of nudity (in addition to the not infrequent innuendo) - something I was afraid the movie would shy away from.


"Yuck!" "Oh, faker, you were beating off boys in the fifth grade."

Sex as Vice

Seriously, stay away from H.
I just watched a German movie about heroin addiction (based on a true story, I hear) because it stars a really gorgeous young girl. It took me three hours to watch the two hour movie, on account of my constant pausing to take screen caps. I thought to myself, if I had an opportunity to interact with girls as gorgeous as this one more often in my everyday life, I might not be quite so compelled to save images of them when they turn up in movies - because I wouldn't be so desperate for that wonderful feeling I get from gazing at a pretty girl, that I'd feel the need to horde every instance of it that I come across. Then again, it might just be the photographer's impulse in me to capture beauty whenever I see it.

*snap*
It was a really great movie - I don't want the following rant to suggest otherwise. But during the (really graphic) scene where the girl and her boyfriend go through withdrawal, I thought to myself, why is it that this is the kind of scene I have to settle for if I want to watch a 14 year old girl writhing around in her underwear? [As an aside, why do I even need an excuse? Why can't a person admit that watching 14 year old girls writhing around in their underwear can be a pleasurable experience? Why doesn't anyone make films to satisfy that specific need? Or, more importantly, why is it that if somebody made such a movie, they'd probably end up in court or jail or on the gallows?] I could watch a "cleaner" movie that doesn't have the grim drug abuse angle, but I doubt such a movie would include the sexual aspect. Why is it that sex is married to vice? Whether it's drugs, violence (the best thing about the horror genre is gratuitous teenage sexuality, by the way), or just the darker side of sex itself - rape, prostitution, disease - it seems the only way to find anything more interesting than boring, married, under-the-sheets sex is to go underground.

Withdrawal is not pretty. Well, sometimes it is.
There are two issues at work here, the combination of which is making my job as a writer exceedingly difficult. The one is the marriage of sex and vice, and the other is the issue of underage sexuality. I find that the first is amplified in cases involving the second. Underage sex is inherently a controversial topic, that nobody wants to be accused of promoting. Yet it happens. And so, people write stories about it. But it seems like instead of emphasizing the cases where the sex could be a positive experience, it's only acceptable to broach the subject if you paint it in darker colors. Adult sex may sometimes be a happy affair (even when it's not boring, married, under-the-sheets sex), but any serious exploration of underage sex has to associate itself with the seedy world of vice, or else nobody will accept it.

After all, good kids don't have sex, right?
The reason this bothers me is that I don't like the assumption that if I'm attracted to a girl who is only 14 years old, that automatically means that I also want to get her hooked on heroin, and involved in prostitution, and god knows what else. The truth is, she's gorgeous - can you deny that? And if I could be her friend, I'd support her and admire her and I would do everything I could to keep her from going down the path of drug abuse and prostitution, or offer my concern and devotion in the hope that it would help her find the strength to kick the habit. I'd love to see her living a happier life, without having to turn tricks on the street just to afford the next hit, watching her friends die one after another. At the same time, I still think she's attractive and while I don't condone engaging in indiscriminate, unprotected sex, I don't see a problem with acknowledging the sexual side of her nature (like admitting that she looks great in underwear, and even better out of it). It's the whole "sex as vice" attitude that automatically paints this as a dangerous thing. Whatever happened to responsible sexuality (no, I'm not talking about abstinence)? To me, the way I approach sexuality (which doesn't even have to involve sex), it's not a dangerous thing.

It's a beautiful thing.
The older I get, the more keenly aware I am of the prejudice against men who refuse to deny their attraction to girls under the age of majority - even those who are already sexually mature. But because I continue to find young girls attractive, I increasingly feel the need to make the point that there's nothing inherently sinister or criminal about such an attraction. I feel almost stupid having to defend myself on this count, because it's really quite natural the feelings I have, and very common ("18 and over" is a social construct, not a biological mandate). But, the way the world has been moving lately, you'd think it was a crime to admit a girl is sexually desirable if she's under 18 (I certainly get that feeling at times), unless you're strictly her age-peer. Perhaps through honesty we can eventually come to the point where we can separate positive sexuality from vice, so that sex can be seen as more than just a weapon the experienced use to exploit the innocent, or that the innocent wield naively, resulting in blind mutual destruction. For me, it's simply a celebration of life and pleasure and all things that are beautiful in this world. Unless you're a Puritan, where's the sin in that?

Jailbait Rock

I tried to write up a cohesive post about The Runaways after seeing the movie (the first time ;p), but it didn't quite come together. But since The Runaways is definitely my current obsession (or at least one of them), I just have to spend some time talking about them.


The Runaways was an all-girl rock band (officially the first) that formed in Los Angeles and existed during the latter half of the 1970s, and included Joan Jett, who would go on to a successful solo career. I, personally, didn't know about The Runaways until I heard that a film about the band was being shot, starring Hollywood hotties Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning (former Hollywood cutie). I'm not ashamed to admit this was my introduction to the band - and anyway, I love the music, and I've become a genuine fan, so it's win-win, right?


So what's the appeal of The Runaways? It should be obvious. The band (and the movie) combines two of my favorite things in the world - rock music...and jailbait! And on that note, I recommend this refreshingly honest review of the movie. (Go ahead, read it now. I'll wait.)


Isn't the poster hot? "It works on so many levels - and most of them will get you arrested." If you're feeling uncomfortable right about now, then you're probably not a rocker. Rock is raw and rebellious; it is violent and sexual. For all the verbal abuse producer/manager Kim Fowley spewed, he was right about the music. Although I think women's lib was an important part of what The Runaways did (i.e., prove that girls can rock just as hard as men - and boy, can they ever!), women's libido was an equally important component. Which is why I was disappointed by the scene where the band gets upset over Cherie's risqué photoshoot. It's not a distraction, it's an integral part of the formula!


The movie, I am told, is based on the real Cherie Currie's memoir, Neon Angel. As such, it focuses on her and Joan Jett's part of the story, emphasizing the chemistry between the two. The end product is a wildly entertaining rock biopic with lesbian overtones (which gives it a decided advantage over other rock biopics), complete with the requisite kickass soundtrack (I was particularly delighted to hear The Stooges during an especially memorable scene). I saw the movie twice in its limited run (don't be fooled, there was no true "wide" release) and enjoyed it just as much both times. I bumped into a fan after the second showing who [enthusiastically] confessed that it was her ninth viewing! This is a movie that I really recommend.

Compare
After my first viewing of the new movie, I tracked down the other Runaways movie that's been made - Edgeplay. Rather than a fictional dramatization, it's a documentary featuring interviews with the band members (minus Joan Jett, unfortunately) and those who were close to the band. So you get a nice picture of the "true" story (at least how it's remembered by those who were there) of the band, and get to know the real members (instead of actresses playing those members - although Kristen and Dakota did a fantastic job). If you're interested in the gritty details of the band, I definitely recommend it, though for sheer entertainment, the new movie is where it's at.


Now let's talk about the actual band. The Runaways had punk and glam influences, but they were a solid rock band through and through. The drummer (Sandy West) and lead guitarist (Lita Ford) were known to have jammed on Deep Purple songs; Cherie Currie (lead singer) was fond of David Bowie; and Joan Jett (guitar, vocals, songwriting) was largely inspired by Suzi Quatro. The band released their self-titled debut in 1976, followed by Queens of Noise in 1977, and a live album recorded during their tour of Japan in that year (they were an instant hit in Japan). Their first two albums are really good, with a lot of great tracks, and the live album is even better. The lead guitar has more room to breathe in concert (compared to the studio), and the live sound on the album is just great.


What are my favorite tracks? Cherry Bomb, which kicks off the first album, is an infectious hit (in a good way). It was written by Joan Jett and Kim Fowley for Cherie Currie when she was added to the band as the lead singer/frontgirl. The song itself is good, but the symbolism behind it - how it represents Cherie, and the raw sexuality of it - adds to its appeal for me. The closing track of the first album, Dead End Justice, is captivating, with the traded off vocals between Joan and Cherie telling a whole story. I was excited to hear part of that song performed in the movie. I can't possibly name all the songs I like, because then I'd just end up listing their whole discography, but from the second album I like Johnny Guitar, which is a bit different from the rest of the band's songs, and has more guitar noodling than average (hence my interest). Really though, the more I listen to these songs, the more I like them, and the more of them I like.


After the Japan tour/album, Cherie unfortunately quit the band. The next album, Waitin' For The Night, features a stronger (and heavier) Joan presence, as she steps up to fill the gap left by Cherie's departure. Don't get me wrong, I love Joan, and I think the songs on this album are strong - they would sound fantastic played out of context - but together they get a little repetitive, as it sounds like the same basic formula repeated song after song (Fantasies is a standout track, though). The band's fourth and final studio album before disbanding, And Now... The Runaways, took the band in a new direction (thanks to new management). The end result is kinda light and poppy, and mostly not as interesting as the band's earlier material.

But there is plenty to love about this band, that much is certain. And instead of writing a conclusion, I'm gonna take the band's example and just run away. :p If you like what you've read/seen/heard here, be sure to pick up one of their albums, or keep your eye open for the movie.

Horrorfest 4 (2010)

(theater map)
The bad news is that, as of this writing (and it's less than a week away), Horrorfest 4 will not be coming to a theater within an hour's drive of my current location. And considering my schedule, I doubt it would be very worthwhile to make the drive to the nearest theater (and back, let alone on multiple days). I could do it if I wanted to, but as it is, the hassle probably wouldn't outweigh the benefits. Maybe if I had some close friends who were into it, and my schedule was more normal (jeez, you'd think they'd cater horror movies to the night owls), I could make like a day-long movie marathon road trip out of it and that would be fun, but I'm not doing it for myself. I'd just as soon wait and watch the movies in the comfort of my own home, at my leisure.

But, I couldn't help watching the trailers, which are now up (surprise! - trailers before the beginning of the festival!).

Dread

Recently, it was decided to take some of Clive Barker's classic stories from his Books of Blood compilation and make them into feature films. Dread is one of those, following on the heels of Midnight Meat Train, which was utterly shafted in its distribution, and that I still haven't had a chance to see. Dread is a great story about some university students who take their research on fear way too far. I'm really excited about this one, and it's a treat to see it as part of the Horrorfest lineup.

[Unlike Dread, the rest of the films I knew nothing about before watching the trailer and reading the synopses on horrorfestonline.]

Hidden

This one is about a man who returns to his hometown after the death of his mother (who was not a very savory character, it appears), only to uncover some secrets about his past (which affect his present, and maybe his future). From the trailer, this one looks interesting, and it also looks like this might be the one "doppelganger" movie for this year.

Kill Theory

The plot for this one is kind of hard to swallow - a bunch of young people trapped in a house, given a saw-like ultimatum: if one person is left alive by dawn, that person gets to go free, otherwise, they will all be killed. I mean, it's an interesting thing to think about - what would you do? And I guess, just because I think killing anyone, even under those kind of circumstances, would be simply out of the question, I guess that doesn't mean that everyone else in my party would agree. Who can you trust? So, at any rate, I am curious at how this one turns out.

Lake Mungo

Not too clear on the plot of this one - something about a girl who may or may not have drowned in a lake, and may or may not have led a double life - but it looks like it could be really interesting, and more of an arty horror film than the typical brainless coed slasher type fare. Thus, I am intrigued.

The Final

This one looks to be a must-see for me. The setup is thus: high school outcasts get revenge by trapping the popular kids at a fake party, so they can be tortured at the outcasts' whims. Excellent. Ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no way in hell that any of these actors or actresses could convincingly pass for high school aged kids, this looks like it could be a really fun movie, and perhaps a bit of catharsis. But since the outcasts are the torturers, I just hope to god that the popular kids don't find some way to win out in the end...

The Graves

Two sisters get lost in the desert and take a mine tour only to become prey for inbred locals. Essentially. It's funny how good this premise was back in the days of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, when you think about how incredibly tired and uninspiring this premise is these days. To be honest, I have very low expectations for this film, although the one reference in the trailer to Baby Please Don't Go was pretty hilarious.

The Reeds

A group of young people celebrating in a remote and foreign location (a surefire recipe for horror, I tell you) - in this case a river surrounded by reeds - have a potentially fatal run-in with some ghosts living in those reeds. Although the ghosts are kind of meh for me, judging from the trailer, this one has at least some potential for entertainment.

Zombies of Mass Destruction

This one is, obviously, a zomcom. (You know, zombie comedy?). Or else some form of parody. Zombie fan though I am, a comedy fan I am generally not. And though you can have fun with a zombie premise without taking yourself too seriously (see: Planet Terror), the trailer for ZMD left me little in the way of anticipation...

~~~

So, it goes without saying that I can't be sure which movies will be hits without actually seeing them, but judging only from what I have at my disposal right now:

Dread - definite must-see
Lake Mungo, The Final - have to see
Hidden - worth checking out
Kill Theory, The Reeds - could be interesting
The Graves, ZMD - might hold some surprises

Now then, it's too bad about the theaters...

The 36th Chamber of Shaolin

Well, folks, I've finally gotten my hands on an original language copy of The 36th Chamber of Shaolin, which I have previously known under the title of Master Killer. And it's surprising how much I've grown accustomed to the English script and voices. Not to say that they were good, or that I prefer them, but just that it was quite different hearing the movie in a different language. But I'm happy to be able to watch it that way now.

The special features on the DVD were enlightening, including two different interviews with star Gordon Liu (the Master Killer himself), and the commentary by a film critic and a member of the Wu Tang Clan (who goes by the moniker RZA). I had heard about the influence of this particular movie on the hip hop group Wu Tang Clan, and have been curious about just what the connection between kung fu movies and hip hop culture is, since, initially, it seems like such an odd combination. Well, RZA's comments went a long way in solving that mystery for me.

He (and others like him) apparently had a history of watching kung fu movies in the days of his youth, and in addition to being wowed by the action, he felt a connection to the brotherhood of the kung fu clans, and in this particular movie, the theme of fighting against oppression (paralleling the civil rights movement). A very enlightening point of view on this phenomenon of a hip hop group naming itself after a kung fu clan. And in spite of what I may have been expecting, it was quite interesting hearing RZA talk about all the great things about this movie, and the appreciation he has for many Buddhist principles.

Certain comments drew my attention to some of the details that contribute to making this particular kung fu film as good as it is. One of those is the influence of the director Lau Kar-Leung, a kung fu master himself, and his desire to shoot real kung fu in his movies, performed by real kung fu masters. And one of his tricks that is effective but I hadn't consciously noticed until it was brought to my attention, was his use of long shots, in which the participating actors (sometimes including a whole crowd in the fight) would engage in upwards of ten moves to a cut - resulting in a very natural, organic, and impressive display of the fighters' real abilities.

I could talk about other things that make this movie so good, but I'd probably just be rehashing old points. Like how amazing the training sequences at the Shaolin temple (which constitute almost half of the entire movie) are. Or how each of the skills learned turns up later, in the field, showing their application, and that they were learned for a reason, and not just because it looks cool, or to fill time. Also, the critic commentator articulated the appeal of martial arts movies over typical western action films - there seems to be much more rhyme and reason (and choreography) to a martial arts fight; it's more clever, and more like a physical chess game than a brainless brawl. Plus, there's the spiritual aspect to martial arts, that doesn't as often play a role (or as central a role) in western action films.

But I won't belabor those points. I might not be in the best position to say this, as I haven't seen nearly as many martial arts films as I have certain other types of films, but even so, this one stands out for me as being especially good.

The [Animated] Lord of the Rings

Next on my list of holiday swag is the animated Lord of the Rings "trilogy". If I'd ever watched these before, I don't remember them. And it's quite possible that I hadn't, because I recall that my first introduction to Tolkien's epic was through the original novels themselves, and if I remember that, I should be able to remember following up with the animated films. On the other hand, it's also possible that I may have seen one or more of them before reading the books, and promptly forgot about them. Regardless, the point is, I don't remember having seen these before, though I had heard of them, so it was interesting to watch them, especially with Peter Jackson's live action adaptation completed (minus The Hobbit, at least).

I put "trilogy" in quotes above (and, well, here, too) because, though there are three movies, they aren't strictly connected. The Lord of the Rings covers material from The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers, whereas The Return of the King feels more like a sequel to The Hobbit (both of which are Rankin Bass productions) than a continuation of The Lord of the Rings (a Ralph Bakshi film - the same guy who did Wizards).

The Hobbit was pretty good. More or less primitive animation, but it certainly works as a [generally speaking] children's tale. The goblins were actually pretty scary, the way they were drawn, and Smaug was satisfactorily intimidating. I liked Gollum, too - he had a kind of froggy look to him, and his voice/mannerisms were an effective characterization for him, I think.

The Lord of the Rings follows in Bakshi's tradition of using a lot of rotoscoping, which means taking live action film clips and drawing over them. I think the effect worked perfectly in Wizards, but I must say, The Lord of the Rings is a story that I think would have benefited from a more coherent animation style. The rotoscoping effect is really neat, but it seems overused here, and it gets to a point where it's like the film can't decide whether it wants to be animated or live action...

Otherwise, though, the film is not bad. It is downright eerie how similar some of the voices in this film are to those used in Peter Jackson's adaptations, even down to the accents - Frodo and Sam especially. Also, Bakshi's Gollum is less froggy than Rankin Bass's, and actually looks very similar to, again, Peter Jackson's (he's got the same mannerisms, as well). There's no question in my mind that the similarities between this film and Jackson's are not purely coincidental. The story ends at the conclusion to the battle at Helm's Deep, minus Saruman's downfall, the battle of the Ents, or Frodo's encounter with Shelob.

The Return of the King, returning to the animation style of The Hobbit, suffers from trying to pick up a story right in the middle. As I mentioned above, it doesn't pick up where The Lord of the Rings left off, but instead tries to join the story right in the middle, or rather, towards the end, briefly (though maybe not brief enough) recapping everything that's happened up to that point. Some events are thus completely missed, such as those also missing from Bakshi's film - Saruman's end, Shelob, etc.

I did, however, like the depiction of Mordor in this movie. And the Watchers that guard the gates to Cirith Ungol were dealt with much more effectively here than in Peter Jackson's live action adaptation, which is one of the few sticking complaints I had about Jackson's go at the story (since those Watchers were one of the things that stuck in my mind the most from reading the original novels). Otherwise, though, this film overdid the bard treatment, throwing in so many songs that it started feeling like a musical. >.> The songs were effective, but maybe repeated a few too many times. "Where there's a whip there's a way", sung by the orcs (who look just like the creepy goblins from The Hobbit) was amusing, though.

I also liked seeing Eowyn (even if there was no sign of Arwen - I know, I know, her part in the original story wasn't so big to begin with), though the leader of the Ringwraiths had a really stupid voice. Speaking of which, I noticed that some of the Ringwraiths (minus the leader who had a dragon) were riding flying black horses. When I originally read the story, that's how I interpreted "flying steed", so it was neat seeing them depicted that way. Yeah, flying black mini-dragons make a lot more sense, and look really cool. But, well, there's something about first impressions...

Wizards

One of the things I got for Christmas was a DVD of the Ralph Bakshi animated film Wizards. This is a film that I distinctly remember watching when I was quite young, yet I remembered very little of it in detail before re-watching it. And now having done so, I'm very impressed with how good it [still] is.

I also watched the interview with Ralph Bakshi that is included in the special features on the DVD, and is very illuminating. He is obviously very proud of this project. I appreciated his jabs at Disney, and I enjoyed hearing about his approach to creating an animated film, which I absolutely respect.

It's hard to say whether Wizards is a film for kids or adults, because it's basically a standard fairy tale, but with some decidedly adult elements. The way Bakshi describes it, he wanted to create "cartoons" for the family, but (as opposed to the Disney method) he didn't want to sugar up the subject matter and patronize children by kiddifying everything. He was also concerned about being able to make animation to his tastes without being forced into the paradigm of what a "cartoon movie" should be.

The setup for Wizards is pretty dark to begin with. Despite being a fantasy story, it takes place far into the future rather than the past. Thousands of years after the world has been devastated by nuclear holocaust, the last remnants of humanity are mutated beyond recognition, and, with the burying of technology, magic is revived and the fairies/elves/dwarves/etc. return to the land (well, the good parts of the land).

Two brothers are born, one good and one evil, who each become powerful wizards, and are destined to battle one another for the fate of the world. All of this back story is narrated wonderfully by Susan Tyrrell, whose voice just fits the mood perfectly.

And for what is supposedly intended to be a "family" movie, this one pulls no punches. The violence and sexual innuendo is presented shamelessly. And need we even speak of the Nazis? Yes, Nazis. It's one thing to make the monstrous and demonic army of the evil wizard a symbolic reference to the Nazis of WWII, but to actually come right out and have that evil wizard use recovered Nazi propaganda, featuring Hitler himself, to motivate his troops and demoralize his enemies? That's badass.

And the animation style. See "rotoscoping". You might think that the usage of stock footage of Nazi propaganda in an animated film just wouldn't work. But not only does it work here, it's perfect! In the interview, Ralph Bakshi talks about how he had no specific desire to give the film a consistent (read: boring) animation style. And the style changes throughout the film, but again, it works. Visually, this film feels like a treat, not because the animation is finely polished, but because it's just so wild and out there. Rather than sensing the undeniable budget constraints, I instead get the impression that the film is liberated to freely explore outside the limits of traditional one-track animation.

And above all, it's a product of the seventies. I won't even go into the serious issues that are brought up by this film, not least of all the magic vs. technology debate, as that would require a more detailed analysis of the story. But the bottom line is, as a person who's not often impressed by American animated features, much less those that have a reputation (if not total) for being a kids' title, Wizards unhesitatingly gets my nod of approval.

I Want To Believe

Because the phantom reader whom you, unknown reader, never hear from isn't satisfied in letting me rest...


The X-Files: I Want To Believe

Now, if you told me that it's been a decade since I stopped watching The X-Files, I'd actually be inclined to believe you (whether I want to or not). Come to think of it, the first X-Files movie was released (according to IMDb) in 1998. WAIT, IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE? I was a high school freshman in 1998. O_O

Anyway.

I wanted to see this, the second X-Files movie when it came out a summer or two ago, but it spent like a week in theaters (curse you, theaters), so no go. But I just watched it. And it was pretty good. Whatever you might say about the premise, I wasn't expecting it to be classic X-Files, just on account of the time lapse alone. But, I thought it was a successful homage to classic X-Files. As a movie, it didn't have the kick and the epicness (nor the aliens) of the first X-Files movie, but I enjoyed it. And it felt like a good finale to the franchise (regardless of whether or not it will be).

Mulder and Scully have moved on - together, but on. Neither of them work at the FBI any longer. Scully has pursued her dream of being a doctor - a real doctor - and Mulder has secluded himself like a hermit in a remote house in snowy...West Virginia? Or somewhere. His work room is pasted with news clippings and actually looks pretty much like his office at the FBI looked (complete with the iconic poster). Also, he's apparently wanted by the FBI for his crackpot theories. Or something.

Well, just when you thought you were out, the FBI has a way of pulling you back in. And yes, certain themes in this movie, while they may or may not have been overtly meant as such, they did have a vague Milleniumistic flavor. It seems that in this movie, Mulder and Scully, who have finally gotten together (and I do mean together), face many of the problems Frank Black and his wife faced - the dilemma of "retirement", in Mulder's case, and whether he can truly ever escape the demons that led him into the field, and whether or not the two of them can keep the darkness that their previous lives repeatedly confronted them with at bay. Et cetera.

So, the FBI wants Mulder back (and they can only get to him through Scully) for help in one specific case, where they have a psychic (who also happens to be a priest and a convicted child molester - on top of whether or not to believe his abilities, there is the question of *should* we believe his visions, considering his character, and where are the visions coming from - the attic, or the basement, so to speak?) helping them track down a fellow FBI agent gone missing. Eventually, it all leads to a black market organ trade/stem cell research group operating incognito on abducted (and thus quite unwilling) human subjects.

So there's a lot going on, and there's a lot of interpersonal dynamics between Mulder and Scully, and though they may not have the pizzazz of their younger selves in the same roles, they are actually quite interesting to see, in a sort of "ten years later" capacity. You don't get to see that with all of your favorite characters. And there are enough nods to classic X-Files fans, also. Mulder's introductory speech is classic Fox Mulder, and though he shaves later, I think, while different, the beard look actually suited him. And his sister does come up briefly as a topic of concern. Scully is still battling with her religious devotion, and its conflict with her skepticism. And another classic character makes a triumphant (if brief) return (and no, I'm sorry, but it's not Krycek...).

I don't think there's a whole lot of point in continuing to ramble on, so I'll stop there. I'll still need to watch the rest of the TV series at some point, as it is the best [English] television show I've ever watched; though I kind of lost interest around that point that Mulder dropped off the cast list. But I had other things going on in my life at that time as well. At any rate, this movie was a satisfactory coda to the series.

The Fourth Kind

I want to say that The Fourth Kind is not perfect, but I found it to be both effective, and terrifying. And it is, without a doubt, essential viewing for alien abduction enthusiasts. The story focuses on psychologist Dr. Abbey Tyler's personal experiences with the paranormal in her home town of remote Nome, Alaska, where several individuals had allegedly been abducted in their sleep on multiple occasions. The film opens with a frank scene featuring Milla Jovovich, who steps out of her character (she plays Dr. Tyler) and explains the role of the film, as a dramatization of actual events (supported by some supposed actual footage), the point of which is to present the facts of this strange case - allowing you, the viewer, to come to your own conclusions as to what, ultimately, to believe.

And this is the unique approach of this film. Instead of going documentary style and presenting almost exclusively archival footage, or, on the other extreme, going complete dramatization as if to say, 'here is, essentially, what happened', this film mixes the two - going so far as to juxtapose them simultaneously at times. There are scenes where the screen is split, with archival footage being shown on one half, and the corresponding dramatization on the other. In my estimation, the goal of this approach is to drive home the point that the dramatizations are faithful reproductions of the archival footage (perhaps to build firmer trust in the dramatizations), and to constantly reinforce the audience's acknowledgement that these events are true.

We'll ignore whether or not the archival footage is truly real, or also staged, as - though certainly up for debate - the viewing of the movie depends on the assumption that that footage is indeed real. Skepticism on that subject is certainly warranted when discussing whether or not the movie is "real", but allowing that skepticism to taint your suspension of disbelief during viewing is bound to decrease the effect, and your enjoyment, of the film.

Personally, I found the constant bashing over the audience's head of "this is real, this is real" to be highly suspect, actually decreasing my belief in the veracity of the film's claims. One would think that, even despite the skepticism surrounding the issue, if it was true, they wouldn't have to try quite so hard to convince you. Even so, I thought it was a unique approach, and it was interesting to compare the depictions - archival versus dramatized.

A few words about the plot. Spoilers to follow: Through patient interviews, Dr. Tyler comes to the realization that something strange is going on in Nome, and that it may be related to her husband's recent death - he was apparently murdered in his sleep. Multiple patients report similar symptoms involving difficulty sleeping, and recollections of a white owl watching them from a window - and sometimes inside the room - while in bed. Dr. Tyler decides to try hypnotizing one of the patients to uncover the truth about these strange incidents, and during hypnosis, the patient comes to realize that what he saw was not an owl - and he subsequently goes into a fit of extreme terror. The realization of what he's been experiencing causes him to take drastic (and irreversible) measures in order to prevent it from happening again - and to the rest of his family.

Tension mounts as the good doctor discovers that she's been having the same experiences - and suspects that her husband had them also before he died - and the local sheriff begins to suspect her of foul play, considering the hysterical results of her patients' therapy - which brings up the conflict of wanting to put a face to one's fears at the potential risk of not being able to face up to that terrifying truth. Believe me, the idea of a thing being so terrifying that a person would rather die than live with the knowledge of it is indeed profoundly disturbing.

The movie tries to take a more or less "realistic" approach to the story - which fits in line with its attempt to convince the audience that it's all true. As a result, even with the dramatizations, which do take some liberties, for effect - although some of the archival footage itself is downright terrifying - we don't get to see (clearly) any actual aliens, nor do we get an exciting scene aboard a spacecraft. In other words, the movie doesn't take us with the abductees, but only shows the results of their experiences from our, Earthly, perspective.

This is disappointing, to be sure, but it would be wrong to think that this film doesn't offer any goods. I was kind of perturbed by the way that they blurred the line between hypnosis and actual abduction. Hypnosis is supposed to just be a memory of the abduction, but here, it's almost portrayed as a repeat occurrence of the abduction. Which is odd because that would almost seem to support the theory that alien abduction is all in the head - which is contrary to the film's obvious purpose of putting forth the alien theory of these occurrences.

Anyway, since from a realistic perspective, it's easier to video-tape hypnosis sessions than actual abductions, it works in the context of the film, but I did find it strange that they used hypnosis almost as a call for the aliens to do their thing. The ole, "I have to talk with them, put me under!" trick. Anyway, we do get to see some terrifying stuff, including plenty of screaming, vague hints of painful medical experiments (again, more from the "see the effects, imagine the causes" angle), some levitation (though not as impressive as seeing a guy lifted up through a beam of light into a spacecraft), and we even get to hear the alien(s) voice, as it relays some very disturbing messages (initially in ancient Sumerian).

Altogether, what this adds up to is a very good movie, which nevertheless leaves me feeling a bit unfulfilled, as in, wanting more. All the more reason to pair it up with other alien fare, for an even better entertainment experience. There are a lot of films about extraterrestrial life - the search, contact, etc. - but few, that I am aware of, that deal directly with this specific style of alien abduction phenomenon. I recommend copious viewings of classic episodes of The X-Files - especially (but certainly not exclusively) Duane Barry, of which I was reminded multiple times while watching The Fourth Kind. But, ultimately, for the double feature, I would pair it up with no less than the ultimate title in alien abduction terror - Fire in the Sky.

(Recommendations for other alien abduction movies that I may not have seen are greatly appreciated. ;)

Horror Movies For Halloween

So, um, I totally didn't get the idea to write this from a post on Exfanding. I swear.

October 31st wasn't any different from the rest of the days in October for me, but for me, Halloween isn't a day, it's a month. And that month is Shocktober. In addition to playing a vaguely horror-related game - Pathologic - for the entire month (and I still haven't finished it yet), I spent the whole month watching horror movies, as is my custom. So now I'm going to list all the horror movies I've watched over the past month, and maybe say a brief word or two (or three hundred - cuz, you know, it's me we're talking about here) about each one:

Cannibal Holocaust

The goriest movie I've ever seen. Do not recommend it to animal lovers. If you can get past the gross-out factor, though (and while it is over the top, it does serve a purpose to the story), it does have some redeeming factors - including a commentary on journalistic exploitation (which some would argue is ironically weakened by the film's own exploitative nature). This is the ultimate "jungle savages" flick.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

Good movie. For its reputation, it's surprisingly chaste compared to modern gorror standards, and yet, it still manages to be genuinely frightening. The bone room is terrifying, the final girl's ordeal at the dinner table is excruciating, and Leatherface's chain saw dance in front of the setting sun at the end of the movie is CLASSIC.


The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

I actually saw the 2006 remake of this film while it was running in theaters. I think both versions are good, and pretty creepy - the newer perhaps a bit more intense, though. I remember the rape scene being more disturbing in the newer version. Still, I like the older version and it stands on its own. "We'll be french fries - human french fries!"

Day of the Woman (a.k.a. I Spit On Your Grave)

A writer-ess from the city gets raped by a gang of country bumpkins and exacts murderous revenge against them. Although ostensibly a feminist's wet dream, the exploitative nature of the film arguably demeans that (what is it with everybody being against exploitation, anyway?). The lead actress in this flick is not only stunningly gorgeous, but actually quite naked for a significant portion of the film, including crawling around in the forest. You might think I'm sick for saying that, what with all the brutal rape going on, but it wasn't the rape I was admiring. It's just unfortunate that, with public morals the way they are, the only way I can get my desired dose of flesh is packaged with either hardcore sex, or violence. Best line: "suck it, bitch" (the second time you hear it ;).


The Last House on the Left (1972)

My experience of this movie was poisoned by a later realization that I probably viewed a censored version of the film. I read comments about it being incredibly intense, but I found it rather tame (likely due to the lack of cut scenes). Still, compared to the later version, it was a cakewalk. It still had its moments, though - like when they actually made the girls strip in the woods. Great 70's feel to it. "My parents work in the iron and steel industry - my mom irons and my dad steals."

The Last House on the Left (2009)

Because of the tameness of the vintage version, I decided to give the brand new remake a watch. The actress in the lead role was totally gorgeous, which made the rape scene all the more disappointing. Because they hardly even stripped her. :-( And, believe it or not, the articles of clothing they did take off had a tendency to magically reappear in the next shot. >:O Anyway, it was pretty intense, the worst parts being not the brutal murders, but the impromptu medical procedures (the dad character is a doctor). Yeah, the medical stuff always gets to me. For some reason, sewing a nose back on is a lot more disturbing to me than slicing it off in the first place...


Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer

Great film. It's very unassuming, and not like your typical serial killer suspense thriller. It's like a behind the scenes look at the life of a serial killer - absent any kind of overbearing moral agenda (in either direction). It just presents you with this killer - who could actually be a decent guy if it weren't for his bloodlust - doing what he does. "Well, I guess I love you too..."

My Bloody Valentine (2009)

Modern remake of an older film about a miner slash serial killer who wields a mean pick axe. The movie itself didn't jump out at me, but I made a point to see this version for one specific reason - the much hyped nude scene. One of the characters is fully nude for like a whole 5 minutes. Verdict? The actress was very "porno chic" (and I say that in the nicest way - though it just isn't my style), but other than that, I give the scene two thumbs up - that includes the actress for doing the scene (I read that it was actually her idea to do it completely nude), as well as the guys behind the cameras for going along with it (not because they wouldn't want to - I mean, come on - but because most people would be too much of a pussy to stand up against the censors for a scene like that). I just hope (against hope) that scenes like these become more common place in a wider variety of films. The only thing that bugged me was what the trucker said after his naked "date" followed him out of the motel room and into the parking lot - "put some clothes on before some kid sees you." *facepalm*

The Brood

Brought to my attention by some guy I forgot, The Brood is a David Cronenberg film - if that doesn't mean anything to you, then forget it. Admittedly, the actual film experience was far tamer than I was expecting based on the hype, but it was still a good movie. About some brood of murderous children incarnated into flesh by a fringe psych practice ("psychoplasmics", I believe). The birthing scene is pretty icky, but most of the rest of the creepiness factor comes from the juxtaposition of children and murderous violence.


The Fly (1986)

Thinking of David Cronenberg got me remembering that I had never seen (or at least not within memory) his remake of The Fly. I'd seen the old Vincent Price version, and the remake's sequel, but not the remake itself, which is highly (and rightly) acclaimed. Very good, and really got me thinking about the (admittedly fictional) logistics of teleportation (as well as its risks). "I'm saying, I'll hurt you if you stay..."

The Evil Dead

The extent of my familiarity with this cult classic (regarding it and its sequels as one) has been a few recycled quips (to great effect) in Duke Nukem, and a couple minutes watching a scene from Army of Darkness before switching the channel in disgust (at the slapstick, not the gore). I had read that the first movie was more serious (which indeed it is), so I decided to watch it. I liked it. It manages to be pretty scary, and the over the top gore fx are impressive.

Evil Dead II

I had read that Evil Dead's sequel was sort of an overlap to the original movie, with some stuff added in, and having watched the first one, I couldn't withhold my curiosity about the inevitable comparisons, so I watched the sequel. It was a lot campier, to my disappointment, but it still had some redeeming qualities, such as some of the fx, and certain aspects of Bruce's - er, I mean Ash's - growing caricaturization; that is, the parts that managed to be cool instead of just plain silly.


Army of Darkness

And, having come this far, I couldn't resist watching Army of Darkness, just to round the experience out. The slapstick still bothered me, but it was slightly more tolerable in the context of the whole film. Interestingly, I remembered some of the plot points, as well certain quotes, from an Army of Darkness Doom mod I've played. I have to admit, though, that the immortal quotes (such as, "hail to the king, baby") were more entertaining in Duke Nukem, when they had already become legendary (and were spoken in such a manner), rather than here in this movie when they're still nothing more than cheesy dialogue. :p I was also surprised to find out that this movie was an inspiration for Peter Jackson's later filming of the Battle At Helm's Deep in his silver screen Lord of the Rings adaptation(s) - but the similarities are blatantly obvious, even down to some of the orc - er, skeleton - yells. It's just weird for me to draw such a connection between a silly movie like this and a serious movie like LotR...

Dead Alive (a.k.a. Braindead)

Speaking of Peter Jackson, he also did this film, which is notable for its ridiculous - no, make that ludicrous - overabundance of gore. The film itself was kind of so-so for me, and some of it was just grossness for the sake of gross-out. But I cannot deny the sheer brilliance of, for example, the lawnmower scene. Just watch it. Words are not necessary.



Shaun of the Dead

I had been told this was a really good movie, and supposedly one of the best zombie movies ever. And despite it being a comedic parody of the zombie genre, I decided to watch it anyway. It was indeed entertaining, and a very well accomplished film. I can see why so many people love it. I still prefer serious zombie flicks, though, despite my ensuing decision to go on a zomcom binge:

The Return of the Living Dead

Since having seen Night of the Living Dead, and reading about the split between the "Dead" and the "Return" sequels, I've been curious about both. The Return titles take themselves far less seriously, but they (well, some of them, at least) do have some things going for them. Return of the Living Dead is funny and entertaining without becoming too silly, and the style/approach of the zombies is very iconic - foggy graveyards, hands reaching out of the ground, etc. The soundtrack to this film is also great, with a lot of rocking tracks. It's very much an 80's movie, but I say that in a good way. I liked the assorted cast of stereotypically punk kids - especially Trash, the girl with an erotic obsession with death, who does not hesitate a second to strip naked and dance on top of a tomb. "Do you ever fantasize about being killed?"


Also, Tarman, the first zombie that comes out of the canister, is by far one of the coolest looking (and sounding, and moving) zombies I've seen, from a stylish (rather than strictly scary) perspective.


Return of the Living Dead Part II

Part II has that late 80's, cusp-of-the-90's feel to it, with younger kids in one or two of the lead roles, and more of a neighborhood-wide setting compared to the more claustrophobic first. Also, some elements from the first movie are recycled here, including two of the characters (played by the same actors), who are reinvented (rather than continued) to lesser effect. It was okay, but not as good as the first - although the foggy grave-rising effect remained in top form.

Return of the Living Dead III

III is not only atrociously submerged in 90'sism, but it also tries to take itself far too seriously - and that's coming from me - trying to be some kind of dramatic love story where one of the lovers happens to turn into a brain-feasting zombie (although she fights her urges, very hard). Riverman was an interesting character, but ultimately I'd call this one a flop - even the "kickass" sadomasochistic garb the zombie girl dons managed to miss the mark for me...

Dawn of the Dead (1978)

Night's true sequel. I have utmost respect for Romero's original zombie trilogy - now that I've actually seen it. The best part is the sense of the advance of the zombie apocalypse from one film to the next. As everybody knows (right?), in Dawn, our heroes hole themselves up inside a large indoor shopping mall. I guess it's supposed to be a social commentary about consumerism (which I sympathize with), but still, I can't help thinking that if I was in their situation, with an entire shopping mall (and all it's included goods) at my fingertips, that would be a pretty sweet way to live.


Day of the Dead

I think I liked Day even more than Dawn. Reminds me most, of the three, of 28 Days Later. The early scene in the abandoned city is great. The military guy is a real jerk, but as a character, he's great fun. Dr. "Frankenstein" and his tamed zombie Bub are excellent - the concept of tamed zombies has a strong tendency to misfire (from a serious, rather than a comedic, perspective), but here it's achieved perfectly.

Land of the Dead

Good concept, entertaining movie, but ultimately disappointing as a Romero film. It turns out I have a hard time taking a film starring John Leguizamo seriously. :shrugs: Also, I know the film hinges on blurring the line between the living and the walking dead, but I don't think the zombies were "zomby" enough. Especially the lead one, who learns faster than the others - as has been noted elsewhere, he looked more like a modern movie vampire (the monster kind, not the emo kind), than a zombie. Ah well.

Suspiria

Interestingly, I had seen Suspiria's sequel Inferno the same time I first saw Night of the Living Dead (I had picked it up on a whim), so I thought it an appropriate match to watch this after having caught up on the Romero series. Suspiria is a Dario Argento classic which makes full use of the audio and visual aspects of the film medium. Lights, colors, great spooky music, and a creepy story about a witches' coven that runs a dance school. This movie has a fantastic atmosphere, and is the kind you can just put on on Halloween and it'll set the mood perfectly.


Profondo Rosso (a.k.a. Deep Red)

Since I liked Suspiria so much, I decided to pick up another Dario Argento classic. Deep Red wasn't as visually stunning for me, and it drags on a bit long, but it's a good classic murder mystery, with some surprising turns, and the use of music in the suspenseful pre-murder scenes is just plain kickass.

Paranormal Activity

Zombie Strippers

Going from the title and description, I was expecting this movie to be terrible - and it pretty much was - but, it was a lot more watchable, and had a lot more redeeming qualities, than I was expecting. Okay, I find the concept of a movie that takes place in a strip club intriguing. Don't judge me. Of course, I don't find decaying flesh to be attractive (I swear), but there's a certain novelty value to the idea of stripping zombies. "That chick is cold as the dead flesh of a stripping zombie." The goth chick was pretty hot, until she began to rot. Low point: the V-Cannon...


Outbreak

More of a Hollywood action-adventure thriller (have you seen the cast list?) than a horror, per se, but there's undoubtedly a horror element to a good deadly virus outbreak plot. Plus, it relates to the theme of that game I mentioned that I'm still playing, so it's relevant to my current preoccupations. I enjoyed the movie, and it was actually quite intense at parts, like the very end.

And nobody said this was the end. ;)

Paranormal Activity

Do you know that feeling you get sometimes, when your blood chills, and your skin gets all tingly? It's not a feeling of action, like when something attacks you and you feel compelled to act, but a feeling of frightened anticipation. Your senses heighten and you start breathing rapidly, as you scan your surroundings. You know there's something there, and you know it is a threatening force, but you don't know exactly what it is, or even what it has the ability to do.

When I was a kid, scary movies scared me. Alien gave me recurring nightmares, and The Exorcist made me feel ill. I am a huge horror fan these days, and I love watching scary movies. Scary movies entertain me. But rarely do they genuinely scare me. When I watch Alien now, I still very much enjoy it, and I can appreciate the details that make it not only a very good, but a very scary movie. But it no longer gives me nightmares. It doesn't cause me to feel nervous at night when I find myself in a dark hallway.

I don't need to be genuinely scared to enjoy a scary movie. Scary movies have all sorts of merits above and beyond that. But a movie that actually manages to genuinely scare me - me, a mature (well, that may be debatable) adult - that's something special. And there are few things that genuinely scare me in movies. When I see a movie, I know it's fiction. It's usually easy for me to engage my suspension of disbelief and get absorbed in the movie, but when the credits roll, I disengage, and I understand that what I just saw wasn't real - it was a fantasy. So I don't remain frightened of the serial killer or the ugly monster as I leave the theater and return to my real life.

But there are some themes, some images, some concepts, that are genuinely scary to me, such that engaging in that fear in the theater touches on some real fear inside of me, that exists and remains regardless of the fictional nature of the film. Two things that do this to me are ghosts and aliens. And not just any ghosts or aliens, but specific portrayals of ghosts and aliens. Few images alone have the power to touch that nerve of primal fear in me, and one of them is the stereotypical shape of a grey's face. I don't know why, but it frightens me. Of course, accompanying that face is the whole folklore of alien abduction - being snatched out of your bed and having painful medical experiments performed on you against your will in an unfamiliar, even unearthly, location. Whether or not I actually believe in such encounters is a moot point - the idea of it genuinely frightens me.

The other thing that scares me is ghosts. Not CG ghosts and elaborate special effects, but the idea of the unseen undead. The fact that they have abilities above and beyond the realm of what we understand to be possible, and that we can't simply nail them down into a certain visible form and say - here, this is a ghost, become familiar with it so that we may no longer be afraid. It is that primal fear of the unknown.

I love creature effects. I love over-the-top creature effects. Even when it doesn't look realistic, as long as it looks awesome, I love it. But monsters are gross, they're not scary. They can be ugly, they can be disgusting, and their presence can be scary, but there is a world of difference between a physical beast standing before you in all its ugliness, and an ethereal form that you cannot see or touch: a thing of great evil hiding in the shadows; one that is not restrained by the limits of physical reality, but is able to manifest at will in the form of your darkest imaginings, by avenue of not having a form. It's not that it becomes what you fear, but that you fear it all the more because you cannot pin down its fearsomeness. It transcends fear.

There's been a lot of hype about Paranormal Activity, and also an inevitable backlash. Usually, in these cases, the best course of action is to see the movie and decide for oneself what merits it may have. Of course, advertisers know this, and are not above playing off of that formula, artificially injecting hype into a project. Artificial hype inevitably leads to backlash, thus fueling the scenario. But then, wary consumers are hesitant to support the lie. Not knowing if the hype is true or not, you just have to take a risk.

I took the risk. And it paid off. I can tell you this: the hype surrounding Paranormal Activity is true. It's the scariest movie I've seen since before I stopped being the little kid who was afraid of the dark. But what's also true is the fact that not everyone will be scared by it. If you're not scared by the brand of fear that Paranormal Activity employs, then you're likely not to think much of the film.

It's not a "good movie" in terms of having great characters, an intriguing plot, lots of action, etc. Paranormal Activity isn't really a "movie", it's more of an "experience". It's similar to The Blair Witch Project. If you thought The Blair Witch Project was scary (and I did), you'll like Paranormal Activity. If you thought The Blair Witch Project was stupid and very un-scary, you probably won't like Paranormal Activity. If you enjoy watching 'haunted house' and 'ghost hunting' programs on television, you'll enjoy this movie.

I don't believe in ghosts. I don't even think those ghost hunting programs are usually all that convincing. But the concept scares me. Being in a dark house at night, hearing strange noises, evidence apparently suggesting the presence of another being even though physically it would be impossible. I don't *believe* those programs, and I don't think their ghosts are real. But they do scare me. I can place myself in a frame of mind, where my imagination allows for the possibility of such impossibilities. And it terrifies me. The idea of being in a room all alone, but not actually being alone. Sensing a presence that cannot be seen or felt. A presence that knows just how to get a rise out of me by making a loud thump here, a quiet whine there. That's the sort of thing that gets the hairs on my arms standing. And that's the kind of scare that Paranormal Activity delivers.

So forget about the hype for a minute, and just think about the concept. A couple who video records evidence of a haunting, which progressively gets worse as the nights pass. You already have a pretty good idea if it's the kind of film you'll enjoy, or be scared by. You won't be grossed out by over-the-top creature effects, that's for sure, but if it's the old-fashioned 'bump in the night' that terrifies you, you'll be sure to have a few nightmares after seeing Paranormal Activity.

P.S. The audience reaction was great. I haven't experienced an audience reaction this good since Grindhouse - and that was more a reaction of entertainment. In this case, it was a reaction of fear!

10 Iconic Horror Films To Start Your Collection

Now that I've got my mind on Halloween, I simply can't get it off. Not that that's a bad thing - Halloween being my favorite holiday of the year and all. Have I told you yet the story of how I got into being a horror film fan? Well, today's agenda isn't to discuss my favorite horror films (blast from the past), but to discuss 10 (because 10 is a nice round number, and perfect for a list) of the most classicest most iconicest horror movies of the past half-century. If you're a horror fan, you've probably seen these movies so many times that you're either absolutely sick of them, or completely fanatic about them. And if you're not a horror fan, this might just be a good place to start...


Psycho (1960)

Alfred Hitchcock is rightly regarded as a master filmmaker, and Psycho is one of his most popular (and iconic) films. While it may be dated by today's standards, it's one of the classic examples of a suspense thriller, featuring a disturbed psychotic as the antagonist. You don't even have to have seen the film to recognize the gory (for its time) shower scene (and accompanying score) - that's how iconic it is!


Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Before George Romero, zombism was a voodoo curse that wealthy white imperialists contracted warlocks to cast on deceased (or soon to be) sharecroppers in order to acquire cheap slave labor (and you probably think I'm kidding!). Romero resurrected the "ghouls" as brainless rotting re-animated corpses, slave only to their hunger for living flesh, whose prodding slowness is made up for in sheer numbers. This film is a dark, paranoid, survival horror (and still surprisingly good for its age) that (re)defined the subgenre.


The Exorcist (1973)

An intense, draining experience of a movie about an innocent little girl suffering from demonic possession, The Exorcist is the end-all be-all (the alpha and the omega, if you will) of religious horror. I was first exposed to this film while still in the single digits (presented to me by my mother of all people!), and back then, its effect on me was more of disgust than impression - though you could say it had its effect. Interestingly, I recently re-watched it, and, being disavowed of religious superstition, yet still quite frightened of hospitals, the part of the film that made me most uncomfortable was the extensive medical testing our little possessee has to endure. If I might make a recommendation, don't bother watching this film on cable TV, as it's guaranteed to have its teeth removed - and for a film of this caliber, that's akin to blasphemy!


Alien (1979)

I've said it before, and I will say it again - Ridley Scott's Alien is the epitome of sci-fi/horror. The construction of the film is, in a sense, Poeific, in that all the elements, from setting and filmography, to score, to characters and character relations, to creature design - everything works together to create a truly frightening atmosphere. The horror is genuine: at once terrifyingly familiar (primitive body horror), and mysteriously alien. And speaking of which, H.R. Giger's design for the titular xenomorph has become a true horror icon (its frightfulness only mildly diminished by the recent crop of crappy cross-over cash-ins).


Poltergeist (1982)

Paranormal ("ghost") movies tend to be hit-or-miss. Despite its connection to Steven Spielberg (burn), Poltergeist manages to scare, helped in no small part by a big special fx budget - possibly in contrast to the idea that ghosts, being largely invisible, don't require much in the way of elaborate fx (although that's probably just a cop-out). Poltergeist and its sequels managed to plant quite a few specific scenes of terror into my young head which had a habit of haunting me from time to time. And ever since this movie came out, the world has been awakened to the very real supernatural peril of building on top of ancient Indian burial grounds. Don't believe me? I dare you to try it. Yeah, that's what I thought.


The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre should need no introduction. And I probably say that because despite hearing about it again and again, I'm still not sure I've actually seen the original version (although I do recall watching a modern take on it). But who can forget the stories of how the movie was so scary, people would vomit in disgust and flee the theaters? These days the cannibalistic country folk plot has been beaten to death (and then eaten?), but Leatherface and his chainsaw remains an icon of horror.


Halloween (1978)

John Carpenter accomplished greatness with his take on the holiday of horror - Halloween - inspiring an entire industry of slasher flicks featuring teenagers being picked off one by one at the hands of an unnamed killer. But Halloween remains excitingly fresh, even as the emotionless masked killer repeatedly satisfies his unquenchable bloodlust. In a truly terrifying scene, our heroine runs screaming, from house to house in a calm suburban neighborhood, with the very Bogeyman himself on her heels, and the neighbors ignore her cries, likely thinking it some prank. The filming of the scene is so normal - no ultra-panicky camera chasing after the heroine, or crashing orchestral cues - that it just feels so very real, and thus that much scarier. Ironically, modern horror could learn a few things from one of the most imitated horror movies of all time.


Friday the 13th (1980)

Continuing in the slasher vein, Friday the 13th locates itself in a cozy (but deadly) summer camp, and actually provides some meaning behind the oft-recurring theme of the slutty teenagers being the most in danger of getting slashed. Certain elements which I am hesitant to mention here - despite this being the sort of movie that you know all the secrets from, even if you've never seen it - keep this title relatively fresh and exciting. Interestingly, Jason doesn't don his ultra-iconic hockey mask until the third film in the series! And while we're speaking of icons, trust me, you know the soundtrack to this film. ch-ch-ch, ah-ah-ah


A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

What A Nightmare on Elm Street adds to the slasher formula is moving the killing field into the realm of dreams. A scary thought, is it not? Sleep - that period in which you are most defenseless, and when your dreaming mind is most open to suggestion. And noone can go very long without needing to enter that realm, despite the risks. The iconic antagonist, Freddie Krueger, also adds a macabre sense of style to the slasher's wardrobe, with his striped sweater, hat, and fingerknives. Don't miss a very young Johnny Depp finding himself the source of an impressive fountain of gore (you have to see it to believe it) - and speaking of gore, this is another film I'd recommend not watching on cable TV, as the gore fx are quite impressive (oh, don't be one of those people), and thus not to be missed.


Hellraiser (1987)

I feel like Pinhead is infinitely more iconic than Hellraiser itself, but no matter, it's an excellent film. Based on a Clive Barker story which I have yet to read (but I've read others of his penning), the subject matter alone is enough to make you squirm. Picture, if you will, an occult puzzle box which, when properly solved (think of it as the devil's Rubik's Cube), summons the cenobytes - sadomasochistic demons (or angels, depending on your persuasion) intent on giving the puzzle solver the gift of ultimate pleasure (by way of ultimate pain, of course). Pinhead, the unofficial leader of the cenobytes (I'm rather fond of Chatterer, myself) has been known to get fanmail from rabid fangirls who want him to father their children. And you thought I was kidding about the "angels" part.


There's your start, now get to it. There's a whole world of horror out there - with every conceivable flavor of nightmare on offer. Apologies to vampire and werewolf fans. Also to puppet fans - puppets have never been very scary (or very funny either, for that matter) to me. Sorry. And also the oldies monster fans - Dracula, Frankenstein, Wolfman, The Mummy, Boo Berry, etc. - that era is outside the scope of my primary interest. In spite of these deliberate omissions, keeping in mind that this list is about iconic horror films, and not personal favorites, feel free to chime in and add titles you think would fit on the list. And hey, it's only mid-September, but don't be ~afraid~ to start your Shocktober early this year!