Welcome back to 31 Days of Horror! The countdown to Halloween continues and we still have a ton of films to get through, so let's get started...

-----

21 - A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1984) / WES CRAVEN’S NEW NIGHTMARE (1990)

“Slasher” films are a subgenre of horror that relies primarily on large body counts, with excessive blood and gore and sex, done by mindless killing machines. Typically, they have no plot, no character development, no suspense, no charm, no thought, no focus, no structure, as if it was made for middle school teens with tourette syndrome who somehow snuck into the R-rated theatre by making googly faces at the ushers. It’s popcorn entertainment and these films really give horror a bad name. However, to be fair, once in awhile, you can find a “slasher” that really impress you, and the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise was the one that did it for me — and I’m going to talk about two films in particular which are essentially the same. I’m getting down and dirty with this one, so watch out:
     New Line Cinema is known as “the house that Freddy built.” Created by writer-director Wes Craven, A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) was the film that started it all and, unlike so many of the genre, this was surprisingly cerebral “mind fuck” film, taking full advantage of the “slasher” genre with a completely new and fresh approach. Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) was a serial child molester-murderer with a razor glove who terrorized the suburbia town of Springwood and was burned alive by a mob of angry parents after he was released from prison by a technicality. However, he became something much worse. Years later, he sought revenge on the parents by violating the dreams of their now-teenage children. When he kills you in your dream, he kills you in real life; and the only way to defeat him is pull him out of the dream and to kill him in the real world, which the resourceful heroine Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) does. The film blurred the lines of reality and fantasy, where you’re never sure where the real world ends and the dream world begins and vice versa. Because he’s a dream figure, he can transform himself into anything, into your worst fears and enjoys every minute, and create anything as well, making the atmosphere creepy, the deaths creative, the visuals terrifying, and the villain extremely powerful because, no matter how much you try, you can’t resist sleep! However, the biggest and most fatal flaw about this film was the last five minutes: The production ran out of money and halted, and the original climax in the script could not be filmed, so it just ends abruptly, with little to no explanation, leaving the audience scratching their head in complete confusion! Subsequently, the five sequels were released, one by one, over a span of a decade, which spiraled down in quality each time, focusing more on cheesy comedy and moving further and further away from the scariness and intelligence of the original. And this is when Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (1994) came in... Just when I thought the franchise had ran its course and Freddy could do no more, the seventh film New Nightmare blew me away! Wes Craven returned to the series after years of avoidance, with a bigger budget and more freedom, and he went out to “remake” the 1984 original film the way it was meant to me, as something completely original, being back the original cast whom are now 10 years older. The film takes the phrase “art imitating life” to a whole new meaning; it ran like a reality show (before they became popular) and a behind-the-scenes documentary in one, where the cast of the first film, including its crew and executives, are playing themselves in a pseudoistic real life setting: Robert Englund, as himself, has a become a horror icon by portraying “Freddy Krueger” in Nightmare on Elm Street films and questions his former co-star Heather Langenkamp, as herself, whose become an icon by playing “Nancy Thompson,” if she heard anything about a new Nightmare film project that Wes Craven, playing himself, has been secretly working on. Heather Langenkamp is asked by New Line Cinema producer Bob Shaye, as himself, if she would like to star in the new Nightmare film, but she is apprehensive about it. For months, she’s been getting death threats by a stalker who’s pretending to be Freddy Krueger, which has unnerved her so much that she’s been getting Freddy nightmares as well, but so is her 8-year-old son, Dillon. Heather soon realizes that has to come to terms that Freddy Krueger might actually be real and is after her son in order to get to her; and she has to enter her nightmares as “Nancy” in order to get Dillon back. Did you get all that?
     New Nightmare brought the character back to what Wes Craven originally intended to be, the personification of evil, by bringing him back to this original roots as a child molester-murderer. He’s darker, sicker, scarier, more menacing than ever before, and I was happy beyond all belief! Freddy Krueger has finally earned back his claws! And it brought back the original ending of the first film, with action and emotions and closure! The film was a praised by critics, but was box office failure. Audiences just didn’t like it, which was a damn shame; and, I feel, there were two main reasons behind this: (1) The Nightmare franchise is a series primarily remembered by its sequels. We were introduced to Freddy during the original film, primarily as kids who shouldn’t have been watching it in the first place, and for 10 years, for a solid decade, we watched the sequels, primarily as teenagers! Audiences were used to and were expecting “Freddy the Clown” — and we didn’t get it! This was “recon” before it existed! Nobody fuckin’ expected that! They didn’t want to be scared; they wanted to laugh! There’s a hypocrisy to this that just blows my mind! (2) Up to this point, nobody had ever seen a film like this; nothing like this had never been done! It was too original, too self-aware, too ahead of its time. It didn’t just push down the fourth wall, it shattered it! It was too real too soon! And a few years later, what happens? Wes Craven moved to Dimension Films and churned out Scream (1996), which was a blender re-packaging of New Nightmare, and it became an international blockbuster — bullshit, bullshit, buullllllllshit! I’m in a rare minority that considers Wes Craven’s New Nightmare was the best sequel and the best film of the entire franchise, beating the original by a whisker! I hoped beyond hope that this film was going to revitalize the series! No more jokes! No more clowns! Freddy is going to be a badass again, scary again, awesome again, and what the hell did we get? Freddy vs. Jason (2003)! Suck my nonexistent balls, Hollywood!

22 - GHOSTBUSTERS (1984)

Who ya gonna call? I religiously watched the films and cartoons, played the games, bought the toys, dressed up as them, I love the entire franchise! When I grew up, I wanted to be Ghostbuster (and marry Egon Spengler, but that’s beside the point), so it would have been a crime not to add this film to my list: After the university downsizes the parapsychology department, a group of geeky paranormal investigators move into business for themselves as paranormal exterminators, known as the “Ghostbusters,” which is made up of the sarcastic Dr. Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), the enthusiastic Dr. Ray Stantz (Dan Akroyd), the technologically savvy Dr. Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), and the pragmatic Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson). When the bewitching Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) discovers her refrigerator has become a portal into the spiritual dimension, our heroes come face to face with an ancient evil force with plans to raise hell in Manhattan to save the world from Armageddon.
     This “horror comedy” has it all, something from everyone — humor, thrills, spills, special effects, and a catchy theme song! Even the best films lose their edge after you see them a few times, but this one doesn’t! From the opening scares to the ending credits, this film consistently reels you in and, over the hundreds of times I’ve watched it in the 20+ years, it’s always makes me laugh! The film is perfection! Not only is it hilarious and enjoyable, it’s quotable! I don’t think there’s a week that goes by that I don’t quote this film in some manner. If you haven’t seen this film, I would think you lived in another dimension! It’s one of my top 10 favourite films, memorized it backwards and forwards, and on my list of “films to see before you die” — it’s that awesome, so check it out!

23 - H.P. LOVECRAFT FILMS, PART I

First off, I love H.P. Lovecraft, but until 1960s, his works were practically forgotten, were never reprinted, and were seldom adapted on celluloid — and, with the runaway success of Re-Animator in 1985, a surge of interest into his works came in full force and marked a large collection of Lovecraftian films, which continue on strongly even today. However, unlike the Roger Corman-Poe Films, as the stories have gone to public domain, the Lovecraft films don’t have fixed directors, actors, or studios, so I’m going to talk about my favourites:
     RE-ANIMATOR (1985) – Based on the short stories by H.P. Lovecraft, which were loosely based on Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, Re-Animator (1985) is perhaps my favourite horror film and definitely one of my all-time favourite films, in the top 20 at least. Directed by Stuart Gordon, the story involves around Herbert West (Jeffrey Combs), a medical student obsessed with death, who develops the serum of green glowing ooze that brings the dead back to life in the form of zombies gone completely ballistic, with the help of Dan Cain (Bruce Abbott), despite the pleas of his girlfriend Meg Halsey (Barbara Crampton) who distrusts West. Even though the formula doesn’t work too well, his plagiaristic professor wants to steal it and claim is as his own. It’s a horror, comedy, monster movie, and exploitation film in one; it’s fun, silly, sick, and witty, but what makes it really memorable is the character of Herbert West who completely steals the show! He’s a complete asshole, no nonsense, obsessed with his work that he would destroy anything and anyone his path — he’s a 1980s version of Peter Cushing’s Baron Frankenstein from the Hammer Horrors — and yet you can’t help but love him! Why can I say? I have a thing for mad scientists! The film, unfortunately, got an NC-17 due to its excessive gore and sexuality and was failure at the box office due to its limited release, so the success of the film came with the new video rental business, making it sleeper hit. The film spawned two sequels: Bride of Re-Animator (1990), a parody of Bride of Frankenstein (1935), is actually an excellent film, too, however Herbert was a slightly out-of-character, which miffed me, and is really the only real flaw of the film. The second sequel Beyond Re-Animator (2003) is a “meh” film — the story was boring, but Herbert was at least in-character; Herbert West is the only thing that made the film watchable for me.
     FROM BEYOND (1986) – After the success of Re-Animator comes another Lovecraftian tale based off the short story of the same name, directed by Stuart Gordon. The shy Dr. Crawford Tillinghast (Jeffrey Combs), who assisted Dr. Edward Pretorius (Ted Sorel) in creating a resonator with the intent to stimulate the pineal gland in a dormant part of the brain to create a sixth sense, is committed to an asylum for the murder of his superiour. His equally nerdy psychiatrist Dr. Katherine McMichaels (Barbara Crampton) wants to learn the truth, bring her shell-shocked patient face-to-face to the resonator again. Hoping to get an R rating this time around, blood and gore are at a minimum; instead, it was replaced by slime, which apparently grossed out audiences even more — why are people so damn fickle? I have to give praise to Jeffrey Combs as well: The characters of West and Tillinghast are complete opposites! In fact, I feel Combs is one of the most underrated actors; I consider him a true horror icon who deserves to be mentioned up with Lugosi, Karloff, Lorre, Price, Lee, Cushing, and Englund, so I hope one day, Jeffrey gets the credit he deserves.
     NECRONOMICON (1993) – Here’s a horror anthology of four Lovecraftian shorts: The film starts H.P. Lovecraft (Jeffrey Combs again), based on “The Library,” visiting a secret library to check out the legendary tome of evil Necronomicon, in research for his stories he’s writing; it’s a wraparound that unifies the three other stories into the omnibus: The first segment “The Drowned” follows the story of a house in which a man resurrected his dead wife and son with the help of the Necronomicon, directed by Christophe Gans of Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001) fame. It’s grim but beautifully executed. The second segment “The Cold,” based on “Cold Air,” where a young runaway discovers the truth of a series of murders committed by a lonely, reclusive scientist with a freezing disease to gain immortality. Directed by Shusuke Kaneko, who’s known for Death Note: The Last Name (2006) and several Godzilla films, the segment is highlighted by its cast of David Warner, Gary Graham, and Dennis Christopher. However, I wished his section was longer because it came off as rushed and emotionally unsatisfying, but has a great twist in the end. The final segment is “Whispers” is about a gung-ho female cop who stumbles across the dark and forbidding underground lair of these ancient subterranean monsters with a voracious appetite for flesh and bone, directed Brian Yunza. This one is graphic, gory, and visceral. This is an enjoyable film, but it’s flawed and I can’t help but nitpick: One thing that made me scratch my head in confusion is that Lovecraft is writing all these stories around the 1930s, but why does “The Cold” take place in the ‘60s and “Whispers” in the ‘90s? I really don’t have an answer for that! Personally, I would have preferred if they kept it in the ‘40s or earlier because, I feel, the world needs more period horrors! Another weird thing is that Combs’ Lovecraft makeup made him looked like Bruce Campbell, so why didn’t they just hire Bruce Campbell? In fact, why couldn’t you just have Bruce Campbell as Lovecraft and Jeff Combs as the Librarian? Two of the sexiest men in horror in one film would have been totally awesome! Come on! Listen to the fangirl!

24 - H.P. LOVECRAFT FILMS, PART II

More from the imagination of writer H.P. Lovecraft:
     IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (1994) – After the failure of Memoirs of an Invisible Man (1992), director John Carpenter returned to the horror genre with one of my favourite Lovecraft stories since Herbert West – Re-Animator. The film begins with the protagonist telling his story to his doctors (David Warner and John Glover) in a mental asylum: When Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow), this century’s most widely-read horror author à la Stephen King, disappears, his publishing company Arcane, run by the very gruff-looking Jackson Harglow (Charlton Heston), enlists John Trent (Sam Neill), a freelance insurance investigator, to find him. Along with Arcane editor Linda Styles (Julie Carmen), Trent find Cane’s fictional town of Hobb’s End and then all hell breaks loose... The film is a powerful ride to the dark side where the line of fantasy and reality disappear, with a wonderful atmosphere of dread and madness, creating a stylish, intelligent, and insightful little horror tale with a great cast and a startling ending! Plagued with a lot “boo” scares, the gore and violence isn’t graphic, yet it’s certainly bizarre and bloody, which is just screams Carpenter, and it’s done with CGI, which is rare for ‘90s film.
     CASTLE FREAK (1995) – Full Moon Productions doesn’t have the best reputation when it comes to their low-budget horrors, but they do rather well when it comes to Lovecraftian stories or anything with Jeffrey Combs. Loosely based off the short story “The Outsider,” bring back the Stuart Gordon-Jeffrey Combs-Barbara Crampton triumvirate of Re-Animator and From Beyond, this film revolves around the pitiable John Reilly (Combs), a former alcoholic whose wife Susan (Crampton) blames him for a car accident that blinded their daughter and killed their son, inherits an Italian castle from his long-lost aunt, only to find that there is a secret lurking deep inside of it. This is a grim and downbeat gothic horror, punctuated by intense gore, with a gorgeous dark atmosphere and a sad, sympathetic antagonist.
     DAGON (2001) – Strangely, this film is based more on the story “The Shadow Over Innsmouth” than “Dagon,” but it stands as perhaps the first true adaptation of Lovecraft’s story than an inspiration. A boating accident off the coast of Spain sends Paul Marsh (Ezra Godden) and his girlfriend Bárbara (Raquel Meroño) to the decrepit fishing village of Imboca looking for help, but finds himself pursued by the entire town à la Night of the Living Dead when he uncovers they worship the ancient blood-drinking and flesh-eating god of the sea known as Dagon who’s now running the loose in Imboca. I think this is the first time I’ve heard the name “Cthulhu” mentioned on film since the “The Collect Call to Cathulhu” episode from The Real Ghostbusters animated series some 20 years ago. Unfortunately, because it deals so much in the Cthulhu Mythos, I don’t think this film as accessible to the non-Lovercraft fan, as they would probably scratch their head at the wacky idea of fish-people being somehow scary.
     THE CALL OF CTHULHU (2005) – Many fans have noted that there isn’t a Lovecraft story presented on film the way it was written, and that’s very true. His works are a genre of “weird fiction” that are long deemed unfilmable until first-time director Andrew Leman took up the challenge. This is an independent, low-budget 47-minute fan-film made by loyal group called the H.P.L. Historical Society that has won multiple international awards and has been touring film festivals all around the world to this every day. I’ve heard so much about this film that, when I finally found an official limited edition DVD at a horror convention, I bought it for $45 — that’s nearly a dollar a minute — and, I assure you, it’s totally worth it! (Today, one get the DVD for $13 on Amazon.) When a man (Matt Foyer) uncovers the ill-fated research of his late uncle, he comes to learn of a dangerous and enigmatic cult that worships a monstrous alien deity named Cthulhu. Through dreams, journals, and historical documents, via flashback within a flashback within a flashback within a flashback, the man uncovers a baffling string of inexplicable coincidences, and uncovers the truth behind the disappearance of a ship’s crew on an uncharted Pacific island of R’lyeh. This is the finest and most faithful adaptation of any of Lovecraft’s stories, done as though it had been produced in the 1920s, as a black-and-white silent film, in the style of a newsreel-like nightmare. It is an affectionate and endearing homage to the gothic silent horrors, such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), Nosferatu (1922), and Faust (1926), and has all the stylistic elements of the era — the emphatic overacting, the pantomiming, the peculiar special effects (done without any CGI), the distorted cardboard sets, the German Expressionistic lighting, the experimental camera angles — contribute effectively towards evoking the dark and ominous atmosphere. The musical score adds a dramatic touch to the proceedings, particularly at the climax, which made my jaw drop when I saw it. (It’s definitely a film for you, Banshuwa! )

25 - MANHUNTER (1986) / SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)

I have a great interest in abnormal psychology of serial killers. It’s a fascinating subject, so these two films are near and dear to my heart. The genius psychiatrist and cannibalistic serial murderer “Dr. Hannibal Lector” was voted by the American Film Institute to be the most memorable villain in film history at #1, appearing in five films based on four novels by author Thomas Harris. Although I’m not going to talk about the whole series, instead I wanted to talk about my two favourites:
     I’m going to discuss about Silence of the Lambs (1991) first, as it’s the most recongized film, before the lesser-known Manhunter (1986). Based on the the novel of the same name, Silence of the Lambs was the first horror film that swept the Oscars since The Exorcist (1973), winning Best Movie, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay, and became a modern-day masterpiece! Directed by Jonathan Demme, It’s the story of a young FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) who is summoned to help find one serial killer called “Buffalo Bill” (Ted Levine) by interviewing another, the incarcerated Hannibal “the Cannibal” Lector (Anthony Hopkins, who would reprise the role in twice), as they play a complicated chess match of words which results in one of the greatest films in the cinema history! It is a creepy and taken-by-storm experience — the atmosphere is chilling, the music is ominous, the plot is brilliantly constructed, the direction is skilful, the conversations are thought-provocative, and to crown the whole, Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkin are the cream. Hopkins’ Dr. Lector is, hands down, the show-stealer, with a complex mixture of intelligence, confidence, cruelty, insanity, grace, and charisma, winning an Oscar for a Best Actor, even though he appeared for only 16 minutes in the 118-minute film. And have you ever noticed Lector rarely blinks? And when he does close his eyes, it’s very heavy and forced; he doesn’t even move and, when he does, it’s very purposeful, which makes him appear as such an unnatural, inhuman character. However, the guy that scared everyone is Ted Levine’s Jamie “Buffalo Bill” Gumb, in which the entire film rides on the search of this man, and yet he always seemed to get the short end of the stick. Gumb is the antithesis of Lector — strange, uncultured, repulsive, and wholly unlikeable. Lector gets in your head, but Gumb gets under your skin — no pun intended.
     Did you know there was a Lector film before Silence? Based on the novel Red Dragon, directed by Michael Mann, Manhunter (1986), I feel, is far superiour film than its 2002 remake, and yet it’s an equal to Silence of the Lambs. FBI Agent Will Graham (William Petersen) has captured the diabolical Dr. Hannibal “Lecktor” (Brian Cox), nearly losing more than just his mind in the process; but when Graham is called out of retirement to hunt the serial killer known as “The Tooth Fairy” (Tom Noonan), he must once again confront the horrors of “Hannibal the Cannibal.” While Silence is very dark, gritty, coffinous, and bland, murky colours, Manhunter is a product of a small but extreme class of “artsy horrors” came out during the 1980s, when “slashers” were vogue. It trades the “film noir” dirty alleyways and rain-swept cities, for 1950s modernism, expansive glass panes, geometric divisions, uncluttered compositions, minimalist landscapes, and contemporary, linear houses, with pastel costumes, music montages, and intense use of colours. Each colour has its own values, representing different emotions or desires, such as the sterile whites of Lecktor’s prison, the sick green hues of the Tooth Fairy’s, the cool blues of Graham’s bedroom, then how blues slowly turn to whites when he investigates a crime scenes. Mann has re-imagined “noir,” exploding its signifiers, transforming clutter, confinement, and oppressive darkness, into a world of slick neons, expansive spaces, and transparent walls, as a crime was commit the whole world is made of glass — the atmosphere is isolated, the music is spooky, the plot is beautiful, the direction is stunning, and the acting is up to the beholder. So many people are so dead loyal to Anthony Hopkins that they overlook and ridicule Brian Cox’s Hannibal Lecktor. The problem I had with Hopkins in Red Dragon (2003) is that he was out-of-character; he play Lector angrier and less controlled, rigid and stiff, as it came off that he was trying too hard. Cox, on the other hand, is the original “Hannibal Lector” and he plays him much closer to the book than Hopkins ever was, with his effeminate influence, gossipy language, icy confidence, racing intellect, decisive tics, effortless mind games, and above all subtlety. William Petersen’s is a magnificent Graham, a good man drives himself further and further into this abyss of evil, away from humanity; he’s haunted, worrisome, and remorseful, turning cold, detached, and apathetic. Then we have Tom Noonan’s character, the serial killer Francis “The Tooth Fairy/The Red Dragon” Dolarhyde, who was described by Entertainment Weekly as “one of the freakiest madmen Hollywood has ever given us,” well after Silence’s big release. Dolarhyde is the antithesis of Graham, fascinating and frightening, who begins to re-connect with humanity when he falls in love with a blind woman, and for the first time in his life, experiences a normal human relationship. On one hand, we have a good man spiraling into darkness; on the other, we have a serial killer climbing back towards humanity; and Lecktor pulling the strings of both character to his own benefit. My favourite scene in the entire film is Dolarhyde’s tragic breakdown to Primer Mover’s song “Strong as I Am”: The glimmer of hope that he may stop is dashed away in a manner of minutes due to a simple misunderstanding. You just feel for this man! The film is relentless and it suffocates you, and that’s where the horror lies.

26 - HELLRAISER (1987)

Stephen King once quoted, “I have seen the future of horror, and his name is Clive Barker.” Clive Barker is a best-selling author of horror and thriller novels, plays, and comics. He had become dissatisfied with the way Hollywood had treated his work on film, so he went out to directed his own feature based on his novella, The Hellbound Heart. Hellraiser (1987) is certainly one of the most inventive and engagingly dark and twisted horror films of the 1980s, during a time the genre was nearly taken over by “slashers.” The “artsy horror” is more than a scare and gore show; it’s a psychosexual thriller, a gothic romance, a Shakespearean drama, a Greek tragedy, a fairy tale, and a morality tale. After Frank Cotton (Sean Chapman), a hedonistic explorer of pleasures, disappears after opening a puzzle box known as the Lament Configuration, his older brother Larry Cotton (Andrew Robinson) inherits his house and moves his family whom he loves dearly in to provide a better life for them; he’s a kind but dull-as-paste husband who genuinely loves his wife but doesn’t quite understand how to treat a woman; he’s an everyday, mundane man mowed under by his own unspectacular existence who doesn’t see what’s coming, as he possesses no imagination or foresight. Julia (Clare Higgins), Larry’s wife, is a relic of baggage and fallen dreams, because she bears so many dark secrets, one of which is an affair with Frank. Larry’s blood, after a minor accident, spilt over a hardwood floor, brings Frank back to life from an excruciating death, in one of the finest special effects sequences in cinematic history, but only he’s only half-formed bag of bones and flesh. Once Julia and Frank reunite, their love (or lust) is more dangerous and powerful than ever imagined, and they conspire together in the grand tradition of Macbeth and Othello to reign in pleasure once again. Enter Kirsty (Ashley Laurence), Larry's daughter, a warm-hearted but determined soul who crosses paths with Julia and Frank before they can finish their diabolical plan, and eventually encounters the dark secret beheld Frank upon his death — the Lament Configuration. Creatures of darkness known as the Cenobites (hypocoristically named by fans as Pinhead, DeepThroat, Butterball, the Chatterer, and the Engineer), angels to some, demons to others, come to Kirsty when she accidentally calls upon their hellish powers of the box. Once unleashed, they must take someone back, and Kirsty knows now, how Frank is back, and she intends to return him to his deathly justice, and save her family...
     It is a grim tale about love, lust, treachery, where pain and pleasure is indivisible. Clive Barker has given us people, humans, planted in their own desires and determinations, and he tears them apart with fear, pain, death, destruction, total degradation, and crosses the line between reality and fiction. The Cotton family is the perfect example of purity, torn to shreds by hate, desire, and anguish, and he takes great glee in showing us all the gory details. This film, for a directorial debut, is remarkable and unique: The writing is deep with character-driven plots and mythos, the production is high for a low-budget film, the music is chilling and dramatic, the acting is realistic, the special effects are classy, and the Cenobites, although they appear for no more than 10 minutes throughout the film, steal the show for some reason! Perhaps because we get so wrapped up in the family drama that the Cenobites seem to come out of nowhere, but they’re the beautiful bookends of the picture that set up the universe; they’re the reasons why the film was so successful. Beautiful, dangerous, expressionless angelic demons in black leather and fetish wear, bathed in bright light, led by the majestic Pinhead (Doug Bradley, who is never technically addressed by that name, or any name, in any of the eight films), they come into our world equipped with chains and hooks and all manner of painful devices, literally ripping their victims apart without batting an eye. They are what Frank wants to be, but Frank is not strong enough. He collapses beneath the weight of his own ego; he wants to think he is a god, but he is only an insect, after all. And yet Kirsty, the young, fresh, but not-so-innocent, unvirginal heroine, is the one they seem to spark their ghoulish interest in. For me, I always loved the family drama and the Cenobites with equal zeal. Admittedly, the film is far from perfect, as there are parts of this film that make no sense. I feel the only thing that really ages the film is the frizzy hair and the fashions, which is all very 80s; and, like Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), I do have major complaints about the final 2 minutes of the film, where the production ran out of money and finished the film with something very cheap. Personally, I would have loved the original ending in the book where Kirsty was given the “honour” of becoming the new Guardian of the Box, but that might be just my own personal opinion about it... This film received an NC-17 rating when it was first released, but that was most likely due to the films unrelenting themes of sadomasochism and wanton incest that just stick deep into your skin like hooks. It’s sick and remorseless, but innovative; nothing like this had ever been seen before, and it still remains an original and refreshing to this day. And even though he done so many horrible things in eight films, does it seem weird that I want to sire the unholy love child of Pinhead? Maybe I just need a boyfriend, or a call for help...

27 - THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1989)

How the time flies! Halloween is around the corner, so I’m going to talk about something really fun! This film has been one of my ultimate “guilt pleasure” flicks! I rented it from my local rental store frequently, but the business went under in the early 90s; it would air on TV on rare occasions (and I didn’t have cable at the time) and I would drop whatever I was doing, no matter what it was, to watch it; and it wasn’t until the advent of DVDs did I finally get to own the film and watch it again after a decade of withdraw, and I still enjoy the hell out of this film. Throughout my life, I’ve seen dozens upon dozens of adaptations of the Gaston Leroux’s novel — the recent Joel Schumacher film of the musical was atrocious, by the way — and they vary in quality, but this adaptation always left an impression on me: The film starts off in present-day 1980s where Christine Day (Jill Schoelen) is auctioning for a part in a musical, singing an aria from an unknown composer named Erik Destler; but through an accident, she is transported to the 1880s, as the understudy to the prima donna and the obsession of Erik “The Phantom” Destler (Robert Englund). Destler, originally, was a struggling composer from the 1780s who sold his soul to the devil to make his music immortalized; but the pact backfired and he’s cursed to walk the streets as an immortal, as his music became more and more obscure. Although he’s a passionate lover of music and art and beauty, he’s also a serial murderer, along the line of Jack the Ripper, who skins his victims and wears sewn-up flesh as his “mask.” This is perhaps the only occasion where the Phantom’s “mask” is scarier than his “face” — it’s pretty twisted! He “arranges” for his muse to land the lead in Faust, leads her to his layer underneath the opera house, she sings his unfinished opera of Don Juan Triumphant, which is one of the most stunning scenes in the entire film and done better than that Webber version, forces her to be his monstrous bride, and as the police attempt to get closer and Christine attempts to get away, shit hits the fan...
     Despite being a wonderful, exquisite, and entertaining film, it was a box office failure, and there are a few particular reasons why it failed: (1) The film was released during the sensational height of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical and it hoped to take advantage of the surge of new interest in the original story. However, people thought this film was going to be the musical, saw it as a “slasher” horror, was abhorred, and brushed off as trash. First off, I think that’s pure stupidity that audiences did that because to say “Oh, it’s a Phantom film, but it’s not the musical, and I love the musical, even though I never read the novel, so this film sucks” is a downright awful thing to do! This is an adaptation of the novel, not the musical, and should be treated differently. Secondly, yes, it does admittedly have “slasher” elements, but it’s far more than that: It’s a technically gothic romance, with drama, suspense, thrills, chills, action, pathos, mythos, love, lust, beauty, tragedy, history, intelligence, elegance, charm, dark humour, and depth. (2) The film was wrongly advertised as a “Freddy” film. If you look at film posters or the video cover, they composited the Freddy Krueger’s scar makeup onto the Phantom, even though it looks nothing like that in the film, which rightfully pissed Robert Englund off. (DVD cover was a far more proper image, but it’s already 20 years too late.) By the time of its release, the “campy” sequels of the Nightmare on Elm Street were at its height. He did this role to get away from Freddy fame. Even though roles seem similar, with the scarred face and witty one-liners, this was exceedingly different! The Phantom is a surprisingly deep character: He’s a lonely, isolated, sad, grim, confused, hot-tempered, violent individual outcasted by his looks, lost his humanity due to his immortality, who wants to grab hold of it again through the love of a woman who unfortunately rejects him, but is eventually undone by his passions and obsessions. That is Phantom from the book! Englund took an otherwise banal role in less capable hands, like so many other Phantom films, and turned it into something exceptional! His character is stunning, fun, and operatic, carrying the film to a new, fresh level, and I equate his performance to Lon Chaney. When I met Robert Englund and asked him about the film, he talked about it with great enthusiasm; it’s his favourite role! (3) The film does have a lot really weird juxtapositions, such as the 1980s scenes that bookend the story, but all that can be explained: This film, according an interview with Robert Englund, was originally intended to be a two-picture deal. The second film was going to be a loose re-telling of Victor Hugo’s The Man Who Laughs, which is actually one of my favourite silent films, set in the 1980s, where the Phantom is living the sewers in the present-day 1980s, falls in love with a blind woman, and goes on a rampage after her father is murdered, but the second film was cancelled due to the box office failure of the first film, much to Englund’s dismay; he apparently enjoyed the script of the second film more than the first. (4) With the height of the musical and Freddy camp, its failure was simply a product of very, very bad timing, and in Hollywood, timing is everything! This is a great film, but it was just never allowed an opportunity to prove itself — horror fans didn’t give it a chance and classical fans didn’t give it a chance! — and it’s a grave misfortune that it disappeared off the face of the earth shortly afterward. The direction is beautiful, the sets are exquisite, the music is breathtaking, the acting is wonderful, and the story is delightful as hell! While it has some inaccuracies and flaws, the 1989 adaptation is most faithful rendition of the book ever made. It’s also one of the few Phantom films that genuinely embraces opera (and I’m an opera lover). You might laugh at that, but you’d be amazed at the amount of films based on Phantom of the Opera that doesn’t actually have real opera in it! I guess people are more scared of opera than of decapitating heads, which I just find both surprising and utterly laughable! It’s flawed but enjoyable! Thankfully, the film does have a small but loyal cult following and I’m true member of that following; I defend it a great deal because it’s worth it. It’s one of my favourite films, my favourite Robert Englund film; it’s one I can watch over and over again, and never get bored of it! It’s like a sinful delight of chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream, New York-style cheesecake dripped strawberry syrup, and messy powder sugar-covered beignets! Yum!

28 - THE PROPHECY (1995)

Religious films have always been a staple in Hollywood, with mystery, miracle, and morality plays at its beck and call, but few take the chance to challenge the established order to come up with something new and original — and good for them! I’ve always been fascinated by supernatural thrillers of the eschatological variety, but people (and you know exactly who you are) complained high and low about this film because religion has always a touchy, cloudy subject, and the fanatics just don’t like that when you play with it, whether or not the film is good. Look at the amount of guff The Exorcist (1973) and Dan Brown has receive. These films are risky for studios, lawsuits galore, but people freak out over little reasons, and it’s a pity because The Prophecy (1995) film is just a gem: Detective Thomas Daggett (Elias Koteas), a priest-turned-cop, stumbles across the corpse of a creature that isn’t quite human and an ancient Bible with an extra chapter to the Book of Revelation, which mentions the ongoing second war in heaven, where angels had become jealous when God came to love humans more than them, because they have “souls,” and rebelled in the hopes to have God’s love back “before the lies, before the monkeys.” (A film of a creationist religion with foundations in evolution? Surely, you jest! ) To win the stalemate that has lasted for centuries, the anti-villain leader of the rebel army, the Archangel Gabriel (Christopher Walken), must steal the soul of the most amoral and most heinous human that ever walked on earth. Thomas must find a way to stop Gabriel, even if it means working alongside the Devil himself, the fallen angel Lucifer (Viggo Mortensen). This is a dark, intelligent, thought-provoking, entertaining but seriously underrated cult film, with dry humour, grim atmosphere, and hardy suspense, which comes off as being too smart for its own good (and I mean that in the best way). Creator-writer-director Gregory Widen, of Highlander fame, really did his research on the theology of the Christian text, Jewish kabala, and Persian sources, where the heavy bulk of angelology and demonology technically lies, to create a complex world where reality, fantasy, and divinity intertwine, and where angels, demons, religion, and God are not as cut and dry, good and evil, black and white, as they seem.

29 - SE7EN (1995)

Vampires, werewolves, demons, ghouls, ghosts, mad scientists, slashers, and Darth Vaders no longer scared audiences. Appetites change and evolve. The 1990s was an new age of the re-emergence of “psychological horror,” introducing a new brand of monster — the serial killer. With Ted Bundys, Jeffrey Dahmers, and Hannibal Lectors, films are about escapism, yet this new genre of horror allows us to peek into the corners of humanity’s deepest, darkest secrets, and then shoves down our throats where it becomes inescapable to breathe. Because serial killers exist. They’re not creatures you can stop with a crucifix and a prayer. They’re real people who are out there living amongst us, eating at the same restaurants, sitting next to you on the bus, walking pass your front door, playing with your children. You glance into their empty eyes, brush past them without even acknowledging their presence, oblivious to the sheer horror that they are capable of, of the monster they keep inside. They are the products of abuse, cruelty, and society’s devalues. The most terrifying monsters are those that wear a human face — and the relentless and senseless reality of life scares us more than anything supernatural! Directed by then-newcomer David Fincher, Se7en is a modern masterpiece about two homicide investigators of an unnamed city. The older, world-weary Detective William Somerset (Morgan Freeman), 6 days from retirement, has seen more terror and sadness in his lifetime than any man should ever be forced to see; he cares about people but has seen too much of the dark side of life to have much hope for society. His younger, cockier partner David Mills (Brad Pitt), eager to take over Somerset’s position, lives by a simplistic belief in the power of law enforcement to change the world, where people and their crimes can be explained simply, and has never truly questioned the simple “values” he was raised with, and is thus unprepared for the terrors that await him. Together, they investigate a number of murders patterned after the Seven Deadly Sins — Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wraith, Pride, Lust, and Envy — as they hunt the trail of the enigmatic serial killer responsible.
     Seldom has a film expose the culpability of our culture, of our society, in the mayhem and madness we often find in everyday life. The film is a bleak, relentless, cerebral, powerful, terrifying, unforgiving film noir, free of clichés, that doesn’t pull its punches. Everything from set design to lighting, selection of film stock and processing techniques, camera movement, frame composition, and editing work together to create an entirely new level of visual brilliance. The murder scenes — the bodies, maimed and tortured, and inexorably piling up — is art direction at its finest, beautiful but unbearable, which it owes a great deal of the Italian horrors of 1970s called “gialli” — a genre of crime mysteries that combines with extremely graphic horror and eroticism, filtered through Italy’s long-standing tradition of opera and grand guignol drama, with strong psychological themes of madness, alienation, and paranoia, as if the world around them is falling apart. The funny thing about this film is that we only see it through the eyes of the detectives, so we never see the crimes committed. We only see the results of the killings, we watch the characters talking of what the victims were going through, we see photographs, and we hear interviews reactions of the witnesses, and our imagination fills up the rest and what you imagine cooks up is far worse than something you see. Somerset and Mills aren’t allowed to minimize the horrors they're forced to find. Each new corpse brings a true feeling of revulsion and of dread, as the realization hits that another body will be forthcoming unless the murderer is found. The story is fantastic, filled with misdirection and red herrings, and just as the audience starts to think that the unfolding events of the film are starting to become predictable, the film lurches further into the unknown darkness, keeping the edge of uneasiness that it pervades, and everything fits together perfectly by its climax. Everything about this film is pure perfection!

30 - SAW (2004)

Today, there has been a resurgence of “splatter film” genre that depict nudity, torture, mutilation, and sadism, that critics have disparagingly labeled as “torture porn.” For me, there is huuuuugge different between “being scared” and “being grossed out” — they are not the same thing! Nowadays, it’s difficult to find a horror film that genuinely impressed me — and Saw (2004) was one of the first films of the new millennium that did that! Written and directed by newcomer James Wan, originally intended as a direct-to-video, this independent film made during the cusp of the 1990s “psychological horrors” were coming to a close and the 2000s “torture porns” were about catch on. It’s a “gialli” film in the same sense of Silence of the Lambs (1991) and Se7en (1995) are, thus it’s more of a thriller than a horror.
     The story opens with two men — freelance photographer Adam Faulkner-Stanheight (Leigh Whannell) and surgeon Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes, who I completely didn’t recognize until I read the end credits of my third viewing) — who wake up in a dilapidated public restroom, chained to the floor, confused and terrified, with no memory of how or why they are where they are. Together, they begin to piece together the memory of what happened to them as the serial killer named the “Jigsaw Killer” taunts them to play a series of mind games of survival. Jigsaw has earned his place in the lexicon of movie monsters, but he’s unique amongst them. He is an vigilante anti-villain with extreme beliefs who thinks he’s making a difference by putting his victims through tests of survival, often with a symbolic representation, to help them appreciate their own lives by testing their willingness to live through self-sacrifice: What would you do, how far would you go, to save your own life? Much of the film plays out like a two-actor play, with tense atmosphere, heavy suspense, claustrophobic sets, fantastic acting, intense emotions, shocking visuals but minimal gore, revealing flashbacks (within flashbacks), stylish moments of sped-up tracking shots and fast editing, moments of uncomfortable silence, some amusing one-liners, and one of the craziest endings I’ve seen in a long time, which just sends chills down my spine! I often describe this film as, “If Hitchcock was alive today, he would have made (the first) Saw.”
     Also, check my friend shadowsofthought’s journal who will reviewing the all current five Saw films. See you guys tomorrow as we close off “31 Days of Horror” on Halloween...

-----


This is it! This is the last day! Are you excited? Are you sad? Well, let’s recap on our list of 31 Days of Horror so far: We started the silent horrors of the 1920s, the Universal Monsters of the 30s and 40s, the British Invasion of Hammer Horrors of 50s, the gothic horrors of 60s, the exploitation films of 70s, the “slashers” of the 80s, the psychological thrillers of the 90s, and the rise of violence with the “torture porns” by the 2000s, and I’m going to end the list with my one of my favourite horror films in recent years, the defining return to “the classics”! I feel this is a painfully overlooked modern-day mini-masterpiece:



31 - “The Black Cat” from MASTERS OF HORROR (Season 2, Episode 11, 2007)

Masters of Horror is a horror anthology TV series that aired on Showtime, where a group of well-known horror writers and directors would produce one-hour feature episode; this is very much on the same wavelength as 1980s HBO series, Tales from the Crypt. Many of these films are hit and miss, but there was one that really stood out for me called “The Black Cat,” based on the short story by Edgar Allan Poe Directed by Stuart Gordon and starring Jeffrey Combs, the team that brought us Re-Animator (1985), From Beyond (1986), and Castle Freak (1995), the story takes revolves around the sensitive, troubled Edgar Allan Poe (Combs) and his beloved wife (and first cousin) Virginia “Cissy” Poe (Elyse Levesque), where he’s eking out of meager living in Philadelphia 1840. When his publisher commissions him for another one of his “fantastic tales” of horror, he’s plagued by writer’s block, money troubles, alcoholism, his wife’s declining health, and the constant tormentings of their mercurial pet cat, Pluto.
     Merging the “The Black Cat” story with Poe’s real life (which was heavily researched for the film) creates a beautiful, sensual, haunting, grim autobiographical tale in honour of the Roger Corman’s Poe gothic horrors of the 1960s. This is actually the most faithful adaptation of Poe’s original story, which includes the infamous eye-gouging scene that has never before been incorporated on film (and gloriously uncensored because it’s the Showtime channel). It builds slowly, with his heavy atmosphere, thrilling suspense, breathtaking visuals, beautiful cinematography, outstanding acting, and a chilling musical score; the film’s palette is a gorgeous, using a bleak, washed out, black-and-white-esque colour scheme punctuated with dramatic colours, such as the red blood and green eyes. In fact, Jeffrey Combs is currently reprising the role of Poe in a critically-acclaimed one-man show “Nevermore,” directed by Stuart Gordon, at the Steve Allen Theater, Hollywood. It’s so refreshing to see a blessed homecoming to the roots of classic horror, seeing it come into full circle.

And speaking of the classics, I want take a moment and talk about the downhill spiral of horror films today. It seems, at this point, that every classic horror film has been remade. The turn of the century has been contaminated by remakes after remakes:

Remakes of old films - THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (2005, which is a great film actually)

Remakes of not-so-old films - NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010), HELLRAISER (2011)

Remakes of films that already have been remade - HOUSE OF WAX (2005), I AM LEGEND (2007), THE FLY (2008)

Remakes of famous films - PSYCHO (1998), THE MUMMY (1999), THE WOLFMAN (2009)

Remakes of not-so-famous films - THIR13EN GHOSTS (2001), SLEUTH (2007)

Remakes of foreign films - THE GRUDGE (2004)

Remakes of foreign films that have already been remade - THE RING (2002)

Remakes of TV series - DARK SHADOWS (2011)

Prequels - DOMINION: PREQUEL TO THE EXORCIST (2005), THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE: THE BEGINNING (2006)

And sequels - SAW VI (2009)

Hollywood has lost all its creativity, and originality just seems like a thing from the past, but if you look at the right places, you might be thoroughly surprised. Independent horror films — my recent favourites being METHODIC (2007), a smartly done “basher” horror, and TRICK ‘R TREAT (2009) — are grabbing attention of audiences worldwide, with limited venues, and these are films that are not saddled down by the “big studio” mentality. Foreign films, particularly in Korea and Japan, are among the most original and best horrors that are coming out today, such as AUDITION (1999) and OLDBOY (2003). With the advent of the internet, we have web serials. The most recent horror web series that has grabbed my attention is FEARnet’s FEAR CLINIC (2009), with Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger) and Kane Hodder (Jason Voorhees), which revolve around doctor who “cures” phobias.

And then there’s fan-films! It’s a beautiful thing when fans come together to dedicate their time and what little money they have to create a “tribute” to their favourites, with love and affection — two things Hollywood currently lack! Admittedly, with all the mindless shit floating around the net, it’s extremely different to find the true diamonds in the rough and you just have to look out for them! In fact, in the list is so long that I might as well compile them into a section of new reviews. Therefore, I’m going to a month long break, which is much needed, and in December, I’ll review my favourite fan films, based on overall quality, production, and originality. There’s a lot of talent out there! Who knows? You might find your own fan film on the list...

Have a Happy Halloween, friends!