The Thing Week: A Brief Look Back

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

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

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)

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).

Science Fiction Wrapped In Horror Clothing

It’s not entirely uncommon for horror movies to switch back and forth between genres because it happens all the time. For example: I found that the original My Bloody Valentine bounces between a slasher flick and a high school drama, but many times the switch is unnoticeable. It’s different when a horror movie combines genres into one because, like any other slasher movie, it’s essentially a horror movie with teen drama thrown in. There are, however, exceptions to good genre switching and one of them is a movie called Monster Dog with Alice Cooper. We’re not here to talk about that, we are here to discuss possibly one of the better “horror” flicks that swaps back and forth. It does it gracefully and I’m willing to say that it is one of the most underrated genre switching movies that I’ve seen. I am talking about a film called Nightwish about a group of parapsychology students are end having to face their worst fears while trying to survive from their crazy professor.

So why does it succeed in being a multi-genre flick? Well, because it starts off as being somewhat on par with A Nightmare On Elm Street (and possibly Inception for those who haven’t moved on from that movie) in that it deals with psychology pertaining to dreams. Like a sci-fi film ripped straight from the late 70’s and early 80’s, one of the main characters wakes up in a tub filled with water with wires attached to her head as if she was being reborn. However, just seconds before her awakening she was being chased, during her prom, by a deranged man who killed and ate her schoolmates. From slasher to pseudo-science-fiction is a big leap or to put it more boldly: from a Wes Craven film to a Stanley Kubrick film. As the scene progresses we find out the device she is attached to can monitor and project dreams as movies on to a computer monitor. I can’t help but compare it to Minority Report but since the movie came out years beforehand, I can’t really go that route. I also doubt Spielberg even saw Nightwish.

Then, after we really get into the plot we actually discover that the professor has tricked his students into performing some kind of bizarre demented Satanic ritual so that they could summon a being into their world. What this has to do with parapsychology, I have no idea. Now the movie turns into some kind of satanic flick that would feel at home in the 1970’s and 60’s. It’s a throwback of sorts because like all demonic possession movies they characters sit around in a circle and allow the being to enter their realm. The first time this happens the being takes the forum of a weird green worm but the second time, it’s more along the lines of Wicker Man or even Rosemary’s Baby. The professor shackles his students to the basement framework with a five-pointed star in the center so that he could summon the unnamed/mysterious being once again. At this point I felt like the film was actually about demonic possession and I accepted it because it fit with the professor’s crazy attitude. However, the movie turns into something completely different near the climax.

When it comes to demonic possession and cults, it’s only natural for the cult to devote some time into torturing or roughing up their victims so I wasn’t surprised when the professor’s meathead assistant decides to torture the students. I felt it was a modern interpretation of exploitation films before modern interpretation even existed. Essentially, it was an Eli Roth film before Eli Roth was even known. By this point it still felt like a horror movie but just dealing with demons and possession. However, one crucial bit of dialogue that the professor says gives leeway for a drastic genre switch. See, during their five-pointed start summoning, the students and the professor actually succeed in brining the being into their world but it comes with a price; the demon will stop at nothing to make it’s beckoners turn against each other… even if it means causing hallucinations/delusions. One of them then begins to hallucinate the body of a dead man who reveals the professor’s true identity. Turns out that may be an alien sent to experiment on the student but is our heroine really hallucinating. We are suddenly swung back into that science fiction genre.

What goes from a story of demonic possession has now suddenly transformed back into science fiction, this time, instead of dealing with mind manipulation and dreaming it deals with the existence of aliens and cloning. I don’t want to spoil the ending but I will say that it feels like Inception in that you don’t really know what is real and what is a dream and even more so, there seems to be a direct homage to The Wizard of Oz as well. To most people it may seem like they were cheaply switching genres because the director/writers didn’t know what their movie was. I disagree. I believe that they made a science fiction film that was disgusted and played off as a horror movie. It was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Some have compared it to Altered States and that it is a sci-fi horror film and I agree to a point but I am leaning on the idea that it’s more sci-fi than horror. I think the ending perfectly clears things up.

On another note, Brian Thompson of the X-Files fame (he played an alien bounty hunter in the series) is in this film as our heroine’s lunk-head boyfriend. It’s strange that an actor who has been in sci-fi films throughout his entire career is in this as well. Not that I’m alluding to anything. I also find this scene where our heroine is battling monstrous glowing tentacles is very similar to an X-Files episode involving tentacles that grab people.

Hmmmmmm…

The Otherworldly Zombies

Let me first state this so that I don’t end up turning this into a review: I didn’t enjoy Shock Waves that way I wanted to because I’ve only heard of the movie and had never seen it until now. Zombie SS troops seemed like a great formula but I guess I was turned off by the pacing of the movie. I think it was too slow even at the times where it should have been frantic. That being said, I think it presents the zombies quite well and I’m sure that if I saw this as a kid, I’d be freaked out on a psychological scale. There is a certain mood that Shock Waves establishes, but I think the mood is bland and at times not even present… instead, I believe the way the zombies act establishes the mood (at least the scenes involving the zombies). It’s somewhat hard to explain because it requires a visual moving image but I’ll do my best to describe it.

The main reason why these SS zombies add to the “mood” of the film is because they seem so quiet, so subtle, so smooth and gentle that it only enhances a mood that is too subtle to notice. Every time you see one of them on screen they’re never warned by shrill music or a sudden burst of energetic music, which seems to be something that modern zombie films accomplish. The 70’s was a little different because when a zombie showed up, they’d usually play the main theme of the movie but Shock Waves is different. For example: a person is walking through the river, very slowly, and a zombie rises from the water behind him. The music stays soft and seldom, then the zombie grabs the person and pulls them under the water, and the music goes from soft to almost harmonious. Since the mood is trying to create a false sense of relaxation, I guess it’s only fitting for the killing to be slow and nonchalant (but very painful). Yes, drowning is a very slow and psychologically painful death.

To go briefly off tangent, I find the way the zombies drag their victims into the water to be pretty chilling. These zombies don’t eat their victims; instead, they grab their mouths and heads and submerse them into the depths of the river or ocean. To me it was a more unnerving to see somebody disappear into the water and never see him or her come back up, as if they were being dragged into Hell.

I guess what really gives me that uneasy sensation that’s beyond the mood would be the way the zombies act or how they appear. I already briefly touched base on how they slowly rise from the water behind somebody but a lot of times they just appear across from you. As I watched the film, I couldn’t help but compare the zombie troop to an army of Michael Meyers’ or a battalion of killers. Because they don’t act like zombies and because they don’t eat their victims, they have more in common with Meyers than anything. Here, in Shock Waves, the zombies movie slowly but somehow manage to pop out of nowhere to kill their victims, they stand from afar to observe who they are about to attack and they never moan or speak. If it weren’t for the explanation, I would have never known they were zombies.

It’s creepy because these zombies actually look menacing and it be because of their attire but I think it might also have to do with their faces. Not only are they emotionless but also those pitch-back goggles give them this otherworldly presence when they are shown. It’s also an interesting choice to show the zombies in the foreground most of the time; to see these menacing beings walking, single file, from afar makes then almost seem like a bizarre illusion. I guess that would be the only mood that the film but I sort of branched off into discussing how the zombies are scary, at least for personally. There is a certain chill factor the film has but I think it might get masked over by how slow the movie is, or perhaps it might add to it. Still, it’s a very interesting approach to make the zombies seem less brain-dead and more coordinative.

Note: I guess I use the word 'otherworldly' because in some way, these zombies look like aliens with humanistic qualities.

The Mood Isn't Right For Ghosts

Dark Tower (not the Stephen King book or adaption) is by no means a good movie, however as a flick that you’d probably catch late at night when you’re half asleep is a different story. Aside from the stale acting and hollow plot the film, from what I noticed, tries to use Kubrickian style suspense and atmosphere to make the audience feel uncomfortable and on edge. To achieve a good mood or atmosphere most, if not all, film elements needs to be present including the actor’s performance and unfortunately this film hardly accomplished any. I am aware that it is very hard to achieve Kubrickian style suspense because you’d need to really know the material that you’re handling and you’d need a keen eye to detail. Not many people have that and it seems that Kubrickian style suspense/horror is the best “type” of horror when you’re on a budget, since it requires very little special effects. Additionally, it seems like Dark Tower was trying to go for a Carnival of Souls homage as well, which it did well only in terms of how they revealed the ghoul that’s haunting the tower.

Taking specific scenes from The Shining we can see that Kubrickian horror/suspense relies heavily on music, lighting and performances because without any of these, there would be no mood. Scenes that involve Jack being seduced by the hotel’s wickedness feel hypnotic and uncomfortable mainly because of Nicholson’s frightening performance as he descends into madness. Dark Tower, doesn’t have good performances; the performances are quite stale and cardboard so the viewer doesn’t feel like they should be caring or even watching any of the characters. By creating captivating heroes or antiheroes, a director can sway the audience’s emotions, thus putting them directly into the movie. Since Dark Tower’s characters are hollow, I found myself organizing my iTunes playlist rather than watching the movie.

Lighting and the “color” of the film also create the mood and atmosphere. Most of the interiors of the Overlook have this faded yellow or mustard yellow color to them, giving it a vintage ominous atmosphere. Most of the times, specifically the ballroom scenes, are dimly lit and have a sense of cautiousness about them. Reds come into picture when talking about brutal massacres and we can see this through the bathroom scenes and those scenes that aren’t “yellow” are blue. Scenes that take place outdoors or scenes that have the sun peeking in are cold and blue. They feel barren of any type of emotion in accordance with the main character’s changing personality. If we examine the colors and the lighting of Dark Tower’s setting, it’s fair to say that it’s average and unappealing. The coloring/lighting doesn’t seem to reflect any type of character emotion and the lighting seems stale and fluorescent.

The music doesn’t add any type of tension or dark, frightening undertones whereas Carlos’ score for The Shining is deep, haunting and foreshadowing. It plunges the audience into the realm of spirits, mystery and terror even though it’s completely synthesized. Using cues from famous operatic compositions and Indian chants, it effectively puts the viewer into the mindset of the hotel itself and makes them feel unease. Dark Tower, however, is the direct opposite since it does not put me into the mood but I will say that I still like the score. It brings an innocent 80’s, B-movie feel to the picture that sort of provokes its inner “midnight movie” personality. Like Carlos’ score, it’s also synthesized and shrill at times.

Setting aside the formula for creating good Kubrickian horror, there is one scene that really pays tribute to Kubrick’s Shining is the ending where our heroine is being chased around the construction zone of the building by her dead lover. She runs, in absolute fear of her life, from whatever ghost or monster is chasing her as the camera follows closely behind her. I think the director wanted to take a jab at trying to stage his own version of the anti-climactic ending The Shining had but I think it falls flat for one primary reason. It’s obvious that Danny and Jack are running through a massive maze and Kubrick accomplishes a sense of confusion and disorientation because we don’t know if Jack is close to Danny or if Danny has evaded him. Kubrick pulls this off by never showing an overhead perspective or any clear shot of the relationship between Danny and Jack as they run through the maze. He focuses only on them as a whole and jumps back and forth between the shots. With Dark Tower, the director effectively shows that the construction zone is a maze but since we never actually see what’s chasing her, we assume that it’s always behind her. The audience then assumes that the camera following behind her is in fact the ghost so we loose that sense of disorientation. Still, it does do an okay job of leaving the ghouls to the imagination… for the most part.

I might be a little harsh on the film because it seems very independent. The way that I see it, the director sought out to try and replicate Kubrickian horror/suspense but it fell flat and I can’t blame him. I probably wouldn’t have done better either. What the director did achieve is a mood and atmosphere that fits right into place when it comes to “midnight movies.” All the elements are there: the lighting, the acting and the on-location setting. Dark Tower ceases in becoming a horror movie and instead becomes an artifact that faded into 80’s obscurity. I think the movie has potential and I would like to see a remake of it, sees as how the original set the groundwork.

Note: I realize that Dark Tower has two directors, not one.

The Edge of Total Confusion

I’ll admit that the only movie that I ever saw Anthony Perkins in was Pyscho. I saw none of his other films or any of the sequels to Psycho… until now. I came across a movie called Edge of Sanity in which Perkins plays Dr. Jekyll and Jack Hyde in a new twist on the classic story. Since this is the first non-Psycho film that I ever saw in him, you could imagine my inner delight to see Perkins outside of the Bates Motel. I’m not too familiar with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (mainly because I’ve never actually read the book) but I don’t think Edge of Sanity fully utilizes Perkins’ Mr. Hyde. In fact, I’ll go further to say that every time Perkins went Hyde he acted and looked as though he was suffering from some kind of dementia. It looked like he wanted to inflict harm and brutally murder his victims but he didn’t know how. It seemed like he needed to his bearings straight and even as he was “murdering” his victims, he did it in a manner that seemed too… weird.

The main point that I’m getting at is simply: what was going on through half of the movie and why was Jack Hyde doing things the he was doing. When we are first introduced to Hyde he gets a streetwalker to take him home with her, and her home is apparently in an attic or something. Anyway, Hyde begins to mumble a bunch of cryptic sentences and ultimately kneels down to the hooker and beings to ask her, angrily, if she loves him. She replies with a yes and he grabs her waist, hugs it, and begins to pray for some reason. Somehow this leads to him strip-cutting her dress up only to grasp the hooker’s ass and marvel at it’s beauty. By this point I don’t know what’s going on and what Hyde is thinking; maybe he was trying to be sexy or creepy but he just didn’t know how. Finally he slices her throat open. This is just one of the many scenes where Hyde tries to be sexually deviant but instead acts like a child who just found out what sex is.

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Hyde supposed to be a very dark, cold-blooded sociopath that brutally raped or killed women of London? As far as I know, I don’t believe there were any sexual exploratory qualities to his persona, meaning that I don’t think Hyde looked at women as though he just saw them for the first time. I do like how the story blends both Mr. Hyde with the real life London killer Jack the Ripper and I think those two combinations should have spelled a very brutal killing machine. Questions like “Why is Hyde making a girl masturbate with his cane for some pedestrian?” began to pop up in my head. I honestly couldn’t believe that was happening and more importantly I couldn’t believe that Anthony Perkins was the one doing it.

Strangely, rubbing canes against a woman’s private area isn’t the strangest and mind-baffling thing that happens. It’s actually a series of visits that Hyde makes to some strange perverted brothel or whatever you want to call it. There are half naked girls dressed as nuns, half naked girls tied to crosses, an overly flamboyant male escort, old men fondling women’s breasts and crazy head mistress. What does any of this have to do with Jekyll and Hyde? Hyde gets his thrills by dragging hookers out of this brothel to kill them and in one visit he gives his crack pipe to a hooker and they both decide to force the male escort to take drugs. I don’t see how any of this has to do with alternative personalities and the way I see it is that it’s a experimental way of showing breasts and ass. There’s actually a scene where Hyde gets angry that one of his favorite hookers, I assume, is dressed like a nun so he throws a chair at the head mistress and yells. I left these scenes scratching my head and wondering what just happened?

Perhaps I don’t quite get it because the entire sequences with Hyde felt very experimental with heightened sexual tensions. The way that I see it is the cocaine makes Hyde hallucinate things that may not be there, so all the weird sex scenes and drug abuse scenes may have all been hallucinatory. In that respect, maybe it was the filmmakers’ intension to show men in a foul way when exposed to psychotropic drugs. The drugs may have let out Jekyll’s suppressed demons and they took the form of Jack Hyde. Or maybe and probably more than likely, none of this is true and the scenes were just experimental mumbo-jumbo that they used for filler. I do agree with the title of the film. The movie pushes any sane person to the edge of sanity trying to make out what the story is about and what do nuns have to do with a brothel.

Drilling Her To Death

When thinking about slasher flicks, one can’t pass up that fact that many of them are known for having male killers who use sharp protruding weapons. Michael Meyers has a knife, Leatherface has a chainsaw and The Miner has a pickaxe. All these weapons have been analyzed, especially Meyers’ knife, and general consensus is that they are all phallic symbols. They’re all metaphors for the male genitals and when you think about how they’re meant to attack helpless women, the similarities are uncanny. Does this mean that most slashers are feminist movies? Maybe. Maybe not. I do want to bring up a slasher flick that has a weapon that fully embodies the male sex organ, mainly because when men talk about having sex with a woman they sometimes refer to it as either “nailing” or “drilling.” I’m going to hell for this but I am talking about The Slumber Party Massacre and the weapon of choice in this flick is a massive drill. There is nothing more satisfying than seeing a sweaty, psychopathic man promiscuously penetrating every girl and guy that he sees with his drill.

NOTE: This is probably going to be a very trivial yet raunchy article.

There is a reason as to why I think a drill is more of a phallic symbol than any other weapon but also keep in mind that I haven’t seen that many slasher movies to compare this to. Most of the slasher movies that I’ve seen usually involve knives, bare hands or whatever is lying around the killer at the time. The drill’s appearance has the closest resemblance to the penis than any other weapon, but than you can argue for the chainsaw’s appearance from Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2. It’s true that the chainsaw may look a penis but it’s only in a 2-dimentional form, whereas the drill is 3-dimentional. And, in the additional dirty sense, both the drill and the penis have “heads” that come to a point.

I really am going to hell, I know.

Even more so, the killer shows more traits of a repressed sexual molester than most cliché-ridden slasher villains. I think one of the biggest examples of being a sexually harmful slasher is that when he confronts our main heroine he begins to talk to her, hauntingly admitting that he loves her and that she should love him back. He says it a quiet yet nervous whisper, like he’s slowly getting aroused by it but then again, I’m well aware that a lot of slasher villains to the same thing. However, how many slasher villains out there hold on to their weapon as though it was their pride and joy? The killer in this film is shown grasping on to his drill as if it gives him power, which only furthers my theory that the drill is more of a phallic symbol than any other slasher weapon. Then, as the girl screams he “turns on” the drill and begins to kill her. I believe this may be the first phallic weapon that gets “aroused” by girls screaming.

This is a little off topic but I think it’s funny that as I was watching this I immediately thought of phallic objects because apparently this is a feminist movie. I’m not sure how, exactly, this qualifies as a feminist movie but word around the campfire is because it’s directed by a female… but even still I just don’t get it. During the initial viewing of the film I didn’t catch anything that seemed ‘feminist’ because it seemed like the girls in this movie were all inept. One of them even went as far as to eat the pizza that the dead delivery boy had in his hand because she was hungry from nervousness. Sure it adds to the comedic value but I don’t think that reflects feminism unless I, myself, don’t understand what feminism really is. Either way, if it is meant to be feminist than the drill is certainly a “manly” weapon.

I am aware that this was a very pointless and pretty random topic to discuss but it was the first thing that popped into my head. After spending little over a year looking for this movie, I thought it would be something great or exceptionally cheesy but instead I got a very average slasher with one exception: a perfect phallic weapon. I’ll hand it to the creators that an enormous battery powered electric drill is a pretty clever weapon next to a chainsaw or a pickaxe. Either way, I hoped you enjoyed this pointless and ‘classy’ thought on Slumber Party Massacre.

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY!

With Mother’s Day already here, I think it’s about as good of a time as any to give my best wishes and loving appreciation to a mother who has no other name except for ‘Mother.’ Yes, I’m talking about the mom who became so obsessed with having the perfect child that she forced her “daughter” to conform to her standards or else she’ll see to it that she lives in the basement the rest of her life. She sounds like a twisted fairy tale mother gone wrong and she looks like Mommy Dearest, she’s Mom from Wes Craven’s The People Under the Stairs. Raise your drinks and slap on the restraining suit to the craziest mother you’ll ever see in your life.

Additionally, happy Mother's Day to all the moms out there that raised us and helped us grow up. Today is your day and we wouldn't have it any other day.

The X-Files Episode That Wasn't

I always found that Deer Woman (the Masters of Horror episode) to be awkwardly enjoyable and occasionally funny and that might be due to its attempts of tongue-in-cheek humor. However, the entire episode fell on its feet because of lack of witty dialogue and the ‘feel’ of a real investigation. What I mean by that is the episode didn’t feel like the characters were doing any type of investigation; they seemed to just get lucky. I always described the episode as The X-Files meets CSI but now that I think of it… it would have been better off being an X-Files episode guest directed by John Landis. The story could have stayed the same with the same characters just with the additions to Mulder and Skully and I could totally see Mulder playing out the possible killing scenarios in his head. Since Deer Woman didn’t rely on profanity (and it didn’t need profanity) or gore, it would have been a great X-Files episode. What this movie needed was the smart, witty dialogue of Chris Carter, the commanding presents of Mulder/Skully and the slapstick edge of Landis and it would have been fun to watch.

On a side note: I find this episode creepy mainly because of the thought of a woman having deer legs. That scene when the cop realizes that he made a big mistake letting the girl in his hotel room always sends me shivers. Just the way he turns around and how his eyes widen with fright; you don’t even need to see anything, you can just imagine what he’s seeing.

The Physical Evolution of the Vampire

For a good portion of the years that movies dominated the entertainment business, vampires were always seen as people wearing fake vampire press-on teeth and maybe some white makeup to show they are dead. This sort of design started off in the early years of film during the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s. It wouldn’t be until the 60’s and 70’s that the vampire got a drastic face-life. They ditched the white makeup but still kept everything else, so there wasn’t much improvement from the earlier vampire films. Hammer movies and Blaxploitation flicks showed the vampire with human qualities, but the only difference is that these vampires were more brutal and the movies had an opportunity to really accent the romance associated with vampire legends. When the 80’s rolled around, the vampire got a complete facial and physical makeover and for the first time vampires were shown as monsters from Hell.

I’m mainly talking about The Lost Boys and Fright Night and I’m aware there are movies like Vamp that are out there but I haven’t seen it yet. To me, it seems like the 80’s paved the way for how a vampire should ‘really’ look like because afterwards… in movies like From Dusk Till Dawn, Blade: Trinity and The Night Flier, they aren’t the handsome classy men with sharp fangs that we thought they were. Sure, they start off as being ideal visions of what a perfect man should be, but once they transform into a full vampire they loose all their beauty and this goes for women as well. The progression seems almost instant but I’m also aware that older films showed the vampire as being demonic and otherworldly.

Since the very first vampire movie, Nosferatu, vampires were seen as demonic, blood-sucking monsters from hell. They were seen as pale, white human-like creatures with long talons, pointy ears, bulging eyes and razor sharp teeth. Their heads, massively enlarged and somewhat deformed. Honestly, had I seen Nosferatu when I was a kid I’d probably be afraid of vampires but I grew watching Dracula and this is where vampires would be brought down to a more human level. Bela Lugosi’s Dracula is what set the groundwork for what a vampire should look like for the next 50 years, with minor trail offs here and there. What Lugosi brought to the table was a monster that was both charming to look at, elegant, composed and nowhere near the demon that was seen in Nosferatu. He still retained the classic trademarks of vampires but physically he was different.

Throughout most of the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and mostly 70’s, vampires were just people with plastic fangs in their teeth. Sure, it was still scary because we’re not use to seeing people with razor sharp teeth, pale skin and luring eyes. Back then, most horror directors tried to scare the audience with gratuitous bloodshed, unexpected jump-scares or just by the mere look of the vampire. If we look at the infamous Hammer vampire films like Taste the Blood of Dracula or the Horror of Dracula, I think what’s scary about them isn’t just Lee’s interpretation of Dracula but also that stretched out smile and those blood-red eyes. Throughout the late 50’s through the mid 70’s, Hammer constantly pushed the boundaries of how the vampire should act and look and I do believe that Lee’s Dracula was the prototype for what the 80’s would soon bring to the table.

Horror of Dracula (1958)

The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967)

The Vampire Lovers (1970)

Blacula (1972)

Martin (1977)

I’m also aware that the TV adaptation of King’s Salem’s Lot features a vampire that is the spitting image of Nosferatu and more than likely contributed to the inevitable physical change that would happen. However, I do believe that Lee’s vampire was the first incarnation of a truly demonic vampire that was different, whereas Salem’s Lot seemed to directly homage Nosferatu.

Fright Night was a truly revolutionary film in many senses. It brought the romanticism of vampires to the MTV Generation and re-popularized the vampire story. It exposed the new generation to classic horror monsters and it set the groundwork for what a true horror comedy should be like. However, it also set the standard for the re-imaging of the classic vampire in which many movies soon after would follow. For the first time, at least in terms of mainstream media, the vampire wasn’t just a man with fangs but rather some type of monstrous cross between bat, creature and human. For the first time, vampires looked like demons from Hell and I think that the reason why it happened in the 80’s is because the special effects were perfected then. Jerry Dandrige became the staple of modern vampires. Sure he wasn’t all pointy ears, wrinkled skin and yellow eyes but he brought back the Nosferatu-like qualities that vampires once held. Also, for the first time, filmmakers didn’t have to rely only on blood and jump-out scares to get the audience. They could rely on grotesque, horrifying look of the vampire.

As 1985 quickly turned into 1987 there were two vampire films that seemed to compete with one another, not in terms of their fanbase or their filmmaking, but rather their interpretations of the vampire. See, Near Dark paid tribute to the classic look of the vampire: all human qualities save for the long, razor sharp canines. Near Dark seemed to be a modern homage/adaptation of the vampire that was once popularized by Lugosi. However, on the other end of the spectrum you have The Lost Boys, which seemed to follow in the same footsteps as Fright Night but they were slightly different looking that Dandrige. The Lost Boys was like a cross between Lugosi’s vampire and Sarandon’s Dandrige vampire. The Lost Boys, and more specifically the head vampire, had the fangs and luring eyes but they also had the elongated jaws, the twisted smiles, the prominent cheekbones and the bend eyebrows. Compared to Near Dark’s bloodsuckers The Lost Boys are probably more frightening to look at and probably more violent. After 1987 there would be a major shift of vampire movies where classic looks meets modern interpretations.

Vamp (1986)

The Night Flier (1997)

From Dusk Till Dawn (1998)

Van Helsing (2004)

30 Days of Night (2007)

The way that I see it, it’s sort of like how zombies progressed in film and I’m not talking about the debate between running zombies and slow-walking zombies. Before the 80’s, zombies were just pale-faced human walking slowly with their arms raised half way into the air. It wasn’t until the 80’s when special effects were perfected did we see zombies that had skin falling off their faces, exposed bone and missing eyes. I mean, you can say that about any classic horror icon like werewolves or Frankenstein monsters but I think there is an ongoing war between modern and classic vampires whereas the special effects for werewolves and zombies seem universally accepted. I know some people prefer the classic Lugosi route and some prefer the Sarandon route. I’m more on the fence about it because both versions are so radically different and each version has its pros and cons. I just thought it was very interesting how there was a massive jump from just fangs to a complete physical makeover within the vampire subgenre and truly paved the way for modern vampire films to come.