Horrorfest 31: The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)

After watching the silent Lon Chaney version of HUNCHBACK earlier this month, I read a bunch of stuff about how great the Charles Laughton version was, so I decided to give it a look.

The 1939 version, directed by William Dieterle and starring Charles Laughton as the Hunchback, is actually superior to the famous silent version with Lon Chaney. The story-tellers chose to cut some of the extraneous characters and plot lines and focus on the basic story of the Hunchback's love for the gypsy girl, Esmerelda (Maureen O'Hara).

But, the movie is opened up a little beyond the walls of the Notrde Dame cathedral as the writers chose to focus on some of the unique aspects of the period the film took place in -- Paris, in this film, straddles an era that is still coming out of the middle ages but hasn't quite embraced the modern world, either. There are not only clashes between the upper and lower classes in the city, but also between the promises of new technology (like the printing press) and the security of old spirituality (the church).

The portrayel of King Louis XI by Harry Davenport is particularly interesting as he's shown to be fairly progressive, for his time, but also naive. Davenport gives him a quirky personality and avoids the royal boredom of the previous film.

The chief villain and most vocal voice towards steering away from the modern age and holding onto medievalism as long as possible belongs to the judge, Frollo (Cedric Hardwicke). His own unrequited love and lust for the gypsy Esmerelda combines with his basic intolerance for change, and this adds up to a lot of destruction that could have been avoided.

His brother, the arch bishop, is portrayed by Walter Hampden as a pious and just man, but he's ineffectual. When he tries to save Esmerelda's life, the villagers, nobles and authorities just shrug and sentence her to death anyway. He also has a weakness when it comes to trying to protect his evil brother.

Charles Laughton's Hunchback, Quasimodo, is more effective than Chaney's. Yes, Chaney's was a masterpiece of makeup at the time, but Laughton brings childlike innocence, pathos and humanity to the character. He also has his frightening moments, but we get a lot more of a glimpse into who Quasimodo is as a person than we do in the previous version. The makeup is also slightly more realistic, re-creating somewhat true-to-life facial deformities rather than the monstrous face of Chaney.

Possibly thanks to the fact that this is a sound film, including an orchestral score and recordings of chants and bells from the real Notre Dame, the big dramatic moments of this movie are much more effective than the same scenes from the silent version. My favorite is when Quasimodo rescues Esmerelda from execution by swinging across the town square, scooping her up, and the swinging back up to the towers of the cathedral. There, he screams, "Sanctuary!" to the villagers below, then holds Esmerelda above his head and screams, "Sanctuary!" again. It's heartbreaking and heroic at the same time, and the music swells at just the right moment.

Another strength of the sound design of the film is the fact that it gives Quasimodo a voice. The character is deaf, so he doesn't talk often, but when he does it is effective, and Laughton finds the right voice, within the limitations of the makeup, to effectively communicate both the reservations of a shy soul with the excitement of a young man beginning to see other sides of life for the first time. His last line is a little over the top, but still heartbreaking.

The movie makes interesting, if simplistic, points about the power of the printing press and written word to bring a unified voice to an otherwise disorganized and chaotic public. You could draw a a parallel here to the power of the Internet as the King observes that the press is giving the common people the power to have their direct opinions heard by royalty without a filter. Frollo claims, "Public opinion is dangerous." The poet, Gringoire (Edmond O'Brien) sees the power of this new medium stop injustice, but the thief Clopin (Thomas Mitchell) thinks physical force is still the way to go for quick results. Additionally, there are interesting parallels drawn between the use of torture and humiliation and logical reasoning and compassion when it comes to communication between opposing sides of an argument.

The one strength this film has most in common with its predecessor is the magnificent sets. Once again, Notre Dame, the town square, and the village streets surrounding it, are re-created from scratch. There isn't a single shot that was made on location, but you can't tell. These sets look like the real thing and are wonders to behold.

As the movie came to a close, I thought about my decision to watch 31 horror flicks in 31 days, in honor of October, the month of Halloween. When I started, I thought I'd just watch all the horror DVDs I already had, of my favorite films -- revisit each of them and share my thoughts on why they're my favorites. But, as I got going, I got hooked on watching films I've never seen before, or only seen parts of, and only ended up reviewing a handful of my favorites. I think if I would have stuck to my original plan, I probably would have gotten bored and given up. Sure, I'd like to share my thoughts on why KING KONG is great and why I love the EVIL DEAD trilogy, but I think ultimately it was more fun to watch things I'd always wanted to see but never got around to, for whatever reason.

Also, I would have never seen crazy flicks like LIFEFORCE, otherwise. And it would suck to die without having seen LIFEFORCE.

Horrorfest 30: Werewolf of London

WEREWOLF OF LONDON was the first of the Universal werewolf films, but it's not the most famous -- that honor goes to THE WOLF-MAN, which has a remake set to come out in the near future.

I've seen THE WOLF-MAN a bunch of times, but never saw WEREWOLF OF LONDON until the other night. I remember I had a book when I was a kid that told the stories of both movies, and WOLF-MAN always seemed more exciting. Now that I've seen both movies, I can say I prefer WOLF-MAN, but WEREWOLF OF LONDON is still interesting.

In many ways, WEREWOLF OF LONDON is more similar to the other Universal horror films than THE WOLF-MAN is. It focuses on a mad scientist. As always, his work is keeping him away from his love, in this case his wife, and there's always a boring douchebag in the sidelines just waiting to swoop in and take the wife away, in this case, his wife's childhood friend.

This time around the scientist is Dr. Glendon (Henry Hull), a botanist searching for a rare flower that only blooms under the light of the moon and only grows in Tibet. During his search in the foreign land, Glendon is attacked and bitten by a werewolf. He returns to London with the flower and attempts to make it bloom with an immitation-moonlight machine but gets mixed results.

A mysterious Asian scientist shows up, Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland) who seems to know quite a bit about werewolves and moon-flowers. He also seems to know Glendon has been bitten by a werewolf. Hmmmm.

The story surrounding this film tells us it was originally conceived as an answer to Paramount's popular DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE films. This is clear as the story unfolds -- once Glendon makes the transformation from man to werewolf, he is clearly more man than wolf. He has the presence of mind to don his cap, overcoat and scarf before going out on the prowl for victims, for instance. He lurks in the shadows of London city streets, cape over his face, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting women. He's even able to speak plain English while he's in wolf-mode.

Later, THE WOLF-MAN took a more supernatural and less pseudo-scientific approach to the material, including plenty of folklore (created for the film). The whole werewolf thing was treated as more of a magical curse, the werewolf was more of a wild animal, stalking forests at night.

The undercurrent of WEREWOLF OF LONDON seems to be about the very British idea of keeping a stiff upper lip. Even as Glendon is clearly afflicted with the curse of the werewolf, he spends most of his time attempting to keep his shit together and deal with his problem secretly without asking for help from anyone else. Meanwhile, his wife's childhood friend is clearly making his move, but Glendon seems to allow it to happen, to a point, almost as a way of calling some kind of bluff, attempting to "stay the course" as a way of combatting this intrusion.

Anyway, in the end, you can see why Universal decided to take another stab with THE WOLF-MAN, though this movie isn't bad by any means. Just not as spectacular as the movies it followed and not as memorable as the ones it inspired.

Horrorfest 29: Lifeforce

I'd never heard of LIFEFORCE until the Laurelhurst decided to run it for a week as part of their October series of horror flicks. Turns out it's a pretty cool sci-fi/horror flick directed by Tobe Hooper, who directed POLTERGEIST (Horrorfest 15) and the classic TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.

LIFEFORCE is the story of a space shuttle crew sent to intercept and study Halley's comet. They find a strange space craft inside the comet, and discover giant bat-like monsters, long dead, as well as the well-preserved bodies of three seemingly comatose humans, two dudes and one hot chick. The movie doesn't waste any time getting into the action and suspense, cutting quickly from one scene to another, leaving out all the fat. The tone of the opening scenes is effective and the special effects are impressive. The technology all looks fairly realistic, clearly designed after actual space faring technology of the time.

The shuttle mysteriously returns to Earth without any living astronauts on board. An investigating crew recovers the comatose humans from the comet, and bring them to a space center in London for study. That's when the hot chick wakes up and starts running around stealing humans' life forces. The humans with stolen life forces wake up roughly 2 hours after "death" and go looking for someone else's life force to steal. This chain reaction starts a zombie-like epidemic and apocalypse, as the hot space chick gains the ability to jump from one body to another and the craft from the comet menacingly enters into orbit above Earth.

One surviving astronaut from the original Halley's comet mission turns up and seems to have a strange connection with the female alien. As played by Steve Railsback, he's almost always on the brink of insanity, delivering his lines with manic desperation. He teams up with the comparatively cool, collected and logical investigator for a super-secret division of the government, played by Peter Firth. The two attempt to track down the alien woman and put an end to the potential apocalypse, eventually leading them to an insane asylum run by a doctor played by Patrick Stewart (SWEET!!!!!!!) who isn't what he seems.

Probably the most notable (and weird) thing about this movie is that the hot alien chick (Mathilda May) spends almost all of her screen time completely naked. Most of this is in the first half hour, or so, of the film, as she eventually starts hopping from body-to-body and later even dares to wear some clothes (kinda) in her last couple scenes. Still, it's an interesting footnote and she is incredibly beautiful. On one hand you wonder how a naked chick could cause so much havoc, but on the other I guess it kinda makes sense everyone freezes when they're suddenly approached by an incredibly attractive naked woman. I mean, what would you do? Sure, once she starts shooting lightning out of her eyes and mouth there's trouble, but by the time she gets to that point, it's too late.

As the movie unfolded, I had to admire it. It doesn't really make any sense, and it wobbles wildly from good production values to bad, from good acting to awful, but the sheer audacity of it is impressive. And, most importantly, it's fun. There are a couple good scares and every ten minutes or so the movie throws something new at you, giving a new twist to the material, that sends the story in an unexpected direction.

I'll give it this: it never stops for a breather. They edited the hell out of this thing. If a movie this uneven was bloated by even a few extra minutes of screen time, it'd sink. Since it stays light on its feet and never stops, it works.

Horrorfest 28: The Man Who Laughs

This is another in a long line of flicks I've read about but never watched until recently. Back when I was a kid, reading horror movie books from the library, silent films like this were basically impossible to come by, even at the video store. Now, thanks to DVD and other technologies, these titles are widely available for anyone curious enough to check them out.

THE MAN WHO LAUGHS is probably most famous for the grotesque makeup created by Universal's master, Jack Pierce, who went on to create the famous Frankenstein's monster look. Lon Chaney, from HUNCHBACK and PHANTOM, was originally slated to star but that didn't end up working out. Even though Chaney is well-known as the man of a thousand faces and created several insane makeup effects of his own, Jack Pierce's work here is a step above.

The film stars Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine, the title character, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS. As a child, he had a cruel grin carved into his face in an act of revenge, so he's left with a devilish smile that he can never get rid of. He grows up to become a sideshow carnival attraction of some acclaim. Veidt was also in the immensely influential German expressionist film THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, widely regarded as the world's first horror film. In that film, his bony frame and hypnotic movements delivered the chills. In this one, the makeup twists his mouth into a menacing grin for the entire film, so he does most of his acting with his eyes.

To be honest, THE MAN WHO LAUGHS isn't really a horror film -- sure, the idea of having a monstrous grin carved onto your face permanently is horrific, and the sight of Gwynplaine's gaping smile is also terrible. But, beyond that, the story is mostly a romantic melodrama, as Gwynplaine falls in love with a blind girl (Mary Philbin), who loves him in return. But, he can't trust her love because she can't see him. When a good-for-nothing party-girl of a Duchess (Olga Baclanova) decides to flirt with him, Gwynplaine decides if he can prove to himself a woman like her would be into him, then that's proof enough that he also deserves the love of the beautiful blind girl.

So, because of the romantic melodrama, it's okay the Veidt's eyes do most of the work, and boy do they ever work. Despite the fact that he has a ghastly grin plastered on his face for the entire running length of the film, Veidt accomplishes the nearly impossible feat of making the audience feel his emotions and sympathize with him. You never forget that he's human under that grin, and his performance transcends the terrifying makeup while also being enhanced by it. There's little more tragic than a dude who's smiling even though he's in pain.

These days, the movie is probably most often referenced with its connection to BATMAN, specifically, the story that the face of THE MAN WHO LAUGHS was the inspiration for the Joker character. The latest film, DARK KNIGHT, even goes so far as to have the grin carved into the Joker's face, making the character that much closer to Gwynplaine. However, Gwynplaine's scars produce a romantic hero while The Joker's scars produce an unbalanced psychopath bent on revenge.

Another effective, if hammy, performance in the film comes from Brandon Hurst as the villain Barkilphedro. He starts as a sinister court jester and works his way up the ranks of royalty until he's a close advisor with the most powerful people in England. It's his discovery of a royal link between Gwynplaine and his deceased father, a rebellious Lord, that moves the treacherous plot into motion.

Somehow this flick seems a little more advanced than Chaney's epics, HUNCHBACK and PHANTOM. It was produced in 1928, so it has a few years on the Chaney films, and that might be it. Or, it might be the direction of Paul Leni, who was straight out of the school of German expressionism and added a level of weird gothic grandiosity to the whole affair.

Horrorfest 27: The Shining

Another flick based on a Stephen King novel, THE SHINING benefits from the glorious direction of Stanley Kubrick and a manic performance from Jack Nicholson.

Nicholson stars as a recovering alcoholic writer who accepts a job as a caretaker at an isolated mountainside hotel during the off-season in order to hopefully get some work done on his latest novel. He brings along his naive, wide-eyed wife, played by Shelley Duvall, and son, played by Danny Lloyd, who has an imaginary friend named Tony who speaks through Danny's mouth in a disturbing groan.

It is revealed early on that Nicholson's character, Jack Torrance, gave up alcohol after an "accidental" moment of abuse in which he pulled his son's shoulder out of its socket. We sense the family has never quite recovered from this incident, as mother and son seem fearful of a relapse and father seems clearly guilty and indignant about the incident.

There are a few catches to the seemingly peaceful, if isolated, winter retreat. First, a previous caretaker went mad and murdered his own family (a wife and two daughters) with an axe. Secondly, it quickly becomes clear that son Danny doesn't just have an imaginary friend, but he seems to have a special gift for seeing into other peoples' minds, as well as seeing nightmarish visions of the past and prophetic visions of the future. The hotel chef, Halloran (Scatman Crothers) senses this gift, and calls it "shining." He explains to Danny that some people shine, and some places, like the hotel, shine as well. Then, he warns Danny to stay out of room 237.

So, of course, Danny's drawn to room 237. He also sees disturbing images of what might be the past or future of the hotel, including the disturbing vision of two girls asking him to play with them -- "forever." Meanwhile, Nicholson's character slowly starts to slip into insanity while his wife tries to understand what's going on, to no avail.

Kubrick revisits some of his favorite themes here, including the sense of isolation and suspense built from repetition, showcased so well in 2001, as well as the ideas of murder and insanity as explored in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. The deserted winter hotel setting is perfect for Kubrick's penchant towards brightly lit, sterile settings with clean, sharp lines and symmetrical shapes, turning tacky hallway carpeting into art. The camera constantly floats down corridors, following characters around corners for surprising reveals, fully exploiting the steadicam work of steadicam inventor Garret Brown.

The film sets an unsettling tone from the beginning with its detached, cold dialogue, distanced shots and methodical editing, typical of Kubrick. The suspense is heightened with the otherworldly music, cobbled together from several contributors, always seeming to hit the dramatic notes at moments when you least expect it, filling in the quiet moments instead of amplifying the loud ones. The movie seems to delight in unsettling the audience by following big revelations with sudden chapter breaks with under-stated subtitles like "Tuesday" or "One Month Later" punctuated with an orchestral sting.

Ultimately, I'd say most of the scares come from the idea of a family's father turning against them. Somehow, the ghosts of the past seem to infect the family of the present, and whether they're all descending independently into madness, or if all of this is really happening, it's still freaky to have the dad chasing the family through the abandoned hotel with an axe. Nicholson is an actor who succeeds in remaining endlessly charming even when he seems creepy, so to see him ratchet the insanity up to 11 here is a treat.

Duvall has a somewhat thankless role of an increasingly hysterical mother, but the amount of emotional work that must have gone into her performance shouldn't be underestimated. And, young Danny Lloyd turns in a remarkable performance. The rumors abound about Kubrick's raw treatment of actors, but if there was ever a testament to his method paying off, THE SHINING would be it.

I guess one of the most interesting things about this film is how it works both as an art film and a genuine horror movie. It's scary and unsettling enough that kids still pass down rumors of how frightening it is, despite the inflated running time, stretches of quiet, thoughtful moments, and lack of actual body count. But, it's beautiful enough that even the stuffiest, most pretentious film nerd has to admit it's possible for a ghost movie to be great.

Horrorfest 26: Murders in the Rue Morgue

Of all the Edgar Allan Poe inspired Universal horror films, this one is by far the best. Not only is it the closest to the source material (even though it's not all that close), it's also the only one with real atmosphere and artistic flair behind the camera. Despite the great acting of Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff in THE BLACK CAT and THE RAVEN, both of those flicks feel flat and bland in comparison to the Universal classics like DRACULA, the FRANKENSTEIN series, and others. This is not the case with MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE -- it seems to fit right along, visually, with the best of them.

This one stars Bela Lugosi as mad Dr. Mirakle, a sideshow carnival hawker with a captive gorilla named Erik to show off to his Parisian audiences. Many claim this film's striking cinematography by Karl Freund (who also shot METROPOLIS) and direction by Robert Florey owe a lot to the German exprossionist films like NOSFERATU and CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI from the 20s. These claims seem to be true, and the set design also seems to be heavily influenced by the trippy, nightmarish style of those earlier films, with the overly exaggerated crooked roof tops and towering windows casting even more towering shadows. But, it's also clear the plot seems to be at least halfway ripped off from DR. CALIGARI, with Lugosi's Dr. Mirakle replacing Dr. Caligari, and a gorilla replacing Caligari's sleepwalking manservant.

Turns out Mirakle has a plot to somehow mate his captive gorilla with a human female. He kidnaps prostitutes from the streets of Paris, tests their blood, and discards them, murdered, into the Seine, if they prove to be unacceptable for his experiments. These experiments remain vague, probably to avoid making the references to bestiality any more over than they need to be. This, coupled with the fact that Mirakle happily spouts pro-evolution claims to an audience of 1840s Parisians, sets Mirakle clearly in the realm of blasphemy.

This movie is genuinely creepy in parts, specifically in an early sequence in which Lugosi kidnaps a prostitute from the street and takes her back to his lair, where he straps her up to a cross and performs sinister experiments on her.

So, the flick is clearly inspired by CALIGARI, but it also clearly serves as the inspiration for KING KONG, especially during the climax, in which Erik the gorilla falls for his latest potential mate, Camille (Sidney Fox). He escapes with her and makes a death defying flight across the roof tops of Paris, swinging from pipes and chimneys as he avoids his would-be captors.

Meanwhile, young medical student and lover of Camille, Pierre (Leon Waycoff) systematically attempts to solve the mysterious murders with the powers of science and deduction. Some saw Poe's short story created the genre of modern detective fiction, which means this is probably one of the first examples of detectives in the cinema.

Horrorfest 25: The Raven

Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi return for THE RAVEN, another movie with the title of an Edgar Allan Poe work that has basically nothing to do with the source material. I gather this one is generally less well-regarded than THE BLACK CAT, but I'm pretty sure I liked it better.

Lugosi stars as Dr. Richard Vollin, a brain surgeon who has retired from his practice but who is called in at the last moment to perform surgery on the daughter of a prominent judge who has been nearly-fatally injured in a car accident. Although Dr. Vollin would rather spend his days building torture devices inspired by the tales and poems of Edgar Allan Poe, including THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM, in his secret basement, he finds himself falling in love with the judge's daughter once he's saved her life.

The daughter, Jean (Irene Ware) is engaged to be married to Dr. Holden (Lester Matthews). So, when it becomes obvious to the judge (Samuel S. Hinds) that Dr. Vollin is putting the mack on his daughter, the judge steps in to make sure his daughter ends up with the young doctor rather than the old, mad scientist. Of course, this rubs Dr. Vollin the wrong way, and he vows revenge against basically everyone in sight for keeping him away from his love.

Dr. Vollin has a theory: Poe's story were obsessed with torture because Poe himself was tortured by the death of his lover. Only through writing about horror and torture could Poe free himself from his own torture. Similarly, Dr. Vollin reasons, only by inflicting pain on his victims can he lift the pain of rejection from himself.

You might be wondering where Boris Karloff comes into all of this. Well, he shows up as an escaped convict who wants Dr. Vollin to change his face for him so he can elude the authorities. As Vollin, Lugosi cruelly disfigures Karloff's face until he's a hideous monster. He promises to fix the face if Karloff will help him in his elaborate revenge plot, which involves inviting all of the key players to his booby-trapped mansion for a night of torture.

Once disfigured, Karloff is somewhat reminiscent of his famous Frankenstein monster character. Acting as Lugosi's servant, it's interesting that Karloff was considered the biggest star at the time, and even got top billing over Lugosi, who has most of the heavy dramatic lifting, starring in almost every scene of the movie and delivering more dialogue than probably all of the other characters combined.

THE RAVEN is reminiscent of THE BLACK CAT, probably on purpose, since THE BLACK CAT came first and was such a hit for Universal. Both films feature a battle between Lugosi and Karloff and a "normal" couple who get caught in the cross-fire. In THE BLACK CAT, Lugosi is the hero and Karloff is the villain. In THE RAVEN, Lugosi is the villain and Karloff isn't exactly the hero, but becomes heroic as he ultimately betrays his master.

Lugosi quoting the original text of Poe's THE RAVEN in the first few minutes of the film is worth the price of admission alone, but there's plenty more here for classic horror fans. Specifically, Lugosi is at the height of his mad-scientist mania here, delivering his threatening lines with such relish that you'd think he was quoting Shakespeare. Similarly, Karloff does what he does best, bringing sympathy to an almost mute monster, using his body language and the look in his eyes (or eye as the case may be).

The climax feels a bit rushed, but I guess if I had to choose between a nicely brisk running time and an overblown climax, I'd rather go with the rushed feel. Thanks to the mad torture plot, the over the top acting, and the fast pace, THE RAVEN and its predecessor THE BLACK CAT are reminiscent of a good comic book or piece of pulp fiction -- short stories crammed between the dusty pages of an old horror/sci-fi magazine.

Horrorfest 24: The Black Cat

When I was a kid, and I was into monster movies, I'd read books from the libraries about the history of the genre. So, I was exposed to all kinds of movies, but I only ended up seeing a fraction of them. I'd naturally want to watch DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, KING KONG -- the big ones. But, other titles, like THE BLACK CAT, just didn't have the same draw.

So, now I'm playing catch up, and I've finally seen THE BLACK CAT -- one of many Universal horror pairings of the two kings: Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff.

In this one, neither of them are playing classic monsters: Lugosi is a recently released prisoner of war who is traveling back to the place of his defeat to confront the man who betrayed him. This is Karloff, who, creepily enough, has built his sprawling estate on the very battle field where he vanquished his enemies and betrayed his allies.

Meanwhile, an innocent honeymooning couple is accidentally thrown into the mix, played by David Manners and Jacqueline Wells as a light-hearted couple very much in love. Karloff, who turns out to be a Satan worshipper who keeps preserved bodies of his victims in the catacombs of the house, sets his sights on the female half of the married couple. Lugosi, meanwhile, has to plan his revenge against Karloff while also attempting to protect the happy couple, which is difficult because Lugosi is at least as creepy as Karloff is and doesn't always come off as the hero he think he is.

On top of all of this, Karloff has married Lugosi's wife while he was in prison. She died, and then Karloff went on to raise and then marry Lugosi's daughter. Of course, he tells Lugosi his daughter is long dead, but she's really lurking around the house. Lugosi's already bent for revenge but he goes COMPLETELY mad when he realizes the depths of Karloff's betrayel.

The movie isn't expertly directed or shot, but the script is witty and the performances are great. Karloff and Lugosi both chew scenery with the best of them, and there is a climactic fight between the two of them that is a horror fan's dream come true.

Horrorfest 23: The Thing (John Carpenter's)

I've seen the original THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD, from the 1950s, multiple times, but I only got around to seeing HALLOWEEN director John Carpenter's 1980s version, THE THING, until last night. I've been aware over the years of the film's cult following, popularity, and influence on other movies, so it's nice to finally see it. Video game designers must have been influenced by this film and the original, whether they know it or not -- tons of games involve wandering down claustrophobic hallways with a shot gun, waiting for aliens to jump out at you so you can blast them.

It follows the basic plot of the original: American scientists isolated at the South Pole stumble across a flying saucer buried in the ice, bring a seemingly dead alien back to the lab, and find out too late that it is alive and knocking them off one by one.

The best part of this version is the hook that The Thing not only kills its victims but also gains the ability to imitate all varieties of life, from dogs to humans. So, the characters are not only fighting a powerful alien, but they spend a lot of time getting paranoid and suspicious of one another, wondering who is still human and who has been taken over by the monster. This leads to one of the best scares in the film in which the scientists devise a blood test and slowly test each sample one by one until. . . but I don't want to give it away.

These transformations, from alien to human, provide a lot of opportunities to exploit gory special effects. Additionally, The Thing has the ability to continually adapt -- if you cut off part of it, that part will grow new parts and become its own monster. The effects shown here are top notch. Divised by Rob Bottin with an assist from Stan Winston, they're always super gross and never look dated. Why throw in computer animated blood splatters in current thrillers when the art of gore was perfected over two decades ago? Like a David Cronenberg flick, the amount of gore and fetishistic attention to detail almost becomes a subject or a theme unto itself, which, if you buy into it, can actually make up for the sparseness of some of the rest of the film -- lack of character development, for instance. Maybe the point is, humans ARE just interchangeable shells, bumbling around the world, surviving by luck.

Then again, maybe not. I mean, there's still Kurt Russell, kicking ass. He plays a helicopter pilot and becomes the main character of the film through process of elimination -- his natural sense of leadership and willingness to fight keep him one step ahead of the other scientists and the alien itself.

Don't call him an interchangeable shell or he's liable to shoot you in the face.

Horrorfest 22: Haxan

HAXAN is a strange, silent Swedish/Danish documentary from 1922, written and directed by Benjamin Christensen. I first heard about it in connection with THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT as the independent filmmakers who produced that film named their company "Haxan Films." Because of this, there was a resurgence of interest in HAXAN, and I often saw it advertised in the pages of cult film magazines like FILMFAX when I was a teenager.

Over the last decade, I've always assumed this film was nothing but superstitious exploitation -- a credulous look at "real" witches, a "documentary" in name only, promoting paranormal claims in a more naive era. Still, the idea of a silent documentary about witches was creepy enough for me to add it to my Netflix queue, whether it's bullshit or not.

I couldn't have been more wrong about the film. As it opened, it quickly became clear that this was as close to a scholarly study as you're likely to get from a 1922 silent film. There are elements of shock and exploitation in the film, especially for its era, as we see some semi-nude women, some sac-religious images, and re-creations of medieval torture. But, the point of the film isn't to thrill the viewer with the possibility that witches and witchcraft are real, but to examine why medieval people believed in it, what might have really been going on to cause these beliefs, and why it's dangerous to allow these beliefs to impair mankind's judgement.

Basically, it's a skeptical film, which is great.

Yes, it's a little simplistic and out-dated by today's standards (the issue of sexism is never directly addressed), but it appears to be very forward-thinking for the time in which it was shot. It even goes so far as to indict the then modern idea of clinics and asylums as not much better than medieval torture. The film explains why the superstitions of the past were dangerous and unfounded in fact, but doesn't let present day superstitions off the hook, either, drawing effective parallels between the way deformed, afflicted and hysterical women were treated in medieval times with the way they were treated in 1920.

The film starts off with a review of the history of images of the devil in medieval paintings, drawings, wood-cuttings, etc, but then moves into reenactments using actors and actresses showing different examples of how women were persecuted in medieval times, and how witch hunters and religious leaders extracted confessions using torture.

In 1922, the film must have been effective partially due to the sensationalistic nature of the subject matter but also because of its structure, unique to the time as it avoided traditional narrative story and plot. Today, it's effective for different reasons -- modern audiences are accustomed to seeing the most depraved, sensational and exploitative images in the most mainstream films, so that aspect of this film won't thrill them. What is interesting about the film, as viewed today, is that we're seeing people from almost 100 years ago reenacting scenes frmo medieval times, instead of what audiences in 1922 saw, which was contemporary people reenacting these scenes. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the inherent creepiness factor of a movie this old, combined with the creepiness of the subject matter, puts an added prism on top of the movie itself that modern audiences view it through. To someone in 2009, viewing these medieval reenactments may as well be actual documentary footage from medieval times.

The other thing about the film as viewed by a modern audience is that it not only shows how attitudes of the 1920s weren't all that far removed from medieval attitudes, but also goes to show how almost 100 years later we're still dealing with a lot of the same problems. People are still persecuted for being different, misunderstandings are still exploited for personal gain, and religion is still a powerful force that can be used for evil. Writer/director Benjamin Christensen is careful to point out that humankind still has its problems, but I think he lets religion off a little too easily. Maybe that's because this is more of a European view than an American one. Or, maybe we've regressed since 1920, and superstition has made a comeback.

This is one of those films that gets more interesting the more you know about it. On its own, it can be difficult for a modern audience to sit through, like most silent films. If you want to watch it, I suggest you check out the Criterion Edition DVD, which is crammed with so much information about the film that it becomes impossible not to appreciate it as a historical artifact and important moment in filmmaking.

One insight I particularly liked in the film reflected a thought I've often had when considering some of these issues, and that's the idea that the more fervently you believe in the devil, the more the devil becomes real to you and the more power he has. This theme runs throughout the movie, implying that the intense belief in demons and devils in the middle ages caused so much fear and anxiety that it eventually caused nervous breakdowns and hysteria among desperate people with little or not control over their own lives and led to disaster.

I've often thought, over the years, that the best way you can combat supposedly evil supernatural forces is to simply not believe in them. There's nothing to prove they exist anyway, so why allow them to control your life when you can simply believe that they don't exist? Is it better to teach your kids that DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, Ouija boards and HARRY POTTER really have black-magical properties that can open gateways to hell? Or, is it better to teach them that that's ridiculous and the natural, scientific world simply doesn't have time to waste on black-magic? You want your kids sitting around worrying about Satan, or would you rather have them disregard him out of hand and not waste a second thought on him?

I know, to some the very idea that you can take power away from a demon by simply not believing in him is a dangerous, naive notion.

But, there is nothing more empowering than truth and knowledge, and in the search for truth and knowledge there is no time to waste on the supernatural.

Horrorfest 21: Poltergeist II: The Other Side

Even though I’ve seen POLTERGEIST about a billion times, I’ve only seen POLTERGEIST II: THE OTHER SIDE maybe once or twice. It was recently showing at the Laurelhurst, so I checked it out again for the first time in years.

My memory told me it wasn’t quite as good as the original, but still okay. Boy was my memory wrong. This movie sucks.

To be fair, the filmmakers make a valiant effort but they miss the mark at almost every turn. Jobeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson are back as the mother and father of the Freeling family who have now moved in with grandma (Geraldine Fitzgerald) since the spirit world ate their last house.

The kids are back, too, with the exception of Dominique Dunne, who was tragically murdered between films. Unfortunately, Heather O’Rourke as Carol Anne and Oliver Robins as Robbie are no longer as effective as they once were. In the movie only one year has passed, but in real life the kids have aged by about four years, which means they’re old enough to realize they’re supposed to be acting. And make no mistake, you can tell they’re acting. That’s not to say they’re any worse than any other child actor or even very bad at all, but it is a marked difference between the naturalistic performances of the first film and the cutesy, self-conscious performances of this one.

The plot makes a major misstep as it spends most of its time answering questions that don’t need answers. This ends up robbing the movie of all of the wonder and fantasy that the previous one had. We get explanations as to why the hauntings are happening, and why they happened in the first film, but the explanations are extraneous to the central action and the movie wastes too much time telling the audience why instead of showing the audience how. The climax of the movie delivers on the movie’s subtitle by taking the audience (and main characters) into the “other side” which was only barely glimpsed in the first film. And guess what? It’s underwhelming. That’s the kind of thing best left to the imagination.

Still, two new characters are introduced because of these plot contrivances, and they liven things up when they’re on screen, so it’s not all bad. The best addition to the series is Julian Beck as Kane, an old, evil, skeletal Reverand who seems to be a ghost from another time even though he’s able to interact with the land of the living. Beck’s performance is super creepy and leaves an impression, even if it puts a face on an entity that doesn’t really need a face.

Will Sampson as the Native American Shaman, Taylor, is the other new character, sent by pschic Tangina (Zelda Rubenstein) to help the Freelings out this time. He’s not quite as cool as Tangina was in the first movie, and there are a lot of clichés and mumbo jumbo surrounding his Indian ways that haven’t aged well in the last couple decades. Tangina’s still on hand to help out in the spirital good guys department, but she’s strangely ineffectual and, appearing in almost the first scene, doesn’t have the dramatic presence and great entrance she had in the original film, which takes some of her power away.

There are a couple freaky fright scenes worth mentioning but they pale in comparison to the similar sequences in the first film – Robbie’s braces attack him, and Craig T. Nelson barfs up a monstrous tequila worm.

I guess the biggest weakness of POLTERGEIST II is that the tone is off. The movie wastes time attempting to explain away the mysteries of the first film, transforming abstract concepts into literal people and places. This deflates the whole movie. The first one transcended genre to become something special, but this one is happy to just wallow in mediocrity. Spielberg’s name, all over the credits of the first flick, is conspicuously missing from this one.

Note: I totally meant to mention how hot Jobeth Williams was in the original POLTERGEIST review, always running around in cut-off shorts, showing off her shapely legs. Somehow I forgot to do so. I figured I’d take advantage of this second review to mention her hotness, but I was disappointed to find that in this sequel she mostly wears ugly sweaters, mom jeans and a bad perm.

Horrorfest 18, 19 & 20: The Frankenstein "Trilogy"

I've seen the FRANKENSTEIN movies many, many times and I think they must be my favorite monster movies. The first three are the best, so I've decided to review FRANKENSTEIN, BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and SON OF FRANKENSTEIN and call it the "Frankenstein Trilogy" even though there are a lot more Frankenstein flicks than just these three.

FRANKENSTEIN

This is not the original FRANKENSTEIN film, but it's the most famous -- produced by Carl Laemmle, who produced all the great Universal horror films, directed by James Whale, who seemingly directed all the good ones, and starring Boris Karloff in a career-launching role as the Monster himslef.

I don't know if it's possible to NOT know the story, but FRANKENSTEIN is the tale of Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive), a scientist bent on discovering the secret of life by assembling a body from corpses and reanimating it in his lab with electricity. As is usually the case in films like these, though the tradition was probably started with this one, Frankenstein has a frustrated fiancee who wants to marry him if he'd just stop being so obsessed with his work (Mae Clark), as well as a best friend who'd be glad to swoop in and take the fiancee if Frankenstein goes too mad (John Boles).

Frankenstein is aided by his hunchbacked assistant, Fritz (Dwigth Frye) in robbing graves, cutting corpses from gallows, and stealing brains from medical schools, to help with his experiments. The result: a hulking, monstrous brute, mistakenly awakened with a murderer's brain, played by Boris Karloff.

Director Whale is clearly influenced by German expressionist filmmakers here with his towering gothic sets and startling camera angles. Those familiar with Whale's filmography may find this film strangely lacking in his customary dark sense of humor. The movie feels sparse, as if absolutely everything was left out except the parts that really matter, although the character of Frankenstein's blowhard father (Frederick Kerr) sticks out as fairly unnecessary.

I think the main thing that sets this film apart from most other monster and horror films is the fact that you can really identify with the Monster. Part of this is thanks to Karloff's human portrayel -- buried under layers of Jack Pierce's masterful, creative and highly infuential makeup, you can still sense a vulnerability thanks to Karloff's vocalizations, his eyes, and his hands. But, it's also thanks to the story. There's no clear villain in this film -- sure, the Monster ends up going on a killing spree, but he's overwhelmed, misunderstood and persecuted just days after suddenly sparking to life. The only other potential villain would be Frankenstein himself, but even though Colin Clive reaches amazing heights of madness in his portrayel, you never get the idea that he's bent on evil, even if he is stepping into God's domain. Incidentally, I nominate Crispin Glover for the role of Dr. Frankenstein in the next remake.

The best scene is probably the one that was censored upon the film's original release but has been restored on VHS and DVD versions of the movie. Karloff's monster encounters a young girl throwing flowers into a lake. She's the first person to show him any kindness, so he sits and joins her in her game. But, when they run out of flowers, the monster misunderstands and tosses the girl into the water.

When I was a kid, I used to have a Frankenstein story book, and the part where the monster is trapped in the burning windmill at the end of the film really bothered me. It seemed so unfair that the mob's hysteria rushed to judgement and trapped a confused creature in a torturous death. That was more frightening than anything.

BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

Conventional wisdom, possibly revisionary in nature, says this is the best of the FRANKENSTEIN films. Re-watching the films recently, I think I still agree with this assessment, though kind of like the recent DARK KNIGHT, part of the greatness of BRIDE OF RANKENSTEIN relies on the solid foundation set by the original, so it's hard to view it as a movie all on its own. The nice thing is, together, the original and the sequel only add up to 2 hours and 26 minutes, so you can watch them together in a little over the average running time of one movie.

The film picks up right where FRANKENSTEIN left off, revealing the Monster survived the fiery trap in the windmill. But, the tone seems to be different. Part of this is probably due to the creative control Whale was afforded after the success of the original. Another part is probably just due to the evolution of filmmaking in the intervening four years between the films -- where FRANKENSTEIN had no musical score in 1931, BRIDE has an evocative theme that is repeated effectively throughout in 1935, much more in line with what we expect out of modern films today. This dose a lot to do away with the "sparse" feel of the original and is just one example of how the years in which the films were made dictated how the films ended up feeling.

Here, Whales' subversive sense of humor comes to the forefront. It's clear he's having a lot more fun with the material than Universal expected him to -- much like with THE INVISIBLE MAN, Whale turns in a respectable horror flick while sneaking in his own satirical insights into sexuality and religion. The film is surprisingly existentialistic, although it does feature at least one positive religious character. Also, many have pointed out the homosexual themes that lurk under the surface of nearly every scene, partially based on what we know of Whales' personal life now, but also just based on characters and scenes that seem fairly obvious in the light of 74 years worth of experience.

Colin Clive and Boris Karloff return as the scientest and the Monster, but in this film Karloff gets a lot more to do. The themes of his isolation, persecution and misunderstanding are amped up to become the main themes of the flick and Clive is pushed into the background (though he still gets a couple deliciously manic lines in).

We're introduced to a new and fascinating character who basically steals the movie: Dr. Pretorious (Ernest Thesiger). This flamboyent, campy, and overall evil performance dominates every scene of the film and clearly differentiates BRIDE from the original. Now, we have a definite villain, and Dr. Frankenstein and his Monster are just pawns in his plan. Pretorious is a former colleague of Frankenstein's who is also bent on creating human life from scratch, and wants to combine his methods with Frankenstein's in order to create a mate for the Monster. Then, hopefully, the Monster and his mate will procreate, and we'll have the beginnings of a completely man-made race. No more need for God, who Pretorious talks about only in disgust.

The presence of Pretorious and the way he effects the other characters helps to elevate BRIDE over just being another sequel, retreading the steps of the original and repeating cliches. But, the development of the Monster as a character also helps to do turn this into more of a continuing story and not just a cheap cash-in.

As the Monster wanders the wilderness, he grows and changes. The strongest and most memorable passage in this series of scenes involves the Monster meeting a hermit (O.P. Heggie) in an isolated cottage. He happens to be blind, so he unconditionally accepts the Monster as a companion and the two of them enjoy a brief time together in which the hermit entertains the Monster with music, smoke and drink and also teaches him the concepts of "good" and "bad," what a "friend" is, and helps him learn to speak. Not only does the Monster start to become more human, but the hermit is so happy for companionship that he prays to God in thanks for his new friend.

Finally, there's the BRIDE of the title, played by Elsa Lanchester. She only has a brief moment of screen time but she makes a huge impact, not only on the viewer, but also on film history. All you have to do is mention BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and pretty much everyone can at least describe her lightning struck hair. The film ends in bittersweet tragedy, and that's part of what makes it so great.

SON OF FRANKENSTEIN

For years, the only Frankenstein flicks I'd seen were the first two (unless you count Abbot and Costello, which you shouldn't). I always wrote the rest of them off as cheap imitations.

So, I was surprised to find out, a few years ago, that SON OF FRANKENSTEIN is actually pretty great. It doesn't reach the creative heights of the first two films, but it is clearly better than the rest of them and stands firmly in the list of Universal horror flick as one of the best.

This was Karloff's final turn as the Monster, and unfortunately it's his least effective. He spends the first half of the flick comatose and even when he finally comes to life, only the last few of his scenes are any good.

But, the strengths of the movie rest on the shoulders of the other three main characters, and I guess this is a strength of these first three movies in general: the willingness to introduce brand new fascinating characters to keep the story going, rather than attempting to milk old characters for more of the same.

Unlike BRIDE, SON picks up a few decades after the previous film with the adult Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) returning with his wife and young son to his ancestral castle much to the annoyance of the towns people who still remember the tragedies pervious generations of the Frankenstein family brought upon them.

Inspector Krogh (Lionel Atwill) takes an interest in the Frankensteins, at first pledging to protect them from the vengeful villagers, mob-happy as ever, but eventually becoming suspicious of Wolf and investigating him. Krogh was maimed by the Frankenstein Monster in his youth and has had his arm replaced by a prosthetic one, which he jerks into and out of position to great dramatic effect.

Finally, the mad blacksmith, Ygor (Bela Lugosi) is lurking in the ruins of castle Frankenstein. Some time in the past he was sentenced to hang by the town council members and although the rope broke his neck, he survived. Now, the council members are mysteriously dying one by one but Ygor is never anywhere near the scene. Hmmm.

As Wolf, Basil Rathbone does a great job of walking the line between mad scientist and respectful member of society. On one hand, he's many decades removed from the rampages of teh first films. On the other, he believes in his family name and wants to restore it. As he gazes up at his father's giant portrait, he can't help but think his father was right all along and everyone else simply misunderstood him. So, when he finds his father's diary, detailing his experiments, he finds it very tempting to enter the old lab and start playing scientist.

Interestingly, it's not so much Wolf's drive to create (or re-create) life that's his undoing -- it's his crippling guilt. He feels guilty for what his father and the Monster did years ago, and as it becomes more and more clear that things are getting out of hand again, he feels guilty for that as well, though he's never quite sure what exactly is going on. Sure, he found the Monster's body and helped bring it back to life, but what's that have to do with the murders in town? And how come Ygor seems to have such control over the Monster? Are they up to something?

Most of the drama in the movie, and the best scenes, come from Wolf's run-ins with Krogh. The scenes between Rathbone and Atwill, matching wits and trying to out-fox each other, are great. They add another dimension to SON, which, much like Pretorious' presence in BRIDE, serve to differentiate the feel of the film from the previous two.

And, of course, Lugosi is great as the creepy Ygor, always secretly plotting and pulling the strings from behind the scenes. Then, when you really need him, he's just off perched on a window ledge creepily playing his horn (or whatever that thing is ) seemingly controlling the monster like a devilish Pied Piper.

The films went downhill after this one, looking increasingly bland and repeating plot-points with less and less effective actors as both the mad doctors and the monsters. But, the first three are great, with the first two being possibly the two greatest American horror films ever made.

Horrorfest 17: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)

"In my practice, I've seen how people have allowed their humanity to drain away. Only it happened slowly instead of all at once. They didn't seem to mind."

That's Kevin McCarthy as Dr. Miles Bennell in what the American Film Institute calls the 9th greatest sci-fi film ever made -- INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. Well, I don't know if it's the 9th greatest sci-fi film ever made, but its enjoyable enough.

I picked the quote above because it seemed to be the one that spoke most directly to the movies' themes. Some say the story is a reflection of the Red Scare era the film was produced during. Everyone was either a real communist or a secret communist, but either way, they all wanted to brain wash you. But, just like in CLUE, I think communism is a red herring.

See, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS is the story of a small-town doctor who returns home to find an epidemic of people who don't think their uncle is really their uncle or their mother is really their mother. They can't put their fingers on why, because the impostors look just like the real thing. There's just something in the eyes. At first, Dr. Bennell brushes it off as a strange form of hysteria, but eventually he finds what appears to be the body of one of these impostors before it has fully formed into a copy of one of his old friends. He even finds a copy of his girlfriend in the basement.

It's a paranoid idea that is commonplace in sci-fi, especially of the 50s and 60s -- the idea that there's a big conspiracy against you and no one will believe you when you try to blow the whistle, and everyone, even your closest allies, turn out to be against you.

The writers of the film have been quoted as saying they didn't have any ideas about the Red Scare in mind when they came up with the story. Still, the parallels are there. But, I think it's more of a general fear than a specific one, and the Red Scare is just one example of a manifestation. That's why I chose the quote above -- the movie isn't necessarily pointing fingers at one moment in history so much as it is looking at the common fear in every human of losing something of themselves as an individual and just becoming a member of the crowd. The movie warns that even when you're not being literally taken over and replaced by alien impostors from outer space, you still run the risk every day of losing pieces of your humanity if you don't stop and actively maintain your individualism and keep your soul (for lack of a better term) fed every day. The movie warns us not to go to sleep and become complacent, but to ask questions and seek answers, push boundaries and grow and change. In the movie, it takes an overnight invasion to point this out -- when people slowly lose their humanity over the years, they don't notice until it's too late.

The movie is pretty much non-stop action from beginning to end without many slow moments. There are a few cool special effects shots showing the pods that came from outer space and are now hatching alien impostors. But, mostly, the film is pretty small without many frills with most of the suspense and scares coming from the situation, mood and tone and not so much from sudden jumps or gross-out effects.

Horrorfest 16: Carriers

CARRIERS is a small flick that snuck in and out of theaters in the late summer and early fall of 2009. It was under-promoted by Paramount -- I don't think I saw a single commercial or trailer for the film until it was already out of theaters.

Still, it's an above-average epidemic flick, about a group of travelers led by a couple brothers who are attempting to get to what they perceive as a "safe" place after the U.S. is leveled by a highly contagious and fatal disease.

The group is led by Brian, played by Chris Pine, who you might recognize as the guy who played Captain Kirk in the latest STAR TREK movie. If you liked him in that one, you'll like him here -- he brings all the same smart-ass, bad-ass energy to this role that he brought to his much bigger budget job, only with more stubble this time.

Brian's girlfriend, Bobby, is played by the always likable Piper Perabo and his brother Danny is played by the brooding Lou Taylor Pucci (also with more stubble than usual).

CARRIERS plays as almost a darker cousin to ZOMBIELAND -- we've got a group of four, two chicks and two dudes, traveling down the road in a disease infested world, following strict rules to try to survive. Of course, they break all the rules, but in ZOMBIELAND they have fun doing it and in CARRIERS it just brings tragedy.

As mentioned before, Chris Pine knocks it out of the park. Maybe it's because I'm in love with him, I don't know. I'll admit my man-crush might be blind, but he seems to bring the same intensity to scenes of high drama as he does to scenes of light comedy, and that helps the movie sail along smoothly. So does the 84 minute running time, perfect for a flick like this. That's another similarity with ZOMBIELAND -- this flick knows when to call it quits.

In the short running time, there are at least 4 or 5 really cringe inducing moments. This flick really knows how to exploit our natural fears of infection, whether its through bodily fluids or coughs. We get nice shots of blood-stained surgical masks, makeshift quarantine barriers being torn down, and nasty rashes spreading on the bodies of the victims.

Still, when it all comes to a close, it is strangely affecting. Maybe that's my love for Chris Pine. Or, maybe it's the flick. Either way, it's worth a rent when it hits video stores in November.

Horrorfest 15: Poltergeist

I've seen POLTERGEIST probably. . . hmm. . . a billion times?

It might be the perfect movie.

Wait, that's nonsense, KARATE KID is the prefect movie, of course. But POLTERGEIST is close.

It has everything:

1.) It's scary. There's suspense and even a little gore.

2.) It's funny. There's at least as many laughs as scares, if not more, and they're usually not cheap jokes. I saw it in a second run theater the other day and a couple cynical audience members attempted to make fun of the movie at one point with a lame joke. As soon as they were done with their lame joke, a well-timed and expertly delivered Craig T. Nelson quip pulled the rug right out from under them.

3.) If you're not into scary movies or comedies, this one has plenty of sci-fi and fantasy elements to keep you busy. Sure, there's ghosts, but there's lots of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo to keep the nerds entertained.

4.) It just keeps on throwing stuff at you. Every twenty minutes or so you get a new big set piece or new interesting character to spin the movie around and send it in another direction. One of the most famous characters, the psychic Tangina played by Zelda Rubinstein, doesn't even show up until the movie is 3/4 over!

5.) Good musical score from Jerry Goldsmith really adds to the "wonder" of it all. That's one thing missing in a lot of horror movies -- characters routinely discover amazing creatures or phenomena and instantly react by trying to kill it. They're almost never intellectually or emotionally curious about what's going on.

6.) It has that "Spielberg feel." In the early 80s, there were a bunch of movies produced by Spielberg that all had the same overall feeling. The sense of wonder is part of it, but there's also the naturalistic interaction between actors playing family members in believable suburban settings. The Spielberg-directed E.T. is a good example of this, but others include POLTERGEIST, of course, GOONIES and BACK TO THE FUTURE.

7.) The cast is great. I wish Craig T. Nelson, who plays the father of the Freeling family, was in every movie. JoBeth Williams, the mom, has to range from comedy to outright hysteria and does it convincingly. Beatrice Straight takes kind of a throw-away part as a para-psychologist and gives it real emotional dimension. The afore-mentioned Zelda Rubinstein aims for the fences with basically every line reading. But the kids -- the kids are the best part. I don't know how they got these performances out of the late Heather O'Rourke as the youngest, Carol Anne, and Oliver Robins as the middle son, Robbie, but the kids act like there's not even a camera on them. If these kids had seemed fake, POLTERGEIST would not work.

8.) The story is good. A family unwittingly moves into a new house in the suburbs, complete with a cemetary on a hill overlooking it and sinister clouds constantly looming in the sky. Weird things start happening -- Carol Anne seems to talk to invisible people, the chairs move around by themselves. Finally, the tree in the backyard tries to eat Robbie and while mom and dad are frantically trying to save him, Carol Anne is abducted into an interdimensional portal located in her closet. The rest of the film follows the family's attempts to figure out what's going on and attempt to get Carol Anne back from "the other side."

9.) EVERYONE is the intended audience for this movie. It's from that magical era when PG movies could feel like R movies, when 10 year olds could sit next to 50 year olds in a theater and get the same level of entertainment. It's a LITTLE too scary for really young kids, but I think that's the best way to go -- when you're young, watch things that are just on the verge of being too much for you, and you'll really enjoy them. Spielberg was the expert at walking this fine line. See TEMPLE OF DOOM if you don't believe me.

10.) On a personal level, more than any other movies, these Spielberg-produced flicks from the early 80s, and even the Spielberg-directed E.T., look like my childhood. The toys in the bedrooms, the bed sheets, the t-shirts, the jeans, the hats -- all that stuff looks like it comes from an incredibly well-shot home movie from my youth.

I realize I've gone this whole way without mentioning director Tobe Hooper once. That's the problem with these movies with the "Spielberg-feel" -- you forget there's other dudes on the set getting the job done. Judging from his most well known film, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, I'd guess Hooper is responsible for bringing a lot of the realism to the movie -- making the family interactions warm and familiar, shooting the house so you can see the clutter strewn across the carpet in almost every shot, sneaking in sly references to the oldest daughter (Dominique Dunne) having more pressing private concerns than a haunted house, allowing the adults room to be individuals as opposed to cliched moms and dads.

Anyway, I liked it.

Horrorfest 14: The Virgin Spring

What? THE VIRGIN SPRING isn't a horror film? Well, this is my horrorfest, so I'll watch whatever I want.

I chose THE VIRGIN SPRING for 2 reasons:

1.) It was playing at the Clinton St. Theater

2.) It was remade as the famous slasher flick LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (Wes Craven's first flick)

I've seen the original LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT a couple times over the years, and each time I read up on it I come across the factoid that it's actually a remake of Ingmar Bergman's classic 1960 film, THE VIRGIN SPRING. Both films deal with the same subjects, though Bergman approaches it from a more philosophical point of view while Craven is happy to indulge in the exploitative angle of the material. I guess the difference in attitude towards the material decides which genre we're talking about here, but if you simply look at what happens in the story, both films could easily be classified as "horror."

I repeated the premise of both films to some friends the other day, and they thanked me for giving the film away. But, in my opinion, the "twist" is so integral to the point of the movie, and such a famous twist, that it's not really spoiling anything to discuss it. But, if you don't want to know, stop reading.

THE VIRGIN SPRING is about a religious farming family in medieval Sweden whose daughter is raped and murdered while she's traveling through the woods to take candles to the village church. The rapists and murderers, a group of three brothers, seek shelter later that night at the home of the girl they just killed, the family finds out about it, and the tables are turned. Revenge follows.

Seems fairly simple, and it's easy to see why Craven would crib the plot for an exploitation slasher flick. But, Bergman uses the framework to tell a story of people trying to understand God in the face of tragedy. It also tells the story of characters who give in to their most evil feelings, and become afraid of themselves and the world because of it. If people can seemingly get away with this kind of stuff while God is watching, why do we still seek God's foriveness?

Let's get into the specifics: we've got unmarried, pregnant, servant girl Ingeri. She prays to the old Gods, specifically Odin. And, she HATES Karin, the daughter of her masters (Birgitta Pettersson). Karin's perfect -- good looking, virginal, born of good stock. She parties all night and sleeps in while everyone else works. Jerk.

The two girls embark on a journey to deliver candles to the nearby village church on the day of Our Lady of Virgins. On the trip, Ingeri grows to hate the perfect Karin more and more before eventually abandoning her under the pretense of being afraid to go into the woods. Karin goes on her own, and meets a group of creepy shepherd brothers who share a picnic lunch with her. One of them seems fairly intelligent, but sinister. His oldest brother is the creepiest -- he has no tongue, so he speaks with unintelligable grunts. The intelligent one translates, but you get the feeling (up to a point) that he's not exactly accurate. The third brother is the youngest and most innocent, by default -- a mere child, but clearly warped and abused by his older siblings.

As mentioned before, Karin's hospitality and naivete is repaid with brutal rape and murder. In the mean time, Ingeri has caught up with her and watches in horror but fails to do anything to save her. She's either scared or interested to see her own fantasies of revenge on the virginal Karin acted out. You decide.

That night, the shepherds seek shelter at the home of Karin's father, Tore (the always bad-ass Max Von Sydow). Tore and his wife (Birgitta Valberg) deduce that the shepherds are responsible for their beloved daughter Karin's disappearance, and enact their swift and brutal revenge.

The passages with the most philosophical insight occur in the last few minutes, so I won't give them away. Suffice it to say, the surviving characters find themselves quesitoning their actions (or inactions).

The film is beautifully shot in black and white by Sven Nykvist. The country scenery of Sweden all looks inviting, a series of forests with babbling brooks. My favorite sequence was the early morning scenes when Tore is preparing himself for his grand revenge. The sun rises over his house as he ritualistically bathes himself and prepares for the carnage to come. The sky looks peaceful, but the dark outlines of Tore's home's roof tops suggest violence stabbing up into the sun. Both beautiful and terrible.

While this film clearly takes a much more intellectual look at the idea of revenge and all of its implications, I was a little surprised how little of a stretch LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT really was. Sure, it goes way over the top into the exploitation department, placing a magnifying glass on the rape and torture scenes and then relishing unabashedly in the perversity of the revenge sequence. But, as far as the basic story elements are concerned, the films follow each other incredibly closely. Here, Bergman's rape scene is less graphic and shorter than Craven's, but just as effective. Similarly, the revenge sequence isn't as elaborate, but it might even be stronger thanks to the swiftness of the violence and the fact that Tore actually thinks about what he has done, once it's done.

I guess whatever attitude you take towards the material, it's still the same story, and the same fundamental feelings deep down get stirred. Everyone hates injustice, and everyone loves to see a villain get what's coming to him. Sure, it's perverse and voyeuristic, but it's there in every human.

Still, I think Craven's version would appeal more to the criminals and Bergman's version would appeal more to the victims, even if we're all both criminals and victims in our psyches.

Horrorfest 13: Paranormal Activity

Seems like the most talked about horror flick of this season is PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, so I checked it out today.

The problem is, the more buzz that surrounds a movie, the more likely it is that there will be a backlash of viewers who are let down. It's easier to be let down by a movie that's hailed as the scariest movie of all time than it is to be let down by a movie that's hailed as "kinda scary."

So, right now all the word of mouth is positive but I imagine in roughly a month or so people will be saying stuff like, "That wasn't scary at all," and, "That was a waste of money," and "What was the point?" If you find yourself saying stuff like that after seeing heavily-buzzed movies, avoid this one.

I try to pride myself on viewing movies on their own terms, within their own context, and attempt to take any hype or buzz, negative or positive, with a grain of salt. A lot of times, I'm not let down by the really built up flicks. Take THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and CLOVERFIELD, for instance. Any complaint you've heard about those films -- too shaky, not enough monster, not scary, etc -- I don't share. I liked both those flicks and thought they were effective in what they set out to do, and did it in an imaginative and original way.

So, when I say PARANORMAL ACTIVITY is just okay, and not great, and not terrible, you'll have to trust me that I'm giving my sincere opinion.

If you're not familiar, the flick is shot from the point of view of a young unmarried couple who are living together in what seems to be a haunted house, and the footage is presented as if it is the real thing, as opposed to what it really is, which is a mock-documentary with actors, actresses, a script and special effects. The male half of the couple buys camera equipment so he can attempt to document the seemingly ghostly goings on in the house. The female half of the couple is both more familiar with the hauntings, since they seem to have followed her her entire life, but also more reluctant to attempt to explore and engage with the ghosts.

Or are they demons? A visiting psychic is of the opinion that the house is haunted by a demonic spirit, which is more trouble than your average ghost.

In the first few scenes the couple is fairly engaging. Both have a good sense of humor and seem to have genuine warm feelings for each other. The guy is named Micah (pronounced Mee-kuh -- annoying, huh?). He's a day-trader and technophile who seems more wrapped up in his sweet new camera than the actual demons in the house. The girl is Katie, who is more scared, more superstitious, and has a mysterious history with the demons. She's constantly telling Micah to get the camera out of her face, Micah is constantly refusing to do so, and the tension mounts. Before long, the couple is sick of each other, and I'm kind of sick of them, too, although they're both good actors who turn in accomplished performances.

That's one of the pitfalls of a film like this -- with only one setting (the house) and a couple characters, only the most imaginative script will avoid repetition. To be fair, the repetition in this film serves to heighten some of the tension and suspense, but still, the screen time given to actual paranormal activities is outweighed by the screen time given to repetitive arguments that the couple in question wouldn't even rewatch, let alone complete strangers (the audience).

The film works if you're willing to always be looking in the background, waiting for whatever is to come. That's where most of the fun is. Waiting. When is it gonna happen? Now? No. Now? No? Now? Oh shit. Yes. Wait. That wasn't that great. I guess there will be a bigger happening later. Now? No. Now? No. Wait. . . what was that? Oh, nothing. Now?

And so on.

It's kind of like one of those episodes of the GHOST HUNTERS, except since this is fiction, ghostly stuff does happen from time to time, which is more than can be said for the Sci-Fi "reality" show. Also, Katie and Micah don't walk around acting like psuedo-skeptical experts, so that's nice. They mostly just act like regular people. That means they're douchey sometimes, but isn't everyone?

What kind of summary do I come to? I'm not sure. The movie mostly works while it's playing. When it's over you roll your eyes and shrug. I guess I could have either used a more spectacular finale, or, if we HAVE to have the finale we end up with, I could have used maybe about a half hour less of the movie to sit through, which would have done away with some of the repetition and would have stopped the movie from building up so much that it's hard to avoid disappointment.

Still, I'd be lying if I didn't admit I kept looking over my shoulder as I cooked dinner after I came home from the movie. Suddenly the building settling sounded a little more weird, the shadows seemed a little more foreboding, and stuff seen out of the corner of my eyes seemed a little more sinister. It wore off soon enough, but I guess for all the movie's weaknesses, it still works on a fundamental level.

Horrorfest 12: The Invisible Man

I've always liked Claude Rains, so it's about time I watched his breakout film. He's so great in classics like CASABLANCA and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA it's easy to forget he got his start in Universal horror flicks. Then again, before I saw this one, I saw him in THE WOLF MAN, where he stole the show, so INVISIBLE MAN isn't such a stretch.

INVISIBLE MAN must be one of the strangest breakout performances of all time. Because the movie is about an invisible man, you don't see Claude Rains until, literally, the last scene of the movie. He spends the rest of the movie either wrapped in bandages or running around completely invisible, his movements rendered with special effects. So, a reasonable audience member might wonder, is this actually Claude Rains we're seeing? I guess the answer is "sometimes." The important thing is his voice: it carries the movie with its theatrical and over-the-top mad-man antics.

Watching the opening credits just hammers home the level of talent involved in this production. The first name you see is Carl Laemmle, the dude who produced all the great early Universal horror flicks. Then, Claude Rains as the Invisible Man. Then, based on a novel by H.G. Wells. And finally, directed by James Whale, the guy who brought us FRANKENSTEIN and BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, two of the greatest horror films ever made.

Now, once you see James Whale involved, you know the movie's going to have a warped sense of humor. Whale was a master at delivering the horror film Universal wanted while subversively slipping some dark comedy in on the side. THE INVISIBLE MAN gives a lot of opportunities for comedy, as you imagine a story about an invisible dude running around might. He steals bikes, knocks peoples' hats off, throws ink in the face of police men. It also features Una O'Conner in one of her screaming old biddy roles as an inn-keepers wife. Her performance doesn't stand the test of time well, but you can see what Whale was going for and Una O'Conner really put everything she had into it, much as she did later with THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN and to a lesser extent THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD.

The story is very similar to a lot of the other old horror movies I've been watching lately -- an otherwise good-natured scientist gets obsessed with his experiments to the point where he alienates his colleagues and his lady-friend. He ends up turning himself into a monster, in this case, an invisible man, and spends the rest of the movie alternatively attempting to solve his problem and make himself normal again and giving into his more monstrous urges and exacting revenge on those who would be his undoing, who, tragically, sometimes turn out to be his former buddies.

This time around the larger theme is the idea of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The Invisible Man gets so obsessed with how cool it is to be invisible, that he decides he's untouchable and can always be one step ahead of everyone who stands against him. There's also some talk about the drugs he took to become invisible in the first place also turning him insane, so I guess he's not just drunk with power, but only half drunk with power.

Aside from the comedic moments listed above, Whale gets a lot of mileage out of Britain itself, lampooning the stoic Britishness of the ineffectual police officers and contrasting the mania of the mad scienist against simple pub-dwelling villagers. It gives a quaint flavor to what could just be a by-the-numbers thriller in lesser hands.

Oh yeah! And the special effects! Man, this was when special effects were really special. I defy you to tell me how they did some of the invisible man effects in this flick. Sure, they're not all perfect and some of them show somewhat fuzzy edges, but for a 76 year old flick, they're pretty impressive. And keep in mind, these dudes sat around and made this stuff up from scratch. The best part is when the Invisible Man unwraps his bandages to show nothing underneath, but there are also some sweet parts where disembodied pants and shirt run around rooms, clearly not done with wires and empty shirts, but with a physical performer who has been carefully removed from the image, no computers involved of course.

Horrorfest 11: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Jyde (1931)

Okay, I watched the 1920 silent version with John Barrymore in the title role(s), and now I've seen the 1931 sound version with Fredric March as both the good doctor and the evil. . . Hyde.

After watching the silent version, I read so much about the greatness of the 1931 version that I just had to check it out. The most impressive thing was the fact that Fredric March actually won an Oscar for his portrayel of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the first Oscar ever won for a horror film, a genre which is still severely lacking in Oscars (SILENCE OF THE LAMBS notwithstanding).

I think I prefer the silent version if only for the added creepiness of how slimy Hyde is. Sure, he's evil in the 1931 version, don't get me wrong -- but he's more of a cartoony monster. One of the strengths of the 1920 version is that Hyde could almost be a creepy guy you run into in a dark alley in real life. He gets more deformed and depraved with each monstrous transformation, but he's the least "monsterfied" version of Hyde out of the two films.

The 1931 film takes an interesting approach, though. The Hyde character wears a lot more intrusive makeup, similar to the appliances Lon Chaney wears in HUNCHBACK and PHANTOM. They serve to make him look almost like an animal -- specifically, something in the primate family. On top of that, in certain chase scenes involving Hyde, he seems to be quite adept at swinging, jumping, and climbing. So, the first thing we think is -- evolution. Is Hyde, the evil part of Jekyll, also the less evolved part? Does evolution bring knowledge of right and wrong?

To be fair, aside from referencing evolution, the 1931 also appeals to God and religion more than the 1920 version does. On multiple occasions the good Dr. Jekyll appeals for forgiveness from above -- first admitting that by dabbling "too far" into the world of science, he has accidentally and egotistically gone where only Gods should go, and then attempting to solve his problem by making sacrificial offerings to God -- namely, by giving up his fiancee (Rose Hobart).

The other thing that sets the 1931 version apart from the silent 1920 version is the experimental techniques director Rouben Mamoulian seems to delight in. From the very first scene, we're in experimental territory, as Mamoulian chooses to shoot the introductory scenes all from a first person point of view, belonging to Dr. Jekyll. We don't see the main characters' face until he looks in the mirror, and the first-person shot takes us from his pipe organ, down the halls of his mansion, and out into the courtyard and into a carriage. These days it just comes off as unnecessarily showy, but I guess back then it must have been fairly mind-blowing. Add to that the fact that this shot, and others like it throughout the movie, were accomplished with huge, cumbersome cameras and lighting rigs without a single steadicam in sight, and you get a fairly impressive result.

Mamoulian also experiments with interesting editing choices, usually in the transitions from one scene to the other. More than once, a scene change relies on an extra long dissolve, allowing the image from the previous scene to linger into the next scene much longer than was customary at the time, or is even customary now. This serves to show what image is on one or more of the characters' minds as they attempt to go about the rest of their business. Sometimes it's literal, as a woman's bare leg is superimposed over Jekyll as he reluctantly walks away from her bedroom. Other times it's more figurative, as a rain drenched window is superimposed over the action of a followin scene as if the movie itself was sobbing.

Then, there are the split screen transitions, as we see the action of one scene and other occuring simultaneously, in some cases creating an illusion that a character in one scene is speaking across the scene's divide about or to another character. Again, a fairly gimmicky technique, but taking into account the age of the film and the conventions of most other films of the time, and these things stand out almost as much as some of the tricks guys like Tarantino pull today.

I mentioned the 1920 film seemed to be about addiction. This 1931 version maintains some of those same elements but focuses more on the sexual aspect of the story. The sex stuff was in the other version, too, but in this one there is a much more blatant line drawn between Jekyll's frustration with his extended engagement and his desire to get laid. We even get a shot of a pot symbolically (and violently) boiling over at a crucial moment, suggesting Jekyll is so horny he can't control himself. After an erotic encounter with the low-class Ivy Pierson (Miriam Hopkins) Jekyll compares his engagement to being lost in a desert, starving for water. Appropriately, Hyde seems to be more fixated on sex, as well. Shockingly, the film makes references to extreme forms of sado-masochism and paint the Hyde / Ivy relationship as the kind of abusive relationship one usually associates with much more modern times.

One refreshing change in this version is the character of Dr. Jekyll. In the 1920 version, Jekyll comes off as completely innocent and idealistic until he's invaded by Hyde. In this 1931 version, Jekyll is still a genius and a do-gooder, helping the poor, but he has a more smug and self-satisfied air about him. He's more primed for a downfall -- his ego is too big and he needs to be taken down a few notches. Ironically, the physical difference between Jekyll and Hyde in the 1931 version is greater, but the personality difference between the two is slightly more blurred.

Hyde is evil, that's for sure, but Jekyll isn't all good.