The Paradise of Horror

Freddy vs. Jason: One More Time

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:02:00 +0000

As a kid I had always been obsessed with Freddy Krueger and to me he was the definitive serial killer because he had a face and he wasn’t just an unstoppable physical force but rather a “demon” that kills you when you at your most vulnerable. Jason, on the other hand, was nothing special but I enjoyed the first three of his movies. Later, I would see his movie again and I came to the conclusion that I was never a big Jason or Friday the 13^th fan because it was all about body count and not the characters. Surprisingly, I saw more character development in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies then any other slasher. Perhaps I am missing the point but that’s one of my main arguments as to why I love the Elm Street movies.

When I first saw the previews for Freddy vs. Jason, I loved every minute of it because my favorite horror movie villain was going to be up against my least favorite horror movie villain. I was on Team Freddy from the very get go. I never saw it in theaters so I had to wait for it to come out on DVD and so I rented it from the library when it was released to home video. Upon my first viewing of Freddy vs. Jason, I hated it. There were only a few things that I liked but that didn’t outweigh the bad and so since 2003 I had never picked it up again. When asked by my friends why I hated it, I gave a number of reasons why and I feel as though I should try to summarize them and restrain myself from ranting and breaking off into a tangent.

The biggest problem I had was that I didn’t like any of the “human” characters. They were dry, stale, cardboard cutouts of typical Hollywood teenagers, they were nothing but slasher fodder and very expendable. I didn’t care about their problems and I wanted to see all of them dead because they were pests. I always commended Nightmare on Elm Street for giving me characters that I can relate to or characters that I feel sorry for but to see unlikeable characters on Elm Street seemed out of place and stupid. They felt like they would be more at home in Crystal Lake then Elm Street. I didn’t like the stoner and I didn’t like seeing Freddy take the form of a pot-smoking caterpillar. I felt like it was insulting him and I felt the same way when he became a witch or a comic book villain. I especially hated the fact that Freddy was afraid of fire and Jason was afraid of the water because if I remember correctly, Freddy used fire in many of his nightmares and never was afraid of it then. Also, I remember Jason being fine with water and never shying away from it. Additionally, I felt like the ending was a cop out because I thought they would end both franchises simultaneously but instead they show Jason walking away with a winking dismembered Freddy head. I felt like it was the last corny nail on the cheese coffin.

With all that said, I decided to see the movie again because most people I talk to say it wasn’t bad and for a “versus” movie, it’s pretty decent. I thought about it for a while and I realized that it’s going back to the old “meets” movies that Universal would produce. The movie Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man came up as being the first mainstream movie that pits two horror icons together. So, I buckled down and decided to give Freddy vs. Jason another go… this time looking at it from a fresh new standpoint since I hardly remember what happens. Now, after analyzing horror movies and broadening my horror taste, I felt like I was prepared for this movie. I’m older and not nearly as bias as I once was. My general consensus of Freddy vs. Jason after seeing it for the first time: I liked it. It wasn’t bad, pretty decent, and it has some charms that nod the original franchises.

Since I’m not a big fan of the Friday the 13^th movies and since there isn’t really anything to them other than a body count and Jason, I think I should talk about the Nightmare on Street portion of the movie as there is more to them. One of the biggest things I was dreading was that they wouldn’t properly transition from the real world to the dream world; the original Elm Street movie seamlessly brought you into the dream without you knowing. As for this movie, specifically the scene where the group was thinking about sacrificing the main heroine, half the time I couldn’t differentiate between the real world and the dream world. The dreams, although surreal like they should be, doesn’t offer booby traps within the “real” home. What I mean is this: in the first movie Nancy is running up the stairs when suddenly the stairs turn into goopy liquid or when the basement slowly turns into the boiler room. Much of that is missing but that does not mean it’s bad. I’m real glad they kept the boiler room.

What I liked more than anything, and this is what made me hate the film originally, was that the movie dived into the characters of Jason and Freddy. I understand why Freddy is afraid of fire because he was burned from it and Jason drowned so he’s afraid of water. I like this aspect despite the fact that both villains encountered each element before in their own respectable franchises. I feel like giving the villains a fear of something de-mystifies them and brings them down to a mortal level; it makes them more human, which is something that really turns the tables on things but it goes deeper into that. When Freddy encircles Jason with water we see Jason backing up, Freddy smiles, then we see a trembling, half-naked boy on the floor with a hokey mask. It’s such a good yet sad scene because it shows us that inside the undead, hulking exterior of Jason lays a frightened little boy who was emotionally and mentally scarred. Freddy, in almost a childish bully sort of way, goes on to mock Jason saying that his face is something only a mother could love. Then, we flash back to Camp Crystal Lake where Jason was picked on. It shows you that Jason was once a normal person and could have led a somewhat normal life despite his deformity, but it’s because of the severe bullying that he becomes the murderous psycho that he is. But this also shows just how merciless and cruel Freddy is and that he was born a monster, whereas Jason was made into a monster.

Then there are the battles between Freddy and Jason, which were pretty damn good. There are some wonderful massacre scenes, particularly Jason breaking somebody’s back by squishing them in half by the bed. There’s also a fantastic scene where Freddy controls one of the characters by making him doze off from smoking pot. It’s a fantastic scene because, for one, I thought it was pretty cool seeing somebody attack Jason wielding two syringes of sedatives. Also, for me at least, it was the most memorable scene where Freddy controls somebody since Nightmare on Elm Street 2. I don’t really count Dream Warriors because it was too campy, whereas Elm Street 2 was sort of playing on a “duel personality” level.

I should start wrapping this up before I trial off like I so often do. I’ll admit that for a while I was acting stubborn but I think Freddy vs. Jason is growing on me because it’s not a bad slasher and I really like the ‘versus’ plot. I’m glad that Robert Englund was in it and that earned it extra points in my book, it was gory, it had some great dream sequences and Freddy seemed to be a badass. I know I am really fixated on the Nightmare on Elm Street portions but that’s because those were the scenes I was worried about the most. It was fun seeing Jason hack and slash again and it was fun seeing Freddy take advantage of his traumatizing childhood because it added personality to Jason. Seeing Freddy, and Jason, afraid of fire and water elements brought them down to our mortal level and that’s something that was risky but played off perfectly. I think now I have a new take on this movie and it holds up. Then again, this wasn’t the first time I hated a movie at first but grew to like it. Hell, just ask Jack Frost or Uncle Sam. They’ll tell you.

Preserving the Thing

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:44:00 +0000

About a week or so ago I received an email by one of my Twitter buddies concerning The Thing prequel. Apparently the comment he wanted to leave on my review was too long, thus forcing him to email me it instead. He commented on why he doesn’t want to see the prequel and why the prequel might ruin the magic and mysteriousness of the Carpenter movie. While I liked the prequel and while it doesn’t ruin the magic for me, I thought this was a very interesting piece that I could not help but share.

I'm actually quite surprised you liked this at all, based on reading your review and knowing your love for the '82 film. I would say the ''82 film is in my top five favorite movies of all time, maybe the number 1 spot.

I have not seen this prequel and never will. Let me get that out of the way now, because I get heat from people saying I can't complain about something I haven't seen. I however say I CAN and WILL.

MacReady: "Now I'm gonna show you what I already know."

The idea of showing what happened at the Norwegian camp seems utter ridiculous to me now, as it was when I heard the film was going into production. The filmmakers stance of "we'll show you what happened, why the axe is in the door" cracked me up. Was there a huge number of '82 Thing fans looking for those answers, I have to believe that is not the case and I'll tell you why. When you watch Carpenter's movie the American's discovery at the Norwegian camp/station is foreshadowing of what they will soon encounter. We are offered small glimpses of information regarding the thing, how people reacted to it and where it came from. Seeing the burnt out camp, dead people, yes axes in doors (sweet Satan!) and the burned remains of a Thing mid-transform. This info also provides elements of mystery that are crucial to the story and tone of the film.

As the '82 film progresses, the Thing begins it's attack and paranoia set in and eventual battle up until the closing scene with MacReady and Childs. We can infer that what we just saw the Americans go through is essentially what the Norwegians went through without the requirement of a prequel film to fill in the blanks. Your own creative mind can fill in those blanks and I'd imagine do it in a much better fashion than this prequel does. Carpenter could have just as easily done the film from the stand point that the Americans discovered the alien, but he didn't and I don't think that was to lay any kind of groundwork for a prequel. All the information is there, all that is needed is in the '82 film.

Now, let me ask this. How can there be even a shred, a sliver of mystery or suspense to this prequel, when '82 fans know all the people from the Norwegian camp die and the Thing escapes? I can't get my head around that huge problem with this prequel.

Another huge issue I have with the prequel is what limited CGI I saw in the trailer. It looked atrocious, I laughed when I saw the thing come out of the block of ice. You said there are some practical effects in there, which is great, it sounds like the CGI is way overused and fake looking. That cast sounds utterly forgettable from what you said and that is a very very weak leg to this film I'd imagine. The '82 film had a fantastic cast that I know you love. If you didn't love the cast and their performances, this wouldn't be your favorite movie, bottom line. Your section about nitpicking the movie is also of grave interest to me and another warning sign to stay away from this film. If they are intent on showing every detail (because people wanted it for some ungodly reason) then why didn't it hone EXACTLY to the '82 film? It should be dead on.

I found the final minutes of the 2011 film on YouTube to see how the transitioned their film into the '82 film. Nice from the standpoint that they led right up to that films beginning, but I must ask. If someone is new to the Thing and watches this film first and then the '82 film after what many magical and fantastic things are killed for a moviegoer. For those people I feel truly sad. This prequel tries to bill itself with providing answers to questions it's actually killing for those new to The Thing…

This bit of dialogue is from one of my favorite scenes from the '82 film and the reason for me adding it to the end here is because this conversation for me kills an reason for the prequel.

MacReady: "I don't know, thousands of years ago it crashes, and this thing, gets thrown out or crawls out and it ends up freezing in the ice."

Garry: "The Norwegians get a hold of this, and they dig it out of the ice…"

MacReady: "Yes, Garry. They dig it up. They cart it back. It gets thawed out, it wakes up, probably not the best of moods. I don't know, I wasn't there!"

Childs: "How could this motherf@*ker wake up after thousands of years in the ice?"

George Bennings: "And how can it look like a dog?"

MacReady: "I don't know how. Because it's different then us, see. Because it's from outer space. What do you want from me? Ask him!"

Music Box Massacre 7

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 16:56:00 +0000

I’m rather late on reporting this but this past weekend (October 15 till the 16^th) was the yearly Music Box Massacre at Chicago’s own Music Box Theater. This year, unlike the past two years that I went, was different for me because I slept through half of the 24-hour marathon. I have no idea why I was suddenly tired all of a sudden but I missed out on some movies that I’ve wanted to see for a long time. Regardless, I was fortunate to experience three films on 35mm print one of which is a must for the Halloween season. So, without further ado, I’ll give you a short rundown and musings of the films I was able to catch.

The marathon started off with the silent film…

Waxworks (1924)

This fantasy film is considered horror but I’m not sure why. I feel it’s more action adventure than anything although I guess it’s because there are some elements of horror that must have been shocking for people back when it was first released. Personally, I felt it was a little boring but what I have to applaud was the live organ player who had to sit there the entire time.

Burn Witch Burn (1962)

After his wife confesses to being a witch, a college professor must find out whether or not she was telling the truth but time is running out because dark forces are descending upon him and the only way to stop them is by sacrifice. Also known as Night of the Eagle for some reason. This was a fun movie and a perfect candidate for MST3K or any other type of Riffing. Hammy acting, sexist dialogue and some really cheap but strangely effective special effects laden this film. I personally loved the part when you hear something howling, screaming and bellowing outside the door but never end up seeing it.

Hour of the Wolf (1968)

I slept through this movie.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

I loved this movie but calling it horror is a bit much even if the final revealing of Phibes is shocking, then again I guess it could be considered a Slasher movie. Oh whatever, either way I liked it a lot. Price plays yet another interesting, stylish and charismatic killer that sort of reminded me of Theater of Blood. This time he plays Dr. Phibes, a doctor of music, who seeks murderous revenge on all the doctors who were unable to save his wife from a tragic accident. Dark British humor and the 12 plagues of Egypt make this movie work seeing and it’s even funnier watching it with a live audience.

Wizard of Gore

With special guest Herschell Gordon Lewis

I broke away for dinner.

Halloween (1978)

No party that takes place during October is complete without a 35mm screening of Carpenter’s infamous slasher movie. The print we saw was reddening, scratch and dust filled with horrendous jump cuts… everything I wanted to see to give me that authentic “grindhouse” feel. This time around, because I saw the movie so damn much, I began to notice the small things that gave away the film’s actual location of California. Not just the ridiculous foothills but also the palm trees in the background and the cactus looking plants in some people’s yard. If only Illinois had palm trees.

Poltergeist (1982)

Upon watching this for the first time in years, I was suddenly reminded just how much I love this film. It’s such a touching and sad story of how the parents of a little girl are willing to travel to another plane of existence to save their daughter. Unfortunately, in reality, Heather O’Rourke died young and went towards the bright light anyway. The subtle humor, the nods to childhood fears and the chilling yet uplifting score by the famous Jerry Goldsmith gave me this warm feeling as I sat in those uncomfortable chairs.

Pumpkinhead (1988)

After releasing an ancient demon to seek revenge on the youths that accidentally killed his little boy, a farmer must stop what he unleashed before it ends up killing him as well. I saw this movie only once before and I hated it. Upon watching it again, I enjoyed it and I loved the special effects (of course I would because it was directed by Stan Winston) but I feel that it was a little unjustified to release such a horrid monster after the teens apologized for the fatal accident. The climax is anticlimactic but then again we are talking about the 80’s.

Gates of Hell

I broke away to grab a quick snack.

The Vampire Lovers

I fell asleep to.

Children Shouldn’t Play With Dead Things

I drifted in and out of sleep to. I was awoken by the excruciatingly loud ending.

The Sentinel (1977)

“What do you do for a living?” “We fondle each other.” Indeed, The Sentinel is one of those 70’s movies too fucked up to describe but very simple when you get right down to it. Basically it’s about a haunted apartment complex that’s being investigated by one of the new tenants who claims to have been invited to an birthday party by the tenants. However, there are no tenants in the apartment except for a reclusive priest. Now the young woman must find out why the apartment is being haunted, why is she being plagued with unsettling visions and what is the priest guarding on the third floor. Naked fat women eating people’s brains, a cat in a hat, loud noises, non sequitur scenes and an ending that’s reminiscent of Browning’s Freaks makes this film a worthwhile acid trip.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

What a perfect movie to end a noon-to-noon, 24-hour horror marathon. I’ve always loved this movie and it’s a roller-coaster ride to see it with sleep deprived horror fanatics. Whoever thought that vampires would evolve from charismatic, caped villains (Lugosi) to ancient Mexican strippers (Hayek)?

The Massacre survivors (12:00pm)

Try and spot me in this picture. Here’s a clue: I’m the one who is holding the brown pillow. Also, I was smart to bring a pillow and blanket to this.

Thus concludes yet another Music Box Massacre and although I didn’t meet anybody there like I would have, probably because this year seemed more packed then usual, I had a blast with all the films. I will close out this piece with one of my favorite quotes of the night (aside from Sentinel).

“Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them! I don’t give a fuck how crazy they are!”

Pictures courtesy of WGON Helicopter, Kindertrauma, The Vault of Horror and Hey! Look Behind You.

Review - The Thing (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:49:00 +0000

Many of you know because of my Thing Week that The Thing (1982) is my favorite horror movie of all time for many reasons including one that trails back to my childhood. It was best home video experience I ever had and The Thing became a part of my life like no other horror movie. When I heard that The Thing was going to be remade, I shuttered to think how the CGI would replace the brilliant practical effects that Bottin had worked on. Then, it was released that it would be a prequel rather then a remake but even that made me cringe because I never wanted to know what happened to the Norwegian outpost. Most of the ominous mood and fright comes from not knowing what happened, leaving only your imagination to fill in the blanks. I isolated myself from this movie and when I saw the trailer I had a lot of doubts but it also made me curious to see what they could do. So, I patiently waited for it’s release and I sat in the middle of the theater waiting to be wowed by an unnecessary “premake.” So, what is my verdict on a prequel to a personally beloved horror movie… well, after I mulled over it that night I came to the conclusion that I enjoyed it. Yeah, I really liked it but I feel as though I must nitpick it here and there.

The story is much like Carpenter’s film. A group of Norwegians locate a crashed alien saucer that has been buried under the ice for thousands of years. They enlist the help of two American scientists to help them figure out what crawled out of the ship and froze beneath all the ice. In the midst of their celebration, the alien entity thaws out of the ice and begins killing and replicated anybody that comes in its way. Now, the outpost residents must find a way to stop the alien before it reaches a populated area but how do they know who is human and who is a thing? Paranoia settles in and the storm outside is getting worse and worse.

So what exactly did Matthijs van Heiningen, the director, do that made me like this movie. Well, understand that I am not praising this movie and although I liked it… I don’t think it was flawless or brilliantly directed. However, what I really loved was all the little nods to Carpenter’s film that were scattered throughout the movie. These are little things that would go overlooked in some people’s book and would provoke some people to say that this film was more of a remake then a prequel. They explain why there was an axe stuck in the door, they explain what that two-headed thing was and what it was like when it was alive and in that respect there was a wonderful tribute to Norris’ death (think spider legs, upside down heads and open chests). There is a wonderful nod to the cinematography from the Carpenter film; the scene where the camera trucks forward to reveal the big block of ice that held the alien. This shot was so small and minute that not many people would even realize it was from Carpenter’s film. There’s many more throughout the film that made me pleased.

Now, what about the characters? Are they as good as Carpenter’s cast and does our new heroine resemble MacReady and his sarcastic and tired frame of attitude? The cast is great but I feel as though they are mostly forgettable except for one person who I think was the best character. As for our heroine, Kate Lloyd, although she does have that survivor woman persona she doesn’t really stand out to me as being unique. MacReady, to me, was unique because he was sort of an anti-hero; he drank, he had a temper, he was tired, worn out and on the edge of going crazy. Lloyd is any typical survivor girl from any given horror movie but I still liked her. She took things into her own hands and understood what the thing was. There are two Americans that look and occasionally act like Childs and MacReady and the person who lives to the end (and where the Carpenter movie begins), he was a badass and it’s tragic to see what would inevitably happen to him.

And now for the meat of the movie: the special effects and how the creature looks. As much as I wanted it to have practical effects I had to abandon that hope a while ago and I accepted that this movie would heavily use CGI. The film does use CGI but it also uses a good variety of practical effects but before I get into that I want to comment on my love/hate relationship with the CGI of this film. I hate the CGI because, like in most horror movies that use it, it looks a little unpolished and cheesy at times. It felt like a video game, ironically because the director stated that he never based anything off the video game adaptation. Some of the CGI made me laugh and say, “Oh man, really?” However, I love the CGI because for the first time I saw the Thing almost exactly how I wanted to see it for a long time. I saw somebody’s chest open up with red tendrils wrapping around somebody. I saw the two-headed thing crab-walking and attacking people and I saw a one-on-one battle with somebody and the Thing. It was a pleasure but too bad it was done with some iffy CGI. As for the practical effects, they were good and they looked painful and slimy just as they did back in ’82. I feel as though, at times, they used CGI when it involved the Thing attacking and running around but for the most part they used practical effects as much as they could. I respect that.

So now lets get into some fan nitpicking here. One of the biggest errors or problems that I found, choose your poison, was the discovery of the alien craft. In Carpenter’s film, the Americans were looking over the tapes they took from the Norwegian camp. The tape clearly shows the Norwegians forming a circle around the craft and then blowing open the layers of ice that buried it. Similarly, this was done in the Howard Hawks adaptation in the 50’s. However, in the prequel, we never see the Norwegians forming the circle and it isn’t until the end where they finally blow open the ice encasing and it wasn’t even by dynamite. When the ship was activated, the engines blew open the ice above it as if they tired to create their own version of how the ship was exposed. Another thing, maybe I didn’t see it the right way or maybe I’m right, but in Carpenter’s film… they find a body with a slit throat. The person obviously cuts his throat with a straight razor but in this prequel the man cuts himself (I think) with a hacksaw. It’s really nitpicky of me to bring this up but as a fan of the original it’s my duty to do so. Personally, for me, the biggest problem was seeing them discover the shape of the craft and blowing it up… it’s like a staple scene in the entire franchise and it was never committed to the final version.

The other big problem that I had with this film that the Carpenter film had was the mood. In Carpenter’s film, the colors were ranging on heavy blues and oranges in order to simulate hot and cold temperatures. By doing this he made me feel like I was trapped in a cold and dark place where my only salvation was gravitating to somewhere warm and… orange. Plus, the entire film is a dark piece, not just figuratively but it’s a very dark place with a lot of shadows and some dim lights. While the prequel gives me that cold feeling with it’s use of blues and light blue coloring, it doesn’t at all give me a sense of darkness and seclusion. This problem was expected and it’s very difficult to replicate so I won’t knock the movie for it but it’s something that I would have like to have seen done.

I need to cut this review short but as I stated before, I liked this movie and I thought it was a fantastic prequel to Carpenter’s film as well as a tribute to Campbell’s novella and Hawks’ film. The ending, which trails into to where Carpenter’s film picks up, was one of the very few moments where I got chills of nostalgia. The score, the cinematography and the “cut to black” ending made me smile like never before. It’s even more tragic when you find out what character ends up making it through till the end only to know that he eventually gets shot and killed. With all this being said, I still won’t consider this to be as perfect as the ’82 classic and when I refer to The Thing, I will always be referring to Carpenter’s film. If I ever expose people to The Thing, I’ll only expose them to the Carpenter’s film unless they are really interested. I feel as though this movie is like the black sheep but a black sheep that I have some respect towards. It was an unnecessary prequel that still diminishes the horror and imagination that was in Carpenter’s film but at least they did a fine job of adapting it. If anything, it gives me even more respect to Carpenter’s Thing.

Cowboys & Mutants

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:16:00 +0000

When you think of Westerns you might think of films like High Noon, Once Upon A Time in the West, The Dollars Trilogy or perhaps Unforgiven. I’m sure most people would never consider a remake like The Hills Have Eyes to be a Western and for good reason… it’s not. However, upon closer look at the color and the cinematography of when Doug enters the test village, I couldn’t help but get feelings to when I watched High Noon for the first time. It’s strange how many Western tributes there are in this film but at the same time it feels right.

All the scenes that take place in that test village strike an eerie chord with the American Dream; a broken down dream corrupted by the government and/or the criminals that had taken over. Many of these ideas have been put forth into Westerns. The coloring is saturated with yellows and browns that only enhance the sweltering heat of the desert, as our lone hero walks down the middle of the town. I mentioned High Noon and this is exactly what this scene resembles; when Doug first enters the town he realizes that nobody is there must like Gary Cooper’s character walking down the road stunned to find nobody is at his side. In The Hills Have Eyes, the only companion that Doug has is his dog Beauty.

Tombstone established that Wyatt Earp would be the Lone Rider (or Pale Rider) in which Death followed behind him that The Cowboys were warned about. After the murder of his youngest brother, the injury of his older brother and the attempted assassination of himself he pursued The Cowboys in a relentless and violent manner. I can’t help but think that this bears striking resemblance to Doug and his bloody justified revenge. The clan of mutants raped his sister-in-law, burned his father-in-law, murdered his mother-in-law, killed his wife and stole his baby. You can argue that Doug literally became the Lone/Pale Rider that Death followed as he not only recovered his baby but he brutally murdered almost every mutant he saw. I think it’s also interesting that Doug wore a white “pale” shirt.

In probably one of the best confrontations in a modern horror movie, Doug, after getting beaten nearly to death, thrown, kicked, punched and dragged, grabs a screwdriver and holds it up to Pluto who is wielding an axe. There is silence. The shot shows a weak and scared hero holding a peashooter pistol to the ugly homicidal criminal who is aiming a shotgun directly into his face. They both stand their ground and look at each other for a minute while the mutant outlaw laughs at our hero’s ill-fated attempt at defending himself. It’s a standoff and the odds are not in favor for the good. Our hero begs for the outlaw not to kill him and the outlaw merely laughs at his pain and insignificance, but our hero is smart and uses this as a distraction to drive the screwdriver into his foot rendering him defenseless. Like the American hero that is the Cowboy or local sheriff, our hero grabs an American flag and drives it into the throat of the outlaw. Seeing as how he was responsible for the death of his soon-to-be family, he takes the very weapon he used to hurt him (the axe) and thrusts it directly into his skull, killing him.

Thus ends one of the grittiest and bloodiest Westerns of recent time.

Even though that scene wasn’t the end or the final confrontation, it still bears the most resemblance to any Western standoff. Going off tangent, it’s not just the cinematography, coloring or the way things are played out that remind me of a Western but also the costuming. Lizard resembles a Mexican bandito, wearing a brown vest, torn cotton pants and a spike-strip that looks like a full metal jacket. Goggle, though he is mostly in shadow or silhouette, wears a bowler hat. Papa Jupiter, aside from not having the typical cowboy hat, already looks like a bandit. He dresses in all black and has a long down-filled coat. The only person who doesn’t resemble an outlaw is Pluto because he seems to be dressed in a black suit minus the tie. He may, however, be more akin to the elegant outlaw rather than the rugged dirty outlaw.

There is still so much to talk about comparing Hills Have Eyes with Westerns and I’m sure the original has even more similarities but since I haven’t seen it in a long time, I can’t contrast the two films. I haven’t even talked about the relationship between the mutants the gas station attendant. I never really noticed the similarities till I began watching a string of Westerns recently. Although, now I wonder how the movie would play out if somebody like John Wayne, Cline Eastwood or Tom Mix were in Doug’s shoes… as if the film wasn’t already surreal and messed up.

Top 10 Scenes from Fright Night

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 13:45:00 +0000

One of my favorite vampire movies of all time is Fright Night because it was edgy, funny and pretty gory. There are so many memorable scenes in the film from when Peter burns a cross into Evil’s head or Charlie sees Jerry for the first time. However, for my taste there are a few scenes and key moments within the film that have always stood out to me. These moments are my favorite because they’re either well written, visually stunning or expand on the vampire mythology but no matter what… they’ll always be memorable. Now, before I get to the list it must be stated that these scenes, if on a scale of 1 to 10, are within mere decimals from each other. My second favorite scene is ranked at 9.99 instead of a perfect 10. My third favorite scene is ranked at 9.98 and so on. Essentially, they’re all winners in my book.

CAUTION: There are spoilers here.

10) Jerry dances with Amy

As a kid, I always thought this scene was a little out of place but that’s probably because at the time I was more preoccupied with the vampires than with dancing. As time moved on I grew to like this scene because it reminded me of a more modern interpretation of a masquerade ball; the smooth ballroom dancing and the look on Amy’s face when she realizes that Jerry doesn’t cast a reflection in the mirror. Besides, I’ve come to really enjoy “Give It Up” by Evelyn King.

9) Amy and Evil Ed visit Charley

There is no real profound reason why I love this scene. It’s just a quirky yet sad scene where Charley, with a frightened but determined look on his face, is sitting on his bed sharpening a stake. The way Ragsdale handles the role makes me believe that he is hell-bent on defeating Jerry even if it means killing himself and looks on Amy and Evil Ed’s faces are priceless. It’s clear that they think Charley has completely gone overboard but it’s one of those moments where, as the audience, we know what’s really happening and we feel sympathetic for Charley.

8) Billy Cole melts

This is sort of on par with the previous scene but as a kid, and even now, I always admired the special effects Fright Night had, particularly this exceptionally gory melting sequence. Fresh from seeing The Blob (1988), seeing somebody’s skin melt and peel down their bones was one of the most satisfying things I could ever hope for in a horror movie. There’s green goop, sand and slimy bones and it begs the question: what in the hell was Billy Cole and why did he melt?

7) Jerry dies

There was a gap between the ages of 13 and 17 where I didn’t watch Fright Night so when I saw it for the first time in 4 years, I thought the scene where Jerry’s “skeleton” bursts into flames at the end was digitally enhanced with computers. It wasn’t until later I found out that Fright Night was made in ’85 meaning that was all practical effects. I couldn’t believe how amazing it looked and it will forever stand out to me as being one of the best examples of practical effects done right. Additionally, I love this scene because of that painful/remorseful “AMY!” that Jerry lets out as he’s being fried. It’s such a sad moment because you can tell, in his last dying moments, that Jerry really loved her.

6) Amy shows her teeth

For the longest time I was grown up on old-school vampire mythologies; the white fanged teeth, the pale face and the hypnotizing eyes. You can understand that when I saw Jerry for the first time, it was a shock but that moment when Amy looks up towards the camera to reveal her monstrous form… it was “what the fuck!” moment for me. I loved that scene because it showed just how far vampires have progressed since the Bela Lugosi era; now they are seen as literally demons in human form. The way Amy’s mouth peels back into a harlequin smile, a mouth full of swollen gum and crooked, jagged teeth screamed Joker meets Dracula. I should have known by the poster that it would be coming but you know how posters get sometimes… they lie to sell the movie. In this case, what you see on the poster happens.

5) “Welcome to Fright Night… for real.”

Way before I even went to a midnight screening of this film, I use to cheer every time Jerry walked into the screen and mockingly uttered that infamous line. It was at that moment, the second after he leaned up against the banister and crossed his arms, that I Knew that shit was about to get real. I had chills because everything from this point on was real and not TV. It was that ominous mark that would start the epic confrontation between good and evil and it was an indicator to my friends and family that from that point on, I’d be completely transfixed with the movie.

4) Jerry seduces Amy

I was always fond of this scene, especially now, because it brings back that time-honored tradition of sexuality and vampirism. For a majority of the modern horror era, vampires were scene as emotionless monsters who only kill and drink blood. But this scene stands for something; it shows that a modern vampire movie can still retains that trademark but at the same time compromise to cater to modern generations. Otherwise, the scene is very passionate but yet very ominous. The photography highlights Amy’s curvatious body and Jerry’s soft gentle touch only further proving that he isn’t just drinking her blood for the hell of it but rather because he’s in love with her. Complete with Fiedel’s exotic and electric score, this scene stands out as being one of the more hypnotic scenes in the entire film.

3) Peter kills Evil Ed

For the longest time, and even now, the transformation scene in American Werewolf in London is regarded as being one of the greatest and most painful werewolf scenes in the history of cinema. While there is no doubt that it’s true, I believe the scene where Peter kills Evil Ed (who changed into a wolf) was probably one of the saddest scenes in horror history. I was always plagued by seeing the half wolf half man leaned up against the wall trying in vain to pull the stake out of it’s chest. The way it howls in agony as it stumbles to the ground and Peter’s teary face once he realizes that the wolf is slowly reverting back into a human. The face Ed gives Peter in his final moments is that of a tortured and cursed young man on his dying breaths. When he finally reverts back he’s left naked, exposed, vulnerable but dead. It’s such a sad scenes for such a cheesy movie.

2) Jerry comforts Evil Ed

There was always this eerie sense of comfort that attracted me to this scene and I think I can attribute that to many different things. The way that Jerry’s silhouette walks down smoky ally reminds me of the old black and white noir films of the 40’s. The cold and foreboding tone that accompanies the scene and the inevitable jump presence of Jerry. However, I think I like this scene because it shows a bond between Jerry and Evil Ed, a bond that goes beyond than just blood-sucking. Jerry is considered an outcast and was probably shunned in his time for being a vampire. Evil Ed is considered different from most norms of society so you can also argue that he’s an outcast like Jerry. The dialogue between Jerry and Evil Ed explains a bulk of it but it’s that realization in both of their eyes that they were meant to cross paths with each other. I also like the fact that it shows vampires as just not demons that chase women but also interact between men as well.

1) Jerry confronts Charley

This scene is considered my favorite of all the scenes because of what happens. Of course it was the first time in my life where a vampire wasn’t just a guy with fake fangs in his mouth and it was one of the scenes that made me jump back in my chair when I first saw it. The real reason why I love it is because Jerry is shown as a sympathetic character and not just an unstoppable monster that wants to kill Charley for discovering his secret. Instead, Jerry tamely asks Charley to leave what he saw at the door and just forget about the whole thing. He does this peacefully but when Charley gets stubborn, he grabs him by the throat and tells him that he’s giving him a choice, which was something he never had. This scene feels like a continuation of where Stoker’s Dracula left off. It further sets up the fact that Jerry is a tortured person who lived a cursed life and doesn’t want any trouble. It’s one of the more unique twists on the vampire mythology that I never saw before and I love it for that.

Hollywood Video Memories: Uncle Sam (1997)

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:39:00 +0000

One of the biggest things that influenced me when it came to choosing what horror movie I would watch next was the box covers. There were two movies in particular that had cover art that immediately grabbed my attention. Uncle Sam and Jack Frost were different than most because they were the only two horror movies that had holographic covers, more specifically I was drawn to Uncle Sam because it had a menacing face of a decaying dead Uncle Sam on the cover. To me, Jack Frost would be saved for another time. At the time, I was about 12 years old and I could hardly care less about what the plot of the movie was. All I cared about were the kills, how much it scared me and whether it lived up to its awesome VHS cover art and from what I remember… I was displeased. To me it was boring and the kills, aside from one, were pretty generic. I thought the mask the “killer” wore was silly looking and I didn’t understand what Kuwait was. The only thing memorable to me was the scene where somebody gets strapped to a wooden display and dies after erupted into a gorgeous array of red, white and blue fireworks. This was my impression of the film for years and until recently I came across it on Netflix and decided to give it another watch.

When I was younger, I always thought the film was about some kind of demonic force that takes the identity of Uncle Sam and I wasn’t that far from what the movie truly is about. Sam Harper, a decorated soldier and Purple Heart winner, was shot down in Kuwait from friendly fire. His young Nephew, Jody (yes, he’s a boy), becomes distraught over his uncle’s death. However, through some mysterious connection between nephew and uncle, Sam is brought back to life on the eve of July 4^th. Now, as the entire town celebrates the birth of America, Sam dawns the outfit of Uncle Sam and goes on a killing spree to those who dare disrespect the U.S. of A. But there is more to Sam’s past then just being soldier who enlisted purely for the fun of killing. The only real notable actor in the movie is Isaac Hayes who plays Sam’s former army buddy Jed Crowley and he gives a hammy performance as always. William Lustig, the brain behind Maniac and Maniac Cop, directs this wonderful gem of direct-to-video goodness.

As I already stated, the reason why I didn’t like this movie is because it was slow, boring and drawn out. I didn’t care for any of this “exposition” when I was younger but as I grew older I began to look at things through a different light. Uncle Sam is horror but half of the movie is a drama and the other half is a slasher so it felt lopsided and that’s what turned me away from it in the first place. The first half of the film is a young boy’s struggle to cope with his uncle’s death; an uncle who, in his eyes, set out to accomplish something and died for the good of our country. The second half has that very same uncle rise from his coffin and go on a murderous rampage of draft-dodgers and corrupt politicians. But as I look closer at the first half, it’s not that bad of a story and like myself, this half turned a lot of horror fans away from the movie but I’ve come to accept it. It’s actually a very ominous drama that keeps alluding to Sam’s horrible past but we never know it because we’re meant to see the story through Jody’s eyes.

The movie tackles some pretty interesting topics involving patriotism, what defines and hero and the quandary of war. One of the issues that are brought into the light is the dilemma soldiers have to face in war. Jody’s teacher, a draft-dodger, questioned the reason why we ever got into Vietnam and whether it was right to fight into a war they didn’t believe in. If the U.S. says you must fight for our country despite what you believe in, do you answer the call or do you avoid it? In a very unsettling scene, the movie also asks the question: in war, what defines a hero? Jeb (Isaac Hayes) believes there are no heroes in war, only people crazy enough to try something stupid and get lucky. He believes that those willing to take out an entire company with their bare hands are sick-minded but they’re decorated as heroes. Those willing to throw themselves on a bomb are crazy too but they’re viewed as heroes. For a movie that’s about a zombie soldier dressed like Uncle Sam and seeking his revenge from friendly fire, there are a lot of deep questions that it tries to provoke.

As much as it seems like I’m praising this movie, I’m not because it’s not a great movie but rather an okay movie. It’s not a B-movie because there are a lot of great special effects, explosions and fireworks that invoke a very dark and cynical July 4^th. There are still problems the movie suffers, problems that I never really paid attention to when I was younger, problems that I just now noticed as an adult. Just to name a few: Sam’s motivations are quite clear in the beginning; he kills those who do not live by the perceived American ideals, therefore he kills people who defile or deface what America is all about. However, near the end of movie he simply kills just for the pleasure of killing (then again, that’s apparently what he did before he became a zombie). This unique motivation keeps flip-flopping back and forth. The kid in the wheelchair at the end of the movie literally comes out of nowhere and almost acts like a second main character. Who is he? Where did he come from? Why wasn’t he referenced before the very end and most importantly, why is he suddenly telepathic? I also think it’s funny that Jeb, a full grown adult, casually takes orders from him. There are also a lot of small things that are wrong with it but I won’t dive into those because I don’t want to nitpick.

Uncle Sam is a strange one out of the holiday-themed slasher movies because it’s part serial killer and part zombie flick but in the overall plot, it’s part drama and part horror. It’s certainly not an awful movie but it’s also not great… it’s just okay. I’ve gotten past some of the minor things and saw what appeared to be a movie trying real hard to be solemn and political. Part of me is still in 12-year-old mode where I just want to see somebody dressed as Uncle Sam fillet somebody on an American Flag staff. The way I see it, if somebody ever asks me about it (not like they would), I can give them an honest opinion instead of saying something like, “It’s a shitty movie with shitty acting and it’s too boring!” Now I can say, “It’s an okay movie with okay acting but it drags on in the first half.”

Side note: Every time I saw Robert Forster in a movie I would say, "Oh my god it's Max Cherry!" obviously from Jackie Brown. Now when I see him I'll probably laugh and say that I got to see him explode in a celebration of fireworks.

Review - Fright Night (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 18:18:00 +0000

I have always adored the original Fright Night because of how it combines traditional vampire elements with modern interpretations. I don’t consider it a childhood movie because when I saw it, I was about 13 and rented it in conjunction with Waxwork and Head of the Family. When I heard there was a remake, I couldn’t believe it because I knew they would make it flashy and action-packed so that modern audiences wouldn’t be bored by it. The trailer only reassured me of this. So, I went to see it and I wasn’t wowed by it but I didn’t think it was terrible either. The story, this time around, is different from the original storyline. When Charlie’s friend disappears, his other buddy Ed tries to convince him that his neighbor, who happens to be a vampire, killed him. Charlie, at first, doesn’t believe him but soon discovers that he is right and that he now must protect his girlfriend and his mother from a bloodsucking monster who has survived for 400 years. He can’t do it alone, so he enlists the help of a famed Las Vegas entertainer Peter Vincent, who claims to have encountered a vampire in his childhood. I partially enjoyed the remake because it kept in the small things that made the original so good but it ignored some of the fundamentals of what made the original Fright Night a “compromise” flick.

I’m going to dive right into the small things that I liked about this remake. I always liked that smirk that the original Jerry Dandrige gives Charlie when he realizes that he just embarrassed himself in front of Peter Vincent. Colin Farrell is the perfect modern day candidate to deliver that snarky smirk followed by him taking a big bite out of a green apple. I loved it. It was one of my favorite moments in the original Fright Night and they kept it. I’m glad they kept in the famous lines, “you’re so cool Brewster” and “Welcome to Fright Night,” and although I hated the delivery of the first line, I think Colin did a great job delivering the second line. Although it was partially ruined by CGI, just like the blood in this movie, I am still glad they gave Charlie’s girlfriend a crooked, harlequin like smile when she becomes a vampire. It was something I was dreading from the moment I saw the trailer. They improved on something that the original barely touched base with and that’s the notion that a vampire needs to be invited into your house. I loved it because it’s going back to the old school rules of vampire mythology, something that modern day vampire movies always seem to forget. There is even a small almost unrecognizable cameo from the original Jerry Dandrige that I enjoyed. I think I was the only person to have clapped when I saw him on the screen.

One of the major concerns I had about the remake was the casting decisions and surprisingly, none of them applied to Peter Vincent or Jerry but rather Charlie and Evil Ed. I liked Colin Farrell as Jerry because he has a sort of modern charisma and snarky looks that can really be creepy. I have never seen one Dr. Who episode let along the ones with David Tennant but outside of the Dr. Who franchise, I’m a big fan of his work. I think he was a great cast for Peter Vincent and although, at first, I hated what they did to Peter Vincent I slowly warmed up to him as this cocky stage performer. However, for the first half of the movie, he was annoying and I had flashbacks to Dr. Loomis in the remake of Halloween 2. When he finally got his shit together and assisted Charlie in trying to take down Jerry, that’s when I smiled and said, “This will be good.” Anton Yelchin was actually pretty good as the nerdy Charlie Brewster and had that nervous stutter the original actor had but some scenes were really showing Anton’s age. Not that it matters but you could tell he is definitely too old to be in high school. As for Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Evil Ed, like with Peter Vincent, he was really annoying and not sympathetic as the original character was. I was okay with the casting but it was the way they played Evil Ed off. When he becomes a vampire, he looks more like a werewolf than a vampire, which is good… I guess, but I don’t think it was their intention.

There were lots of fundamentals that they decided to skip out on and in return they enhanced the action to keep modern day audiences more attentive. The original Fright Night is a slow movie and I liked that, in this remake, they get right to the point and they pepper it with house explosions, car chases and a gun & stake fight in Peter Vincent’s apartment. One major fundamental that they got rid of was the uncanny resemblance the original Fright Night had with Rear Window in that there are several scenes where Charlie is spying on his neighbor with binoculars. It was a wonderful aspect that they hardly even touched base upon with this remake. Another fundamental was the romance. I’m all for the cold-emotionless vampires of today but I always prefer my vampire to be romantic, and the original had a very complicated romance between Jerry and Amy. In Jerry’s long past, he was a romancer helplessly in love with a girl but because of his curse, he ended up leaving her. In the climax, when Amy is held down by Charlie, Jerry, as he’s being burned alive, screams out, “AMY!” It was really sad because I believe Jerry really loved her as she reminded him of when he was younger and not cursed. None of this romance and forgotten love is even in the remake. I hated it. It was the perfect chance to infuse traditional vampire mythology with modern day vampire mythos.

Speaking of relationships, there is no relationship between Jerry Dandrige and Charlie Brewster aside from Charlie being frightened by him. The original had such a great confrontation in Charlie’s bedroom and that scene wasn’t even put in the remake. The way I see Jerry, he’s supposed to be sympathetic and not a cold heartless bastard that the remake makes him out to be. In the bedroom, Jerry gives Charlie “a choice,” which is something he never had. This idea of Jerry protecting Charlie was always something that I loved because maybe Jerry sees Charlie as a young him. Jerry is missing a father figure and Jerry, or even Peter Vincent, is that father figure protecting him from something he can’t fully understand. This fundamental is completely absent from the remake and it looses any emotional impact they were going with. Also, there is so confrontation between Peter Vincent and Evil Ed, which I really loved from the remake. The agonizing pain that Ed goes through as he transforms from wolf to teenager was something that not only made Peter Vincent cry but it made me sad as well. Instead, they try to differ it up with the remake and it doesn’t have the impact that the original had; partially because they didn’t use practical and sound effects to create a truly agonizing scene on par with American Werewolf in London.

I try not to be nitpicky but these were fundamentals that I loved from the original. It’s so hard to compare the two films and the characters because the remake is so different from the original but because it bares the same name and basic plot, I feel as though I must compare the two. This is my entire argument, really. Things have been omitted, changed and flopped around to the point where if they changed a few more things, it could have been a great original story that pays tribute to Fright Night. Look at films like Disturbia. Disturbia, at it’s basic premise is exactly like Rear Window but they changed it up a bit, slapped another name on it and I loved it. Look at the movie Rat Race; same basic premise as It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World, but different execution and name. This movie didn’t need to be a remake but rather it’s own thing and I think if they did it that way, I would have loved it a lot more. Since it bares the name Fright Night, my mind will always be in conflict trying to compare an apple to an orange when it reality, they aren’t comparable. Fright Night, though I didn’t hate it, could have been something more original but instead they had to bank off of the name and make a remake. In the end, it makes me want to watch the original even more.

Review - Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Fri, 26 Aug 2011 19:14:00 +0000

I was never really excited for Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark but I was curious to see how they would be able to improve on an already cheesy 70’s TV show. When I saw the trailer for it, I thought it looked amazing but at the time I didn’t know it was a remake. As time passed I forgot about the movie until my friend watched the original TV show and said it was really cheesy. So, on the eve of its premiere, I was beginning to show a little excitement. This was a chance for the filmmaker and Guillermo (as the producer) to construct an homage to 70’s horror where the music and the mood are the scariest pieces. In the end, I walked out of the theater with a feeling of “eh.” It certainly isn’t bad but it wasn’t great either. It was okay. The film centers on a father, his young daughter and a stepmother who is NOT evil like any other horror movie. The young daughter, Sally, begin hearing voices coming from an old gated up hole in the basement. The voices say they want to be her friend but she quickly learns they want to attack her. Thinking that his daughter is crazy, the dad believes all the attacks are staged by Sally to get attention. Sally’s dislike for his new wife may have been the cause of that, however, the “no so evil” stepmother does a little sleuthing and finds out that little creatures that eat the teeth of young children inhabit the house.

One of the biggest problems that I had with the film, and it doesn’t tarnish the entire movie, was the willingness to show the creatures in extreme detail. Don’t get me wrong, I’m okay with a movie that feels like a demonic version of The Borrowers but I didn’t need to see all the details. By doing a Google search on Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, it seems as though the original did the same thing. The beginning of the movie has a man, named Blackwood, who chiseled his teeth and his maid’s teeth out and offered them to the creatures in exchange for his son. While in the process of sticking his head through that hole in the wall, something grabs him, we hear screams and then his entire body gets sucked into it. That was creepier than anything else in the movie. By showing your monster too much, you lessen the scare value and it reveals just how funny the creature or creatures are. I think if we saw small movement, or even a silhouette running in the shadows, it would have built up a better mood. If they had to show you what the creatures looked like, I think the best part to do so would be when Sally is lifting up her bed sheets and one of them pops out. It’s fast, it shows you it’s face and it’s a great teaser.

Perhaps Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark was marketed for horror fans that are within the R-rating. I can’t help but think of Insidious when I talk about it because they both seem to rely heavily on the same scare techniques of the 70’s, loud abrupt orchestral pieces and a very definitive mood. As a side note, I wonder why Insidious got a PG-13 and Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark got an R? There wasn’t any swearing any either of them from what I remember. However, in the case of Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, it wasn’t so much moody as it was loud noises. I’m fine with that because a lot of horror flicks use the loud noises to scare it’s audience but what made Insidious so good was the mood and it’s willingness to use silence as a means of scaring the audience. For younger horror fans, loud noises and foreboding music works and it’s a staple in the horror genre, I just wish they did something a little more different.

With all that said, and this goes for Insidious too, I love that Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark isn’t just your typical haunted house movie but rather something much more with a creature that is very reminiscent of old world demonology. The tooth-snagging creatures could be interpreted as teeth fairies seeing as how they steal your teeth and leave a piece of silver in it’s place. They almost seem like they drew inspiration from Medieval and Colonial takes on fairies where they were seen as monsters or demons that attacked children. I love that idea that there are things that live within the walls of my home, which is why that line, “Are you feeding that thing that lives in the wall again?” from People Under the Stairs freaked me out. I know this is a remake and I’m sure all this more appropriately applies to the original but I haven’t seen it yet, so I am basing all my assumption on the remake.

All in all, it wasn’t a near-flawless movie but it was still entertaining at times. I guess what separates me from a majority of the new horror fans is that I like it when the monster is left to your imagination. On the way back from the theater, my friend leaned over to me and told me that it would have been far creepier if they only revealed the creatures in the forms of the drawings. I couldn’t agree more. Otherwise, the acting is what you’d expect from a horror movie but the little girl was fantastic. It always seems to be the case. The mansion was creepy and I felt like it owned something to The Haunting remake. I also really enjoyed the bitter ending; I didn’t expect it and it was pretty cold. I won’t spoil it but it’s pretty sad. I wouldn’t rush out to see it but it’s a good movie to watch if you have surround sound and have nothing better to do on a dark stormy night.

Children of the… Grendel?

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 14:46:00 +0000

It’s not very often that you get a chance to see a horror flick where the children are the enemy. It’s not very often you get a chance to see the children being possessed by a renegade kid who speaks of some mystical deity. It’s also not very often that you see children worshiping a false god while living in a secluded section of their town contemplating on killing their parents. I am of course not talking about Children of the Corn, but rather a cult classic from Troma Entertainment called Beware! Children at Play. It would be easy to get the two confused since their premise is pretty similar although if anything, Troma’s movie acts as sort of a prequel to what would be Children of the Corn. Renegade children being led by somebody who is clearly out of his mind, although there doesn’t seem to be any real hint of supernaturalism in Troma’s movie. But the similarities between the two movies are uncanny and I think that Troma did a somewhat good job of parodying King’s story.

Children of the Corn takes place somewhere in Nebraska and Beware! Children at Play takes place somewhere in the rural South. People who have a strong belief in Christianity apparently populate both towns but it’s never directly seen in Children of the Corn… only stated. Each town is secluded from any type of large populated area and people that stumble into it have that city quality to them. In Children of the Corn, the couple that ends up getting involved with everything seems to have that city quality to them considering they are on their way to Seattle. In Beware! Children at Play, though I don’t think the protagonist family ever states where they are from I think they scream “suburbia” in just the way they dress. While most of the town’s men dress in plaid flannel shirts, t-shirts, overalls or work coats, the father of the family is wearing a nice blue polo shirt. I think these are all just really over-analyzed observations that I am making, but the real similarities are when comparing the two groups of brainwashed children.

See, both groups of kids are seriously screwed up and believe in their leaders insane rambling, however it makes more sense in Children of the Corn because there is actually a supernatural creature that lives in the corn. Further investigation states that the monster is actually one of King’s great villains known as Randall Flagg who appears as the main antagonist in The Stand. In Beware! Children at Play, there doesn’t really appear to be any type of supernatural force. Some kid, 10 years prior to the film’s current setting, decides to become a cannibal after eating his literature-teaching father who was caught in a bear trap for survival. Now that somehow gave this kid incentive to kidnap the rest of the town’s kids to brainwash them by reciting Beowulf lines. It makes no sense but I guess in this world, young rural children are easily persuaded into killing and eating their parents by simply reading Beowulf. Their base of operations looks like a kid-friendly reenactment of a Native American village with teepees and bonfire pits. I get it, it probably looks makeshift because the movie is very indie and honestly I can’t complain about it.

But what about the leaders of both groups? Well, before I get into that lets talk about their “martyr” so to speak. The children in the corn worship a god named “He Who Walks Behind the Rows,” and their sub-god (I guess) is the Blue Man who happens to be the rotting corpse of a mailman. It’s creepy and very disturbing. Now, the children of Grendel worship their leader named Glen Randall (bad pun) and their “sub-god” appears to be the rotting corpse of Glen’s dad, the one who got his foot caught in the bear trap. It’s not disturbing so much as it makes you say, “Oh you kids and your crazy fads.” The similarities between The Blue Man and Glen’s dad is pretty uncanny because they are both rotting corpses who are being hunt on crosses that oversee the entire camp. Now the leader of the children of the corn is Isaac, who happens to be one of the creepiest ominous kids in the horror genre. His right-hand man is Malachi, the long red-haired teen who swings his machete around screaming, “Outlander!” The children of Grendel’s leader is also some long-haired teen who doesn’t seem to pose any type of threat and doesn’t, in any way, look scary or ominous. Other than using kids to kidnap women to rape, his motivations aren’t as creepy as Isaac’s or Malachi’s. They even go as far as to shout the same infamous quote, “Outlander!”

I don’t think I also mentioned that both cults are set up in a relatively secluded area of the town; a cornfield and the woods. But you know what Children of the Corn was missing that Beware! Children at Play had? That’s right, a montage of pointless child homicide. Yep, the townsfolk are convinced that God has turned their kids against them as a test to see if they will kill them in his name… they are that deluded over the bible. I think they even recite a story in the bible, the story of Abraham who killed his son to prove his allegiance to God. So the townsfolk gather their things, invade the camp and begin shooting, maiming, stabbing and cutting their children in one of the most hilariously bad massacres I’ve ever seen. I’m kidding; Children of the Corn didn’t need that because it was actually good. As much as this movie is really bad, I found myself enjoying it at times because it has that distinct 80’s low-budget feel that makes me feel all nostalgic.

The Apocalypse Comet

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:48:00 +0000

For the longest time I’ve always wanted to watch Night of the Comet but never got the chance to because our library never had it and I never had the money to buy it on DVD. As time passed I forgot all about it until I saw it on Netflix instant. I was happy. I thought the film was about a comet that passes by and turns everybody into zombies and its up to a group of survivors to fend themselves off from the flesh-eating hoards. I was partially correct. Instead, the film is a cheesy look at two girls who try to cope with the end of the world while fighting for survival against mutated people, a gang of nearly dead hoodlums and a government organization that wants their blood for a cure. Rather than reviewing the film I want to talk about something that scored big points with me concerning the way the movie depicts the apocalypse.

For the most part, apocalyptic movies took a big leap in terms of visuals over the past few years because of bigger budgets, CGI and pyrotechnic advancements. In the 80s, movies like Night of the Comet wasn’t really a blockbuster nor did it have groundbreaking computer graphics at its disposal. For the makers of the film to truly show a world that’s completely barren, dead and “toxic,” they had to rely on production design and color enhancing techniques… and, man, does it look amazing. While most apocalyptic movies then were usually restricted to small towns or had the military trumping over the city (Night of the Living Dead or Invasion of the Body Snatchers), Night of the Comet takes place in Los Angeles with nobody around. No cars, no people, no signs of life whatsoever. I have to applaud the film for how well they depicted an empty world. The skies have a beautiful, haunting red and orange tint to them as if a bomb had went off in the sky, which is so fitting. Very rarely do you see such an effect used by modern apocalyptic films. Here are some of my favorite shots that are so hauntingly good.

I think the movie take all previous apocalyptic movies prior to its production and rolls it all into one giant cheesy movie. There is a scene that is so similar to Dawn of the Dead that it comes off as uncanny; in fact, it has more of a similarity to the remake than the original. The two sisters, having realized that the entire city has become their playground, decide to go on a shopping spree inside a mall. So, with the radio blasting ‘Girls Just Wanna Have Fun’ by Cyndi Lauper, they begin to goof around while wearing all the rich people clothes and lipstick. It’s a montage and though it’s not as powerful as Romero’s critique of mindless consumerism, it’s fun and it lovingly tributes the idea that when everybody is gone… we can’t help but do all the things we’ve wanted to do. Like shoot a car with dozens of bullets.

While we are on the page of Dawn of the Dead, it’s also interesting to note that there is a scene in Night of the Comet where one of the survivors visits his mother, who is unfortunately dead, Well, after hearing a strange knocking at the door the survivor is confronted by a zombie boy who chases him into the bathroom. Then, the zombie boy begins breaking through the door while the survivor escapes to the car through the window. I didn’t notice it until just now but that almost seems like the inspiration for the beginning scenes in the remake of Dawn of the Dead. Both sequences have zombie kids, both sequences end in an enclosed bathroom and both sequences have the hero/heroine escaping through the window. It seems like Night of the Comet is Dawn of the Dead’s younger brother. It’s great because Dawn of the Dead was the first movie where Romero really showed you just how dead and empty the world is after the zombie apocalypse so it’s only fitting that the two films have so much in common.

I have never read I Am Legend (but I have the book) and I never saw Omega Man but I have seen the film adaptation of I Am Legend as well as the Vincent Price film The Last Man On Earth. Seeing our teenage heroine walk among the clothed dust piles on the sidewalks and the empty streets of Los Angeles really rings a bell to Richard Matheson. It’s not as serious and stripped of playfulness but it wouldn’t surprise me if the entire first half of the movie drew inspirations from the book. Both films seem to have the general idea that the blood of the survivors holds the elemental key to stop the infection and possibly cure them. The military in Night of the Comet is like any other military force in these post-apocalyptic movies, they will stop at nothing to find a cure especially if it means saving themselves. In fact, like a lot of the movie the cause of the end of the world is largely due to the government screwing up a project. Though the zombies in this movie aren’t really flesh eaters so much as they are people with decaying skin that want to start fights. I didn’t see any zombies eating people or hardly any zombies for that matter. I don’t even think they are zombies… they’re just mutants.

Personally, I like the fact that they aren’t your typical, mindless, flesh-craving zombies because then it would seem like every other zombie flick that came off the assembly line. I think this film takes a somewhat more realistic route to show the infection slowly eating away at the person’s skin, making them more hostile and aggressive. I don’t even think there are any scenes that show the zombies eating people, let alone trying to eat people. I think the absents of the zombies throughout the majority of the film was a good decision mainly because it doesn’t end up being a cliché where the entire film is based around surviving a zombie outbreak. If anything, the real enemies of the movie are the scientists who are scheming of ways to save themselves.

So there are a lot of moments throughout this film that borrow from previous apocalyptic movies such as Dawn of the Dead, The Last Man on Earth and even Invasion of the Body Snatchers. It was one of the first movies that really showed the barren wasteland that is Earth after shit hits the fan and it was one of the first films that really utilized vibrant reads and oranges to emphasize the unusual setting. There is so much more I can go into like how the comet is associated with the world ending much like Night of the Living Dead and now that I think of it, this movie is really another love letter to Romero. That’s fine by me. I’m sure that many movies nowadays that deal with the apocalypse, especially zombie flicks, can owe a lot to Night of the Comet. If there is anything that people should try and bring back or homage from films like this, it’s got to be that awesome red sky effect. Because, even Die Hard does it and it looks amazing! That needs to be brought back. Don’t let it turn to dust like the people in this movie.

My Thoughts on the Thing Prequel

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:52:00 +0000

As many of you know, especially after Thing Week… I am a hardcore fan of John Carpenter’s The Thing. You already know how I was exposed to it and why it is my favorite horror movie of all time but when I heard they were doing a remake, I couldn’t believe it because the first was so flawless. Then rumors began to surface that it wasn’t a remake but rather a prequel that starred MacReady’s brother, which doesn’t make sense because the first camp that was attacked was Norwegian. So, like a cynic, I decided to not follow the hype or anything about this prequel until I saw a trailer and just yesterday Bloody Disgusting released the trailer for The Thing (Prequel) along with the poster (pictured above). I know some might want to know what I think of it but first I want to express my feelings towards the poster.

I like the poster. I like it a lot. Is it the best horror poster ever? No but it does seem to be very stylized while still keeping that Carpenter-y feel. The big bold white letters that spells out ‘The Thing’ and inside the letters is “human” on the verge of becoming its full form. If you look at his right hand you’ll notice that it’s full-blown alien and I couldn’t help but think of the scene when the group, from the original, encounter the Bennings Thing running in the snow. He falls to his knees clutching his right hand, which looks like a giant deformed crab claw, tilts his head back and howls at the group before getting torched. That’s what this poster reminded me of. However, the more I look at it the more I can see just how bad (for lack of a better term) this was photoshopped. I’m still happy with it.

Note: As you watch the trailer below, keep an ear out for the Ennio Morricone score they use. I don't know if it's directly from the The Thing or if it's reproduced.

As for the trailer itself… it looks exactly like how I thought it would be. It reveals nothing about what the Thing will look like and rightfully so but I couldn’t help but get this feeling of redundancy. To many people, including myself, the original 1951 movie was already sort of a prequel to the John Carpenter film so watching this trailer made me feel like I was watching a remake of The Thing From Another World. It didn’t feel flashy to me, which is good but it did seem to be in favor of more action sequences than building an ominous/paranoid atmosphere. I would still end up seeing the film not because I’m excited but because I would like to know how they think the Norwegian incident went down. Again, it feels very redundant because we already know what will happen in the end… two Norwegians escape trying to shoot a dog that they believe is the Thing but end up getting killed in the process. If that’s not how it ends then I guess it’s not really a prequel but rather a remake of the ’51 film. However, there are some specific things in the trailer that I noticed that I want to briefly discuss

To me it feels a little out of place to have a female in The Thing if only because the Carpenter film was so cold and “manly.” This makes me believe even further that this film will be more of an adaption of the Howard Hawks film than a prequel to the John Carpenter film. Still, since it seems like she is the main heroine and we’ll have to wait and see if she can be better than MacReady.

There’s that nice big block of CGI ice that has our lovable alien friend in it. In the third picture, if you’ve seen The Thing as much as I have, you’ll notice that the shot that shows the ice block sitting in the dark was directly taken from Carpenter’s film. The camera slowly movies forward along the small balcony that overlooks the encased alien. So I guess they are going for some level of homage here.

The next couple of scenes are short, almost like flash-frames, but they are of the alien on its back either dead or just barely alive. I don’t like CGI and I’m sure a majority of the film will incorporate CGI monsters and attack scenes but after seeing these two scenes, I might have something to hold on to that they might have some practical effects as well. The practical effects and puppetry was a staple (almost iconic) in Carpenter’s Thing so why not carry on that tradition.

Also, instead of creepy upside-down head spiders, we’re getting crab-like snake things that grab people’s heads. Fine by me.

Overall, I have faith in Universal because they seem to take care of their horror movies considering the entire company was founded on horror but that still doesn’t mean that the film had to be made. I felt the same way about Wolfman but I still enjoyed it. I can only hope that this film will inspire others to seek out the Carpenter film, and the Hawks film for that matter, to see what true paranoia is.

The Grindhouse Xenomorph

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 19:27:00 +0000

What can I say about the b-movie that is Dead Space? This isn’t an adaptation of the video game since it came out in 1990 or 1991 and it isn’t the movie the video game is based off of. This Roger Corman produced flick follows a freelance “space detective,” as I call him, who answers a distress signal from a nearby research facility on an unknown planet. When he gets there he finds out that the distress call was a false alarm, but was it? You see, this facility has been messing around with genetics in order to genetically create a virus that could combat another life-threatening virus that has plagued Earth. When the virus begins to manifest itself into a living creature, the resulting “baby” becomes loose in the facility. Using humans as its main source of food, the freelance detective and his trusty robot sidekick must find a way to stop it before it kills everybody in the station.

The only thing I can comment is at first I thought this was going to be a semi-humorous buddy cop movie with an alien twist but it turns out that the entire movie is a ripoff of Aliens. I wasn’t pissed about this because it went in a somewhat different direction but the resemblence between the virus and its lifecycle is uncanny to that of the Xenomorphes. In its final form, the virus has manifested itself in to a full-blown monster with giant mandibles, elongated head and body that seems to have its exoskeleton on the outside. I think what’s a dead give away aside from the giant pincers is that its head isn’t just elongated, but it’s flattened and looks like a giant headpiece, which looks just like the Queen in Aliens. Even more so, the virus forms itself into an egg, which was locked into an incubator. When one of the scientists gets too close to it the egg slowly opens up and shoots parasitic slug into her nose… just like Alien. Then, when its finished its larval form, the virus explodes out of the host’s chest and scurries away.

Does any of this mean anything in the long run? Probably not but I like ranting about these things. I quite enjoyed Dead Space if only because it reeks of b-movie goodness. It wasn’t as bad as its grindhouse counterpart The Terror Within but it was nice to see the b-movie equivalent of the Xenomorphs. In fact, many people have cited Alien for being a big budget 50’s b-movie, so I think it feels appropriate to view what it would have been like if it had a tighter budget. Still, when the movie got done I felt like watching Alien or Aliens. For being a film that was made in the 90’s, the practical effects were pretty damn good even though they weren’t as slimy or gory. I find it funny, though, that the poster for the film is set in space but not once during the entire film do any battles take place in space. There is only 10 minutes of total screen time that takes place in space, so it’s Alien in the Aliens 3 setting.

The Beauty of Hill House

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Sat, 02 Jul 2011 17:24:00 +0000

The Haunting has always been a favorite movie of mine, but it’s not the original. It’s actually the Liam Neeson remake that I would watch over and over again on VHS. There were two main reasons why I loved the movie: The special effects for that time and for myself were incredible and looked real, and at the time I was going through an awkward stage in my life where I fell in love with architecture and Hill House had some of the best décor that I’ve ever seen. Around 2002 I found out that the interiors were not part of the actual mansion but rather a set that was built inside a giant warehouse. I wasn’t disappointed but rather awe-inspired at how crafty, precise and imaginative the production designers were. At the time, I could imagine myself being rich and wanting rooms like those in the movie to become a reality for me. I would sit at the table, have the tape paused, and sketch out the rooms onto paper. I would even go as far as to draw out plans of Hill House so I could model my own house after it. Even now, as I watch the movie today, it’s still extremely impressive at how beautiful the set pieces are.

In an Obscure Hollow inspired post, I want to create a visual memorial to how beautiful and inspiring Hill House is. I am aware that the house isn’t called Hill House but I’m still in movie mode.

Charlie and the Thing

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:26:00 +0000

With Thing Week still fresh in my head, I think now is a good time to briefly discuss an indie film that reminded me a lot like The Thing. A few months ago I was fortunate to re-watch a film that I watched all the time as a kid, and that film is called Proteus. This film is about a group of “pirates” that end up washing aboard an abandoned oilrig after their boat blows up only to discover that the rig was a cover to hide a secret genetically modified creature that was being developed. The creature is somehow set loose, before they even arrive, but what makes this creature unique is that it possesses the ability to replicate whatever it eats but it can only replicate living tissue/things. There are several reasons why I think this film bares a heavy resemblance to The Thing and it wouldn’t be surprising if the director and writer were inspired by Carpenter’s film.

The biggest resemblance is the ‘life cycle’ of the creature, who’s name is Charlie. No affiliation with The Thing’s characters. The first time we ever see Charlie he looks like a blob of mushy, greasy, veiny skin and organs with no distinct shape or facial features. Maybe it’s just me but it certainly reminds me of that dog kennel scene where the thing ingests the dogs and forms a goopy, greasy, slimy pile of dog flesh and teeth. Sure, Charlie’s “body” isn’t as complex as the thing but the resemblance in basic physical formation is quite uncanny. It’s also important to say that Proteus’ special effects are all practical as well, and for an indie movie they were pretty damn good and unintentionally faithful to Carpenter’s movie.

When Charlie moves past his mushy larval-like stage he begins eating and replicating those he crosses. Much like the Thing, the replicant is so convincing that the survivors aren’t sure who’s human or who’s a creature. So now you are factoring the paranoia element into everything and the element of trust is now broken; it’s become an “every man for himself” situation. But as Charlie begins to consume and replicate other people, his appearance changes and again we see that it resembles the thing again. In one scene, one of the survivors sees a mysterious woman running away form him so he decides to follow her to see who she is because her face is always hidden. When she turns around and looks at the camera we notice that she is Charlie because her face is swollen and monstrous looking. I couldn’t help but think of that time in The Thing when the team was chasing the Bennings Thing and when it finally revealed it’s massively, deformed claw hand.

At the end, when we finally get to see Charlie’s “final form,” he’s a towering monster of twisted skin and tentacles with a shark-like head. Yes, our genetically modified monster was actually a shark before anything happened. As it punches through the top of the oilrig howling into the night, I couldn’t help but think of the ending where the Thing punched through the floorboards to reveal itself to MacReady. Each mutation bears a pointed head but the only difference is that one resembles more of a monster and the other a shark. How do you think that our survivors of the oilrig disaster try to kill it? With fire. Lots and lots of fire. They end up blowing up half the rig to send Charlie to his water grave but because I can’t remember the last few minutes of Proteus, I don’t know if there was a cliffhanger ending like The Thing.

I’m in no way bashing or trashing the film and if you read my other article on Proteus, you’ll know that I have respect for it. I think it’s obvious that Carpenter and his Thing (sounds dirty) heavily inspired the makers of the movie and I believe they wanted to homage it. Proteus is a good indie flick and it shows you just how far into the obscure wonders of horror The Thing has situated itself. Proteus has great effects, a slight mood and some pretty creepy moments but more importantly… it was probably the maker’s way of letting Carpenter know just how much The Thing impacted their lives.

As a side note: It seems that Charlie it more phallic than Carpenter's Thing, ironically. However, you could compare the scene where the Blair Thing shoves his fingers right through Gerry's cheeks to pull him through the snow to the scene in Proteus where Charlie rams his tentacle down his creator's throat.

The Thing Week: Concluding Thoughts

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:04:00 +0000

With Thing Week at its close, I would like to take this time to tell everybody (again) that it is the 29^th Anniversary of The Thing’s theatrical release. Next year, funnily enough, will the 30^th anniversary as well as the apocalyptic 2012. I will hopefully have something big planned but for now I decided to close off this week with my interpretation of the ending to The Thing. Yes, I’m closing off a week of The Thing to talk about the end of The Thing. Those of you interested, I did write up a “legacy” article last year. The eternal question for this film is, who is the thing? At the end, MacReady blows up the entire compound and falls to ground in utter exhaust. Rising up from the rubble we find Childs walking up to MacReady and the two men, with itchy trigger fingers, wait to see who will turn into a monster and the picture closes. Was Childs the thing or was it MacReady? Many people have said that MacReady is the thing because they feel like it would be a great twist to make our antihero become an alien. Others take the more heroic route and say that Childs is the thing because it wouldn’t be right to have MacReady turned into an alien. The comic books and possibly sequels are in favor of making MacReady the only human survivor. Excluding all the fan-fiction, comic books and fan-made sequels here is what I think of the ending.

I’ll skip right to the point. I think that none of the men were infected and the tragedy is that MacReady thinks Childs is the thing and Childs thinks MacReady is the thing, so the two will ultimately kill themselves. I believe that MacReady killed the thing when he bombed the outpost. I’ll stick with fans and say that since MacReady is our hero, it wouldn’t be right for him to be an alien… because if he’s the spitting image of the modern American hero, he must survive. As for Childs, I consider him an antihero as well but with more brawn and brass. For the most part, whenever the thing takes form of a human, you can tell by the way it moves and walks that it feels uncomfortable as if it’s not accustom to human anatomy. When the thing imitated BLANK, you can tell by the way it lifted up the flamethrower that it was in pain. When it infected Palmer, it was tied down but kept really quiet. When the thing imitates another person, it has the capability of talking but chooses not to talk; instead it puts on a paranoid face. When Childs walks up to MacReady, he does it with ease, caution and fluidity. He engages in conversation with him and doesn’t look like he’s uncomfortable in his own skin. Many may argue that maybe it took a while for the thing to adapt to human anatomy but I don’t buy that because given how fast it takes to imitate, it should adapt by (at the most) the second person.

So there’s my take on the ending. The thing was ultimately destroyed and the two men were not infected but that won’t satisfy their paranoia. That’s not to say that maybe some remnants of the thing are still in the ice or maybe escaped from the compound before they blew it up (the blood that spilled on the floor). Now that the 2^nd Thing Week has passes us, I think it’s a great time to do what I always do and provide some great Thing links from other bloggers. And with that, I want to thank those who contributed, not just with suggestions and written pieces but also to those who contributed their thoughts on my articles. I greatly appreciate it.

Horror Film Quotes with the World “Pants” Inserted: The Thing Edition from Evil on Two Legs

Kinder Flix: John Carpenter’s The Thing – Fully Sweded from Kindertrauma

Awesome Movie Poster Friday – The John Carpenter Edition from Final Girl

Monday Morricone Madness: The Thing (John Carpenter, 1982) from Days are Numbers - A great article on the music of The Thing. And if you like the music, you can download it at Sideshow Cinema.

REVIEWS

Halloween Top 13: The Remake #1: The Thing (1982) from The Lightning Bug’s Lair

The Thing (1982) from Zombies Don’t Run

John Carpenter’s The Thing: I still Say Kurt Russell’s Finest Performance Was in OverBoard from The Horror Digest

The Thing from Lost Highway – make sure you look for the ‘things I learned’ portion.

The Thing Week: The Initial Response

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:06:00 +0000

Well folks, today, 29 years ago, John Carpenter released The Thing upon the world. And everybody… hated it. Yes, it’s one of the cases where its release was overshadowed by something tamer, namely E.T. So, I decided to pull out some quotes from top film critics who didn’t like the film on its initial release.

“But it seems clear that Carpenter made his choice early on to concentrate on the special effects and the technology and to allow the story and people to become secondary -- there is not need to see this version unless you are interested in what the Thing might look like while starting from anonymous greasy organs extruding giant crab legs and transmuting itself into a dog.”

- Roger Ebert

Side note: Ebert enjoyed the movie for the most part but I think he wanted more character and less “barf bag” special effects.

“John Carpenter’s ‘The Thing’ is a foolish, depressing, overproduced movie that mixes horror with science fiction to make something that is fun as neither one thing or the other. Sometimes it looks as if it aspired to be the quintessential moron movie of the 80’s – a virtually storyless feature composed of lots of laboratory-concocted special effects, with the actors used merely as props to be hacked, slashed, disemboweled and decapitated, finally to be eaten and then regurgitated as – guess what? – more laboratory-concocted special effects."

- Vincent Canby of The New York Times (Published June 25, 1982)

“Designer Rob Bottin’s work is novel and unforgettable, but since it exists in a near vacuum emotionally, it becomes too domineering dramatically and something of an exercise in abstract art. The weird lad down the block, the one who is always fooling around with his chemistry set, will love The Thing. The rest of the neighborhood is likely to find it more of a squeamer than a creamer."

- Richard Schickel of Time Magazine (Published June 28, 1982)

“If you want blood, go to the slaughterhouse. All in all, it’s a terrific commercial for J&B Scotch.”

- Christian Nyby (Director of The Thing From Another World)

Now, I’d be lying if I said that they don’t bring up some great points about The Thing. Yes, it’s emotionless and very cold because it was Carpenter’s commentary on the Reagan administration and the moral defeat we had with Vietnam. The biggest problem that most critics had with it was that Carpenter seemed to have substituted great character developing for grossing the movie out, effectively overshadowing the entire movie with special effects. But does that mean it’s a bad movie? No. Really, in perspective, it means that Carpenter was ahead of his time. Then again, who would know that the movies following the mid 90’s would kill actor performances, characters, plot and “originality” to make way for blood, boobs and hot teen models. Comparing Carpenter’s The Thing to gorefests today is easy because Carpenter’s movie, in comparison, has thicker characters and more development. Even as a stand along film, The Thing has great character involvement. He mixed the mood and characters that were seen in horror films of the 70’s with gore and special effects of the early 80’s to make a hybrid the still works today. Talk to anybody who loves the thing and they’ll say that it’s timeless.

The Thing Week: The Comic Series

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:55:00 +0000

If you’re a horror fan, and more importantly a Thing fanatic, you’ll know that there was a comic book series that was based off of Carpenter’s Thing as well as Campbell’s novella. I haven’t looked too much into these but from what I read, some of the comics follow directly after the events of the Carpenter movie while others seem to take place in another time and place without our hero MacReady. I was unfortunate in having never read the comics and my attempt at locating them was futile. However, the comics are divided into 3 series: The Thing From Another World, The Thing From Another World: Climate of Fear and The Thing from Another World: Eternal Vows and The Thing From Another World: Questionable Research).

I want to briefly show the wonderful cover art that accompanies the comic books.

The Thing From Another World

Climate of Fear

Eternal Vows

Questionable Research

I was lucky to run into somebody via Twitter who has read some of the comics and was nice enough to give me a little review for them. So, here is Zach Dumas’ review of the partial Thing From Another World comic series:

“Dark Horse made a series of comic based on The Thing, with the first comic (of four) released in December of 1993. The series, called The Thing From Another World: Eternal Vows, uses the name of the original yet takes place after the story of the John Carpenter remake. The first comic sets the story and location up. It takes place in Stewart Island in New Zealand, and mainly is based around the Wallace Harbour. However, the first comic in the series unfortunately doesn’t feel like The Thing. We have one attack from a “thing,” which thankfully is gruesome just like Carpenter’s remake. The creature definitely looks like the remake’s creature. The writer, David de Vries, for some reason chose to include a sex scene in both 1 and 2 (which is all I currently have, as they’re hard to find), which just doesn’t suit the story and feel of The Thing.

Thankfully, after the mediocre 1^st comic, the 2^nd one gets the “Thing” feeling down. We see MacReady a few pages into the comic, getting out of his chopper, and carrying a bag full of weapons. After a disturbing sex scene with two of the “things” (who are in human form, but have tentacles around them), we get back to MacReady testing the blood from a dead man in an alley. Only we found out that he’s human and the police think he killed the man. It’s only after finally convincing them otherwise that they test the blood on MacReady’s suspect. They test his blood as the suspect freaks out and yells. The blood jumps, just like in the movie, and the suspect instantly turns into a gruesome and ugly Thing abomination. MacReady burns him with his flamethrower and kills the Thing, and that’s where the 2^nd comic ends.

Unfortunately that’s all I have till I find the other two, but from what I’ve been able to read it seems faithful to the movie. Though it does have some flaws. There’s a sex scene in both comics, which was unnecessary and served no purpose (no nudity, mind you). The art also varies. Some pages looks great, while others look bad. Some of the faces are drawn poorly such as how MacReady looks at the end of the 2^nd comic. What I did enjoy is that this takes place after The Thing, and hopefully the other 2 comics explain more about how MacReady got out of Antarctica alive and what happened to his friend. While the first was pretty bad, the second comic had me looking forward to finding out how it all ends. So far, I’d give the first comic a 5 or 6 out of 10 as it just didn’t feel like The Thing. The second comic is a good, solid 8/10 as we see MacReady and we get to see some “thing” fighting and the famous blood test experiment again."

Follow Zach at his Twitter.

It's also important to note that Carpenter himself said that if he were to do a sequel to The Thing, it would be based on the Dark Horse comic books since he was such a fan of them.

The Thing Week: A Survivor's Tale

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:23:00 +0000

Since today I have a lot going on, I think it's an appropriate time to share a survivor's story of The Thing. No, it's not a fake story of someone who survived the events in the movie, though that does sound pretty cool to write. For today, Todd Spence (the co-creater of the webseries Dealership) has written up a great piece on his experience with The Thing as well as its impact on him. I'd like to thank him for taking the time in writing this up and I hope you enjoy it.

If you're reading this, I know you've seen The Thing and are possibly as big of a fan as myself so I won't waste your time raving about Kurt Russell's easily top 5 performances or how Keith David makes one of the best bad guys/best friends or how the anonymous ending is possibly one of the best...scratch that, easily one of the best endings in film history. I could possibly go as far as saying The Thing's final moments are better than, say, The Godfather. Maybe because The Thing never ruined itself with sequels or prequels or maybe because it's not as heralded of a film so we keep it closer to the vest like a savant child, too brilliant to be with the other kids. Or maybe you're reading this because you're a raving T.K. Carter fan. Who isn't?

John Carpenter's The Thing is one of those films that I remember as far back...as I can remember. I honestly don't recall the first time watching it, much like the other million and five horror films I perused while growing up in Farmington, Missouri as a wee lad, hell bent on watching as many horror movies, as not only my brain, but my friends' brains could handle. And after all of that viewing, I've come to the conclusion that The Thing is truly the cadillac of horror movies. In fact, The Thing goes beyond horror. It is literature. And that's not just me trying to being poetic. It is literature, based on a short story by John W. Campbell, Jr., spookily and appropriately titled "Who Goes There?", relying less on scares and moreso on atmosphere, one of my favorite things about horror movies as a whole.

I actually acquired "Who Goes There?" randomly, which is a book compilation

of Campbell's short stories from the Brand Bookshop in Glendale, CA for only $11.95. Perusing the aisles of anthology fiction, I spotted "Who Goes There?" on the faded green binder and remembered that The Thing was based on that particular title. Without a doubt, I had to buy it and read where the Carpenter story originated. Turns out the Campbell story only lent half of the ingredients which we see in the film today. The rest was Carpenter's genius in story telling, character, direction, cold atmospheres and of course Rob Bottin's iconic creations. The alien, although shapeshifted in the Campbell version, also reveals its true physical form which I think makes the Carpenter's version that much more terrifying, that we don't really know what the alien being looks like flying that spaceship in the opening minute of the film.

I'm not the first person to point any of this out I'm sure. This film has been out for over twenty years of course. So the biggest point I personally would like to make and present to you, a point that I have never heard presented before as to why The Thing is a masterwork in filmmaking - There is no romantic plot at all in The Thing. Think about it. There is no romanticism. No longing looks at a photographed loved one waiting at home as some random unnecessary motivation. How many films can you point out that solely focus' on the story at hand, and doesn't waste our time with romantic sideplots, relying completely on the story's situation? Okay, okay, Alien and maaaaybe Exorcist did that. But Alien and Exorcist sullied itself with terrible sequels! Another point for The Thing.

John Carpenter's The Thing will continue to be one of those films that I will show to any friend that has never seen it, whether they like horror films or not. Because The Thing is simply a great movie. Thank you to Campbell and thank you to Carpenter for showing us the best because the best, these days, are really hard to come by.

Todd Spence

Dealership co-creator

If you haven't checked out, check out the season one finale for more Thingy greatness.

The Thing Week: YouTube Things

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:46:00 +0000

Over the past year, since last Thing Week, I’ve seen a lot of videos on YouTube that pertain to The Thing. Most of them are short and don’t really have any entertainment value to them but once in a while there was a tribute or fan made video that stood out from all the rest. I decided to pull together all the ones that I thought were great and showcase them here. But before I get into that, I feel that I should bring up the stark difference between The Thing From Another World and John Carpenter’s The Thing. Why should I bring this up? Well, it’s because while I was trolling around YouTube I watched both of these movies’ trailers and I was reminded just how different they are but how they both deal with the same themes. So, without further ado… I present to you two different trailers from two different time periods about one thing.

Here are a chosen few YouTube videos that I found that did a great job honored Carpenter’s The Thing.

Here’s a pretty good fan made “redux” trailer for Carpenter’s Thing.

I’ll let the description speak for itself: "First video clip made for Zombie Zombie, the electrifying French duo of Etienne Jaumet and Cosmic Neman. Directed by Simon Gesrel and Xavier Ehretsmann thanks to their favourite toys... the GI Joes ! The video is an hommage to the director AND soundtrack composer John Carpenter, especially one of his masterpieces : THE THING."

This was a new one that was sent to me by the creators of this web series. The synopsis reads, "When a terrible illness descends on the town, the boys of Barkley Auto will do anything to protect themselves from the virus and each other!" I enjoyed it. They really did a great job referencing The Thing from the sick dog in the beginning to the 80’s sounding score that plays throughout. Look for my personal favorite scene that has the manager chugging down a bottle of whiskey while giving everybody the middle finger.

Along the lines of the G.I. Joe reenactment, here is the full, uncut version of the Lego reenactment of The Thing. The uploader of this video isn’t the original artist but the original artist does have a YouTube account here. It was originally broken up into two parts until it was just combined into one.

I don’t remember how I found this but there was apparently a fan made sequel to The Thing and in these two videos, the special effects guy tells us how he made these amazingly well thought of and well designed replications of the Thing creatures. If you want to see the fan made film, you can check out his YouTube channel here.

And if all this wasn’t enough, here is Mr. John Carpenter himself regaling his experience while making The Thing as well as his impression on the original Thing From Another World.

The Thing Week: Fan Made Posters

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:46:00 +0000

It’s undeniable that all horror fans (at least I think so) know what The Thing’s poster looks like, even if you’re not a huge horror fan and have never watched it, it’s impossible to say that you’ve never seen it. For today, I decided showcase some of the awesome posters from The Thing… but they’re not your typical run-of-the-mill “official” poster, no, these are some amazing fan made posters that I found. It just goes to show you that a film that’s 25+ years old is still going strong in the minds of so many people. There are way more than the ones that I have here but these were some of my personal favorite, if you want to see more you can scroll through Deviant Art for some great posters that didn’t make the post.

This retro 50's style poster is one of my favorite of all the ones that use this polygonal type of design. This poster was created by Travis Pitts who has done a lot of these style posters.

Created by Strong Stuff on Deviant Art, Strong Stuff explains his love for The Thing: "i love the sense of dread and uncertainty that the film delivers, even upon repeat viewings. and there's just something to be said about action/horror ensemble casts from the 80's...from "the thing" to "aliens" to "predator", it just seems like filmmakers knew how to flesh out supporting characters well enough to make you genuinely care about them. seems kinda like a lost art to me."

These two posters were created by the Fro Design Co. They definitely have a pseudo 80's/70's vibe about them, with my personal favorite being the first one of the two.

Another Deviant Art submission. This poster was created by Small Town Hero and resembles what would be a great modernized version of the poster, if not… it looks like the type of poster what would be on The Thing's DVD box had it been released this decade. Small Town Hero explains, "I wanted this poster to have macready and 'the thing' creature on it, along with really dark blue colors and a flare on the snow behind, to let off that really cool red color."

These posters are another Deviant Art find. Created by elsantownage. They're a loving throw back to non-hand-drawn posters of the 80's. The top resembles an actual theatrical poster from the film whereas the bottom resembles the cover of the film's novelization.

Created by 3-D Monster, he explains, "The title is "The Thing",based on the John Carpenter 1982 classic. I wanted to remake the original poster in a more minimalistic style featuring the alien blood as it tries to squirm away. I really wanted to try & capture that moment of sheer terror."

Created by Thom Wulf on Deviant Art. This poster also has that polygonal design to it and works well as a fan-made teaser poster. The serious look MacReady has on his face accompanied by the opened mouth of razor sharp teeth behind him.

And of course, the others…

Please note that, the last three posters didn't receive artist credit because I wasn't sure who designed them. If you know the designers or if you are the designer, please leave me a comment so that I can properly credit you. Thanks.

The Thing Week: A Brief Look Back

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:33:00 +0000

Well folks, it’s that time of the year again… a time for summer fun, barbequing and alien invasions. Indeed, it was this week starting today, almost 30 years ago, that John Carpenter’s The Thing was released to the public and was given poor reviews by the critics that the general audience. It seems that people were not ready for a film this cold and bitter but as time went on it was considered to be one of the greatest films in both the horror and sci-fi genre. To further prove that its relevance is still under discussion, the magazine Sci-Fi Now published a list of “25 Films that Changed Science Fiction” in their 48^th issue. Though none of the films were assigned numbers, The Thing made an appearance and I think some people forget (I’m one of them) that The Thing is in fact a sci-fi flick as well. It’s a film that’s literally half horror and half sci-fi. Anyway, here is what Sci-Fi Now has to say about John Carpenter’s The Thing:

“As with many films now considered to be seminal in science fiction, The Thing was a major commercial flop on released, coming out two weeks after Spielberg’s blockbuster ET. The failure of the film had a largely negative effect on John Carpenter’s career, beginning a downward box office spiral that would culminate with Big Trouble In Little China and Escape from LA. These days, of course, it’s considered to be one of the finest sci-fi/horror films ever made, and certainly one of the greatest remakes.

In terms of influence, however, Rob Bottin’s name crops up in conversation again and again. His work on the effects – which involved him working seven days a week for over a year, and landed him in a hospital – are legendary, from the infamous ‘spider head’ to the dog transformations, and the chest-jaws. In terms of screenwriting it’s an excellent example of establishing characters swiftly and early on – men already losing discipline and ready to jump at each other with the drop of a hat. The score was exceptional, and the final scene proved that nihilistic ending can be done well.”

But Sci-Fi Now doesn’t stop there. They feel that it was necessary to briefly expand on the entire Thing franchise. It was here that I was introduced to the comic book and the novelization of the Carpenter film. Sci-Fi Now explains The Thing franchise:

Who Goes There?

The original 1938 short story from John W. Campbell kick-started the whole franchise. First published in Astounding Stories, August 1938, Who Goes There? has since been voted one of the best stories of all time by the Science Fiction Writers of America.

The Thing From Another World

This 1951 adaptation was very loose in its fidelity to the original story from Campbell. Still, it is considered to be one of the best science fiction films of the Fifties, and has been selected for preservation by the US Library of Congress.

The Thing: A Novel

Written by Alan Dean Foster based on the 1982 film’s screenplay, several extra scenes are included, and some alterations made with character names. The novelization itself now seems to be out of print, however.

The thing From Another World

In 1991 a four-issue continuation of the film was released by Dark horse comics named The Thing From Another World, in which MacReady is the lone survivor, Childs having been infected. It was written by Chuck Pfarrer with arty by John Higgins.

The Thing (Videogame)

Framed as the sequel to the events of the 1982 film, The Thing saw the player as a member of a team assigned to investigate what happened at Outpost 31. It received decent reviews from critics for its gameplay and graphics.”

So there you have it. A crash course in both the film and the entire franchise that it created and to think that it all started off with a novella in 1938. I think this was a great introductory post to really get Thing Week started. I only wish that I were able to get my hands on the comic books or the video game so that I can do reviews of them. Either way, I hope you found this read to be as interesting as I did.

Insects and Religion

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 18:48:00 +0000

When you think about Guillermo del Toro’s Mimc, the last thing that should come to mind is religion. Maybe cockroaches, sewers, giant insects and subways but not religion. However, if you pay close attention to the film you’ll notice that there are religious symbolism and aesthetics hard at work; hidden deep within the film’s plot and special effects lies something very religious. There several scenes that take place in cathedral-looking buildings and some of the major events take place within a condemned church. I think that Guillermo was trying to get at something with and I believe it has something to do with how science has sort of backstabbed what popular religion has taught people. In turn, by tampering with nature through scientific means we have created something that we aren’t able to control.

For starters, the name of the new breed sent to destroy the disease-carrying cockroaches was the Judas Breed. For those of you who know about religious, Judas was one of the 12 disciples of Christ who, for the price of 30 pieces of silver, turned him over to the High Priest Caiaphas who then turned him over to Pontius Pilate’s soldiers. Eventually, Jesus’ capture led to his inevitable crucifixion and death. Judas was known for betraying Christ and committed suicide by hanging himself. The Judas Breed (a combination of cockroach, termite and mantis) works very similar to the way the story of Christ’s betrayal played out only with bugs instead of people and eradication instead of crucifixion. The Judas insect will work its way into the cockroach tunnels, seemingly undetected and untouched by the cockroaches, and would secrete an enzyme that attracts the roaches. Thinking everything is okay, the roaches begin to eat the enzyme, which speeds up their metabolism and kills them. The Judas Breed effectively gained the trust of the roaches only to kill them.

As the story progresses, the Judas insect begins to evolve to resemble a human but still maintains its insect qualities and hunting strategies. By seeing humans as the invading species, the insect turns against us to use us as food and to eliminate competition. Again, the theme of betrayal and backstabbing is played out. It’s also interesting to note that when the Judas insect becomes a fully evolved adult, with it’s sharpened forelegs and long wings, it resembles death itself… the grim reaper in insect form. This may not have anything to do with religion but many religions see the Grim Reaper as a symbolic representation of death.

There are several cathedral-like buildings; there is a library with a giant stained glass window that resembles a cathedral, the sewers are large and open like cathedrals and even bare architectural similarities. One of the ways to get to the Judas insect hive is through a church where a priest was pushed off a building by a Judas insect. Aside from the library, it seems like an area with a mere resemblance of a church has bad things happen in it. A young boy, who later gets kidnapped by a Judas insect, is told by his father that the church across their apartment is a bad place. The church is run-down, musty, deserted and has broken statues of Christ and his followers. I see the church as a representation of an old “idea” dying and a new “idea” (religion) becoming the dominant practice. People have turned their backs against the church and now look to science for guidance. In the end, nature has the final call and we were betrayed by it or so the movie has proclaimed.

Manny, the young boy’s shoe-shining father is seen as a caring but very independent Christian who carries around a cross with him everywhere he goes. Spoiler: it’s sad that he was brutally attacked and killed by a Judas insect but I think the fact that his cross, shown as a protector, failed to so do in the eyes of science’s greatest invention. The only religious person in the whole movie was literally backstabbed by an abomination of science; the relationship between religion and science couldn’t have been shown better.

I’m absolutely positive there is more to the story than what I could uncover. As offbeat as Mimic may seem, it’s a pretty well made movie that dives into the battle between modern science and popular religion. Though any allusion towards religion isn’t spoon-fed to us, it’s not that hard to see once you notice the beginning and how the camera tries to focus on the flickering neon cross. Some people might pass this off as being a passable Guillermo del Toro film but I think he was trying to say something here. I do want to close this article by saying something that always fascinated me about insects work; they don’t have any remorse, they’re hard-working and they aren’t governed by laws or gods… they do what needs to be done to protect their colony.

The massive stained glass window in the library.

Super 8 and My Childhood

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 18:01:00 +0000

I finally placed my finger on why I feel so coupled with Super 8 and it’s not because I followed the viral marketing (because I didn’t) but because of what it brought back. Cloverfield will always be an unforgettable experience because of how exciting it was to follow all the viral marketing campaigns but all I had to go on with Super 8 was the trailer and immediately I thought of Close Encounters. I saw Close Encounters when I was young, about 8 or 9 years old, and as I watched the trailer all I could feel was this overwhelming sense of nostalgia. For about 3 minutes I felt like a kid watching the trailer for an action-packed summer movie; sort of how I felt when I first saw Jurassic Park and when I saw the trailers for Jurassic Park II. I brought back memories of being truly exciting for a film that will make me escape my life and temporarily put into an ideal adventure movie. Not since Raiders of the Lost Ark did I feel like I wanted to participate in the film. But, oddly, that isn’t the exact reason but one major reason why I feel so close to this film. Instead, the reason lies within the subplot of the film.

The subplot of the film is about a group of kids that want to make a zombie movie (titled The Case) using a Super 8 camera so that they could enter it into a contest. Aside from a monster attacking their town, a bunch of things go wrong: fuzzy footage, broken cameras, unwilling cast and crew, prolonged film development and of course lots of last-minute script changes. Not only do the kids, specifically Charles and Cary, remind me of people that I grew up with but it reminded me of my friends and how we use to take my dad’s camcorder and record random movies. I saw myself in all the kids and I could relate to their burning passion to do what ever it takes to get the movie done. On my own time, I would take my dad’s camcorder and record Blair Witch style home videos and edit them in camera. I would create wild stories using my Legos and action figures as characters and I would synch up end credits music to each scene and record it in real-time. I would use my grandparents and whoever else was around at the time to play the characters in my films and even shamelessly recorded the scene in Independence Day where the White House blew up to use in my movie.

The film provoked the inner young filmmaker in me and I think that’s why I really love this film. It brought me back to those days where my friends were loyal, where our crushes ran rampant and where we wanted to all be filmmakers. I even remember talking to one of my friends, when I was 9, and told him that he will be my editor when I begin directing movies. Super 8 brought out the inner child in me and I couldn’t be happier. As nostalgic as it was, I miss those days of innocents and big, ignorant aspirations. As a side note, if you want a great review of this film, check out The Cinemassacre.

Review - Super 8 (2011)

noreply@blogger.com (Mr. Johnny Sandman) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:04:00 +0000

The first time I saw the Super 8 teaser trailer my eyes lit up like when I first saw the teaser for Cloverfield. However, I didn’t feel that spark of curiosity as I did with Cloverfield but nevertheless… I wanted to see it. I trucked along with the viral marketing (everything from Rocket Poppeteers to Scariest Think I Ever Saw all the way to Hook, Line and Minker) but it still didn’t make me feel that spark of utter nostalgia. Perhaps, deep down inside I underestimated the movie and I’m here to say that I was making a grave mistake for this movie is not only a great homage to the 70’s Spielbergian films but it also took me back to my childhood where moviemaking and horror movies were my bread and butter. It captured that sense of adventure, escapism and nostalgic beauty that you so rarely find in theaters and I’m glad that I was there to see it. Now, since I haven’t kept up with the viral marketing that must I don’t know if there are any movie connections but if there are… please feel free to let me know. In the meantime, I will try to do a review of this film without rambling.

The film opens up in 1979 with the tragic death of our hero’s mother, who died in a factory accident. Our hero is young Joe Lamb who, during summer vacation, agrees to help his friend Charles with a zombie movie for a Super 8 competition. He becomes more excited to work on it when his school crush Alice becomes the lead actress. But then things spiral out of control when the group of young filmmakers witness a planned train crash mere yards from their set. They then realize that the train was holding something dangerous, something that’s living and possibly extraterrestrial. Strange things begin happening around the town like missing pets, motors from cars torn right out of the hoods, missing people and power outages. It’s up to the group of friends to discover what was in that train? Why is the military being so secretive? Why go through all the trouble to destroy it? And what are the mysterious cubes that the military was excavating from the crash?

I want to dive right into this and talk about how the movie feels to me. It was obvious that when I saw Spielberg’s name attached to the trailer, that it would be a throwback to classic films such as Close Encounters or E.T. but I didn’t know to what extent. The film is set in the 70’s and it automatically gives us that Close Encounters feel and even some of the wide shots of the night sky beautifully homage the beginning of Close Encounters. However, it goes further than that. Scenes that show the friends rebelling against the military are very reminiscent of E.T. where Elliot convinces his brother to steal the military van. Much like E.T. it is carried out in such a fun and whimsical manner. There is one scene in particular, and I won’t spoil it, that takes place underground that is almost a direct homage to Temple of Doom of the Indiana Jones series. Essentially the film captures that timeless, childhood innocents that Spielberg loves to experiment with and for a brief moment I felt like a kid again. But what about Abrams? It was his movie. There is enough Abrams to go around. The first thing I noticed was his camera flare, which isn’t as overused as it was in Star Trek but it gives the movie a nice touch of surrealism. The action scenes, though they aren’t taking place in space or a major city, are stunningly choreographed and put you on the edge of your seat.

The cast was absolutely terrific but features mostly no-name actors and actresses. Those that are familiar were in supporting roles. On the ‘name’ actors/actresses we have Kyle Chandler who plays Joe’s father Deputy Jackson Lamb. Chandler was terrific and when I saw the trailer for this I thought he would be overdoing his role but he perfectly executes a father who has truly lost something dear to him. He was very believable and went against the cliché of parents not believing their kid’s about monsters taking over the town. Ron Eldard, who plays Alice’s father, is fantastic as a father who has been crushed by the realization that he may have inadvertently killed Joe’s mom. But the real stars of the show are the kids; first-timers Joel Courtney and Riley Griffiths, and supporting cast Ryan Lee, Zach Mills and Elle Fanning are all outstanding. They really bring that sense of childhood adventure and imagination to the screen and they embody the characters they are portraying, making them believable. Mixing innocent love with some outright funny lines, they stole the show from their parents as well as the monster itself. Again, I had never had a fun time laughing and being scared in my life.

Now, lets talk about the scares and the monster. I won’t give too much away but the monster reminds me a lot like the Cloverfield monster. It’s vague enough to resemble it but at the same time it’s completely different. All I have to say is that, it’s not hidden as much as Cloverfield was but damn… the growls and moans that thing makes is chilling. Kind reminds me of the raptors in Jurassic Park. The scares are great because, like films from the 70’s and early 80’s, the scares are built on silence, the unexpected audience and sudden bolt of shrilling music and heavy sound effects. Though the film isn’t a horror movie per say, it definitely has enough elements in it to be considered into the genre. I still say it’s a science fiction/action adventure. The scares are limited but when they happen, they certainly catch you off guard. The other good thing is that the humor from the kids is so witty and funny that it douses some of the tension making it all the better to endure.

I might be giving Super 8 a glowing review and I might be over-indulging myself with the film but there was something about it that went beyond just entertainment for me. I’m not sure what it was but I felt like the film was how I wanted my childhood to be like. It brought me back to the days when I use to watch films like E.T., Raiders of the Lost Ark, Jurassic Park or even non-Spielberg films like Home Alone. I could imagine myself, as a young kid, reenacting all the action scenes in this film. Super 8 is a film that puts the audience into a kid’s shoes and sends them on an adventure of a lifetime and I miss that about the movies. I miss the sense of escaping my boring, mundane life to watch a true adventure unfold. I’m seeing it again, that goes without saying, and maybe the second time I could put my finger on why I connected so much with it. Until then, I recommend this movie to anybody who wants to live those nostalgic days when aliens, adventure and childhood innocents was prime.

Stay after the show. A special screening of an upcoming zombie movie will premiere during the credits.

Also, if you want to read a bit about the viral marketing you can do so by clicking here. (Note: the link takes you to the first page on the Super 8 News website. To get to more recent stuff you’ll have to scroll through the pages).