15 Favorite Horror Films - #1

House on Haunted Hill (1959)/ The Innocents (1961)/ The Haunting (1963)

     These three films are my favorite ghost stories put to film.  House on Haunted Hill is very different from the other two, but I couldn't leave it off the list.  Let's approach each one, one by one.

     This film was done by schlockmeister William Castle.  This is the first of his long string of independently done shock pictures.  A millionaire played by Vincent Price invites five people to stay in this haunted house overnight along with him and his 4th wife, Annabelle.  As the night goes on, they are trapped inside with no means of escape and then the terrors really start.  One cool note is that this film's success inspired Alfred Hitchcock to do Psycho the next year.  Also, the movie started William Castle's theater gimmicks.  This one had Emergo, which would send a skeleton through the air above the seats of theaters at a specific time during the movie...  He's so amusing.

     The movie isn't truly frightening, though it did creep me out as a kid.  It's still greatly entertaining though.  It sort of takes the route of The Old Dark House or The Cat and the Canary, which were horror films where things aren't always what they seem in the beginning.  The Ghost and Mr. Chicken, the Don Knotts film also goes this way.  The film does have a great amount of atmosphere to it.  The beginning of the film sets the mood quite well with a giant scream the first thing you hear.  It's quite startling as there's no picture yet.   But don't let it fool you.  The movie is quite campy.  Even the trailer!

     Why is it partially my favorite horror film?  Well, there's one scare in particular that got me the first time I watched the movie.  It isn't as effective to me anymore, but it's still kind of creepy.  Remember when I mentioned "Knock on the wall" in my review of The Orphanage?  Well, it's sort of similar to the scare here.  And come on, I had to put Vincent Price at #1!  Who wouldn't?!  This is one of his best roles.  He's funny, diabolical, and not quite as over the top as usual.  

    The best aspect of the film is that you can see it for free.  It's in the public domain, and there are many copies to view on Youtube.  It's also on Amazon Prime if you prefer to go that route.

    The Innocents was a film I didn't discover until I was about 17.  To this day it's not as well known as the other two #1s on this list.  This is a sad situation.  It's about the closest you can come to The Haunting without copying it.  It's losely based on Henry James' Turn of the Screw.  It's about a governess that goes to watch over some children who's uncle wants nothing to do with them.  He's always away and leads the life of a lady's man.  Deborah Kerr plays the governess.  Once she gets there, she begins to notice strange things, and the children aren't what she expected.  The screenplay was written by Truman Capote, who put in a large amount of Freudian stuff that wasn't in the Henry James story, making the movie southern gothic.  The acting is superb all around, especially by child actor Martin Stephens, who the year before had played the lead child in Village of the Damned.  Here he gives one of the best performances of a troubled child I've ever seen.  And of course Deborah Kerr is her usual great self as the governess.

     This is yet another ghostly film where we are made to wonder if the main character is going crazy or if the place really is haunted.  Like The Haunting, the film just drips atmosphere.  Things are a bit more bright and happy looking in some parts here, but you still have the weird voices coming from everywhere and nowhere at night, unexplained behavior, and a dark history to the house.  And of course, there's Willow Waily, the creepiest children's song ever written.  

    The film does give you chances to breathe throughout, not giving shocks all throughout the film.  Rather, they come at moments you don't really expect.  Nothing jumping out at you here, but they are unexpected.  All the night scenes are lit only by moonlight and candlelight, leaving large dark shadows everywhere.  And unlike the next film on the list, the ghosts (if that's what they are) are seen.  And they can be quite terrifying.  I fully recommend that you all see the film.  It's a great example of 1960s black and white film-making, it's quite effective, and it is considered one of the best horror films ever made, not just by me, but by people like Martin Scorsese, Guillermo Del Toro and Francois Truffaut.  The film was originally given an X rating by the British Film Board, due to some suggestions of sexualization of the children in the film.  It is quite uncomfortable to watch in that respect, but there's nothing obscene here.  It is available to watch in HD on Amazon Prime.

     And then of course there's The Haunting.  This film also came up in my last list.  It still kind of scares me to this day.  It's shot in such a way that you don't forget it, and even if you don't believe in ghosts, there's still the fear of going crazy that drives the film.

     Hill House has a history of death to it.  Built by Hugh Crane for his wife (who died in a carriage accident seconds before she would have set sight on the house), it ended up being a house of sadness and misery.  Hugh Crane lived there with his daughter.  Then he died.  Then she died.  Along the way two housekeepers died.  Even the current housekeepers don't stay after dark.   I wouldn't stay even in the daytime.  The house is creepy as hell even on the outside!  

    The film is one of the most talked about horror films of the black and white era.  It's still stunningly effective in it's creepiness and chills.  The scene with the incoherent talking and the face in the design of the wall is still the creepiest scene ever filmed in my opinion.  

     I spoke at length about this film earlier, so I'll just leave you with that.  See the movie.  See it in the quiet.  In the night...  In the dark.

15 Favorite Horror Films - #2

The Evil Dead (1981)

     Yes, another film off of the 30 films that made me who I am.  This one was #1 on that list, and is pretty darn close here.  Why isn't it #1 if it's so important to me?  Well, just because it influenced me the most doesn't mean it's my favorite horror film.  Big difference there.  And also, I'm not counting the whole trilogy here.  Just the original 1981 film this time.  The other two are not straight horror films.  

     Again, if you want to see most of my comments on the film, read my much better written installment in the prior list.  

     1981 was a great year for horror films.  Especially for gory ones.  Sadly, the gore of that year would start the MPAA's crusade against it in the coming years.  That year saw Friday the 13th Part 2, Halloween II, American Werewolf In London, The Burning, Deadly Blessing, The Entity, The Funhouse, Ghost Story, The Hand, The Howling, My Bloody Valentine, The Nesting, Omen III, Roadgames, Scanners, and Wolfen, just to name the most popular ones.  None would surpass the test of time and the gore quota of The Evil Dead.  Shot by some novice film-makers from Michigan in the mountains of Tennessee during the winter, it was hell to shoot, but what it produced was one of the most loved horror films of all time.  The acting isn't great....

...but that's the only thing wrong with this movie.  It's got jump scares galore (which many people consider cheap these days for some reason), it has some pretty convincing gore effects, and my god the camerawork!  It's like some hobo on the banks of a river being commissioned to do a Renoir duplicate and succeeding!  Using low budget solutions, Sam Raimi created camera rigs that could give him just about any shot he wanted.  He carried a camera while driving a motorcycle, he fastened the camera to a 2x4 board and had ropes fastened to the ends of the board to create a sort of poor man's steadycam.  The blood was a special concoction of Karo syrup, a mixture of red and blue food coloring, and coffee creamer.  For moving chopped up body parts, they simply went below the floor and cut holes to put arms and legs through.  And the makeup is effectively ghoulish.

     One of the most remarkable things about the movie is the script.  It's a simple story of teens going to a cabin in the woods, letting out an unspeakable evil which they get killed by.  And they can't escape.  The bridge is out, and the trees attack people.  (Or rape people in Sheryl's case.)  But I'm impressed by the script.  The dialogue is pretty bad, yes, but the deadites all have their own personalities.  Linda turns into this demented cupie doll that's actually both creepy and funny at the same time, Sheryl is hideously gross and taunts like a madwoman...  And the idea that a tree could rape someone is actually pretty frightening.  Especially since that's what causes Sheryl's possession.  The script builds things up pretty slowly and it boils hotter and hotter, never letting up when it starts.  And at the end, the pressure cooker explodes.  (The stop motion melt-down scene.  The worst effects in the film.)   Also, Ash isn't a badass in this one.  He's a pretty cowardly guy.  He's the nice jock.  There's no quote of "Groovy!" here.  There's no chainsaw on the arm.  This film only has an axe and a shotgun for them to work with.  And a dagger.  

    The film is pure grindhouse.  I'd have loved to see this on a drive-in movie screen.  It's also a great film for groups to watch.  (If you want to make fun of it or yell at the screen.)  It's what made me want to work in film.  You watch the movie and think, hey, I could do this!  Yes, maybe you can!  If you have the work ethic and skill of Sam Raimi, about a million bucks, and at least a dozen people to help you.  Sure you can!

15 Favorite Horror Films - #3

The Shining (1980)

     You know, if I saw this poster without knowing anything about the movie, I'd think it was about aliens or something.  That face is kind of creepy, but it's not in the film.

     Anyway, yes, I know I already talked about this one in my last list.  In fact, I plan to do a longer essay on the film sometime.  Not today though.  It's late, I'm doing this off the top of my head, and I'm burnt out on horror films for the immediate future.  That being said, there's a reason it's on both lists.  It's a fantastic film, one that is very fun to study and to analyze.  It still effects me after all those viewings I've had of it.  I wouldn't say it scares me exactly; it doesn't make me lose any sleep.  But the images stay in your head.  Kubrick is very good at making his films memorable in that way.  The furry dressed as a warthog giving oral pleasure to his... butler or whatever, Jack Torrance leering at his playful wife and son as they play in the snow, the two girls at the end of the hallway dressed identically taunting Danny, Jack sticking his head into the broken door he's destroyed with his axe (ad libbed by the way), the elevator opening to spill blood all over the lobby, the door with the word "Redrum" written in lipstick across it...  So many memorable images.  

     I said a lot in my last essay on the film and will say a lot more when I do my long essay in a few months, so this one will be short.  This one is to push the film as a great horror film.  And that's controversial.  Many people hate this movie.  I was surprised to find this out, but a lot of people find the film downright boring.  I must say, I've never found the film boring, even after having viewed it over 20 times in the past 10 years.  The movie is set up and filmed very off-kilter.  At times it's almost just a series of strung together chapters.  The film is separated into days and times, with white-on-black title cards telling us how much time has passed between scenes.  There are plot points that were in the novel that are here, but are not explained or obviously shown.  In the book, Jack Torrance finds a scrapbook of the odd things that have taken place in the hotel over the years down in the boiler room of the hotel.  It's a major plot point in the book and in the 1997 tv miniseries.  People have complained about it not being in the Kubrick film.  Well,  they aren't completely right.  The scrapbook is there for all to see.  However, we don't know where Jack got it from, it's not focused on in the frame, and it's not mentioned.  But it is there.  See?

The film is one big mood piece.  It's cold (which is why Stephen King dislikes the film), it's odd, it doesn't make sense right up front.  You have to put things together in your head after the film is over.  People are STILL discovering things about the film, which is extraordinary!  And with each discovery, the movie becomes creepier and creepier.  That's the word I would use for this movie.  Creepy.  It works on that level.  Not everything is spelled out for you.  In fact, next to nothing is, and that makes the film creepy as hell.  The rules of film-making are sometimes disregarded as well.  Over-the-shoulder shots are not done in the correct way, the 30 degree rule is broken, there are scenes which most would have left on the cutting room floor because they don't tell us anything or move the story...  It gives us a sense of unease.  People say sometimes that the devil was in the celluloid for The Exorcist.  I'd say there's more a chance that something got into the negative of this film.  

    I'm not sure if Jack Nicholson's out there portrayal of Jack Torrance is a good thing or a bad thing.  It's over the top so much that it's very entertaining and sometimes funny, but at the same time, it does distract from the straight horror of the picture.  That's something I'll have to delve into when I do my essay on the film.  EVERYTHING is over the top in the movie.  Perhaps the hotel makes people over the top?  I mean, the hotel itself is, isn't it?

*More to come on this film in a few months.  Sorry this one was so short, but since I already talked about it a month ago, I don't have much more to say right now.

15 Favorite Horror Films - #4

Halloween (1978)

      So how can you celebrate Halloween without it's namesake movie?  (Okay, maybe it's the other way around, but still...)  It's one of the few horror films that has kept up it's appeal over the years.  Most tend to burn out due to the vast amount of sequels they incur and due to changing attitudes over the years.  While it may not be as fresh and original as it was when it came out, it's still considered one of the best by a large amount of people.  It gave birth to a genre that misinterpreted the film, started two legendary careers, and gave birth to one of the most identifiable horror icons.

     Halloween is a very simple film.  A guy who killed his sister when he was a child escapes from a mental asylum 15 years later to kill some more people.  Dressed up like a clown as a child, he now dresses in a jumpsuit and a blank mask as he kills babysitters.  It's not a complicated plot in the least bit.  To some, this means that a film is plotless, but really it means those people don't know what their talking about.  They just want to hate on a film for taking it's time building up suspense.  After all, the only onscreen murder after the first few minutes are in the last twenty five minutes.  The bulk of the film is Dr. Loomis chasing around Michael Myers trying to find him and warn the sheriff... and us getting to know Laurie, her friends, and the kids she is babysitting.   Sure, there's a few jump scenes of Michael coming into frame all of a sudden from the sides and some suspense as he waits and watches the teens from just feet away.

     I'm not going to talk long about this movie, as I said most of what I wanted to say in my top 30 Films That Made Me Who I Am list, and you can go look at what I said there to find out more.  Let's focus on why it's such a good horror film here.  Besides it's simplicity and realism (except for Michael knowing how to drive quite well), it is, in the old Hitchcock fashion, a suspense builder.  You know some people are going to get killed.  The killer is within feet of them throughout most of the movie, but he waits until he's ready.  I think one of the scariest things is that Michael Myers is so patient!  Even when he loses his victim, he doesn't run after them.  He walks casually.  He knows he'll catch up eventually.  The scene where Laurie leaves the house she found her dead friends in and limps along calling for help at the houses on the street is pretty suspenseful.  We know Myers is right behind her.  He's pretty far away at first, but she's limping, no one is listening to her, and when she gets back to the house she's babysitting at, she finds her keys missing.

     The film is not about the death scenes.  Those aren't particularly graphic.  There's no blood to the death scenes except the first death, and that's not much.  Even when Michael cuts the neck of one of Laurie's friends, there's no blood to be seen.  There doesn't have to be.  The movie is strong enough on it's own that it doesn't need it.  That's something that slasher films that came later didn't really get.  Of course, most of those weren't as well made either.  

    And let's not forget the music.  Without the music, the movie doesn't work.  John Carpenter screened the rough cut without music to someone at 20th Century Fox, and they didn't like the film.  Thought it had no suspense and wasn't scary.  He showed it to them after he had composed and recorded the music, and got the exact opposite reaction.  Let this be known for those that disregard soundtracks.  They do help convey emotion or feelings throughout films.  The music here is iconic.  The simple minor key melodies (there are like 3 of them used in different tempos, combinations and keys)  do their work fantastically.  It's not just piano as most think.  To the main theme, there's also a metronome and a synthesizer.  In fact, there's more synth here than piano.  And it doesn't work without the metronome.  I'm also in love with the chase music.  It's basically just a thudding piano note, but then the synth comes in that sounds like a railroad crossing sign to me.  It's pretty effective for suspense.  

      It's become quite a tradition for people to watch this one on Halloween.  It's obvious why.  The movie takes place on the day, it's named for the day, it's still an effective film...  It's not scary to those of us who watch it at least once a year (it's a great film to study for those of us that like to do such things), but it's so entertaining, so iconic that it's still worth it.

15 Favorite Horror Films - #5

Alien (1979)

    

     Here's yet another one that some classify as science fiction.  I suppose it is a science fiction film, but it's more of a horror film than anything.  The only film in the series I'd consider science fiction is the piece of crap that is Alien Resurrection.  This one's horror, the second one is an action film, the third is... a David Fincher film...  and of course the fourth is not worth talking about.

     Alien took an old idea and brought it into modern film.  It's basically a hodgepodge of ideas taken from a few films from the 1950s and 60s.  The giant alien skeleton discovery is basically ripped from Mario Bava's Planet of the Vampires, an alien stalking and killing the crew of a spaceship comes from It! The Terror From Beyond Space, there are elements from Forbidden Planet as well.  And of course there's also the stuff it pulled from Dan O'Bannon's previous student film that he wrote (and was directed by John Carpenter), Dark Star.  Let's face it.  The movie is an update of the old 1950s monster run amok pictures.  However, the effects are now good, the acting is much better, the sets are more believable, and there is of course more blood and suspense.  I've always considered the trailer for Alien to be one of the best trailers ever done.  It tells you the experience you're going to get without giving away anything.  The trailer builds and builds, and then it sort of orgasms.  It's what the movie does.  The movie's a potboiler.  It takes a while for anything to really happen, but you know it's going to eventually.  That's what suspense is.  No one was expecting an alien to burst out of a guy's chest!   Take a look at the magnificent trailer.

     It's like abstract art.  At a louder volume, the egg suddenly cracking makes me jump still.  And then the pulsing and odd noises get louder and louder and faster and faster...  Just like the film.  It shows you exactly what you're going to get.  A film with jump scares, suspense, and a large release of adrenaline towards the end.

     This was one of the first films that showed a smart, in charge, strong woman character that we could root for.  You had Halloween the year before, but that was an independent film.  This one was done by a major studio, and even they started to catch on to the feminism ideal.  Of course, there's also something sexual between Ripley and the alien.  He likes to watch her.  It taunts her.  In a way, it's almost the same movie as Halloween was.  Just set in space and with a monster instead of personified evil.    However, in a way this is scarier.  As the movie's tagline says, "In space, no one can hear you scream!"  In suburbia they can, they just don't care. 

     So what makes the film one of the best horror films?  Well, for one thing, there's the claustrophobic main setting.  Almost the whole film takes place on a spacecraft.  The Nostromo is a dull, ugly ship with narrow passageways and dark rooms.  And if that wasn't enough, we spend some of the time in the ventilation system!  In fact, my favorite scene (besides the last 15 minutes of course), is when Dallas is trying to trap the alien in one part of ship by closing off the ventilation system's corridors and he finds out he's not alone.  It's dark in there, so he can't tell where the alien is.  It's a great scene and ends in a good scare.  There's the added oddity of Ash, played by Ian Holm.  He's humorless, has a stick up his butt, and constantly quarrels with Ripley as he's just above her in rank.  He finds the creature fascinating and seems to be protecting it.  And towards the end he goes completely berserk, attempting some sort of rape on Ripley with... a pornographic magazine. 

     Let's also not forget what makes the movie stand out visually.  That being H.R. Geiger's designs.  He was a German artist that blended biological and mechanical together to make beautiful yet horrific artwork.  He incorporated a lot of sexual stuff in there too.  He designed the alien and the derelict spaceship for the film, including the space jockey.   He made the alien have a clear life cycle, which was a first in science fiction film.  You have the egg, which holds the facehugger.  The facehugger attaches itself to someone's face and implants it's young into the lifeform's stomach via a tube down the throat; another sexual allusion.  The being grows in there, and bursts forth from the chest as a foot tall version of the final alien form.  It grows to full size in just a few hours time.  It also has acid for blood (as does the facehugger), meaning killing it could be your death as well, if you're in space or in close proximity to the alien when you kill it.  At this point the queen had not been added to the cycle.  That would come in the next film. 

     The movie takes place in space, on a spaceship with a small crew that gets killed off one by one until only Ripley is left.  It's the standard slasher formula, but that genre wasn't to be really created until the next year.  Also, this isn't a human doing the killing.  It's Jaws in space.  In fact, that's how they pitched the film to the studio.  (Star Wars being released just two years before didn't hurt either.)  The film is considered a classic for a reason.  Even Congress put it in the National Film Registry over 10 years ago!  That means it'll be preserved for as long as the US is around at least.  It strengthened Ridley Scott's already pretty good career, and it launched Sigourney Weaver into a lead woman.  Some find her sexy, but I never did.  She looks better in Ghostbusters to me. 

I really should see this in theaters one day.  Back in 2004, they rereleased the film in theaters for it's 25th anniversary.  It didn't show anywhere near where I was at the time, and I'm glad I didn't go.  They were showing a new cut of the film advertised as a "Director's Cut", which it wasn't.  It was simply a different edit of the film with some trims and a stupid scene re-added that killed the flow of the last few minutes.  Stay away from the director's cut.  However, if I get the chance to see the original version on the big screen one day, I'll take it.  It must be quite the experience.

Shall I leave you with a death scene?  I shall!

Okay, so that's not Alien.  Sue me.  I love this Spaceballs scene!

15 Favorite Horror Films - #6

The Exorcist (1973)

     Okay, come on.  You knew this had to be on the list somewhere.  It's one of the most iconic horror films ever created.  Sadly, it's been parodied so many times that people don't take it seriously anymore.  And yes, perhaps it is rather over the top.  In order to be satisfied with a horror film, you have to believe in it.  For some people, it's hard to believe in such things.  And it gets harder and harder for horror films to make an impact every single day.  So many things make them in-plausible now.  Lack of faith means that people don't believe in demon possession.  Cell phones make it so that no one is out of communication with the outside world.  People don't believe in ghosts due to lack of evidence and belief that everyone's a fraud.  And so on and so forth.  The Exorcist primarily works with people that already believe that there are demons or that the devil has power.  For those that don't, well, they have to be convinced.  And perhaps this film goes too far at time, making everything seem unbelievable, such as with the 360 degree head turn in the film.  That would kill someone.  Would snap their spine, even if the devil was in control of the body.  After it was cast out, the girl would die, right?  However, I know of some people that don't hold such beliefs that still consider it the scariest movie ever made.  (I actually don't... But it is up there.)

     We all know the story by now.  A little girl, Regan McNeill starts acting odd a little at a time, and then starts to physically change and start doing obscene things.  So her mother has medical tests done that come back negative... and she goes so far as to call a priest who's having a crisis of faith to come look at her daughter.  Over time he becomes convinced that she may be possessed, and he asks the church for permission to do an exorcism, which they grant on the condition that a tried exorcist be there as well.  That's the story.  

     What makes the film work is partially the special effects and makeup effects.  With a less proficient director and production designer, this film would have been laughed out of the theater.  Most of the effects still hold up today, and that's extraordinary!  The makeup for Regan still kind of creeps me out when I come across it on the internet.  Dick Smith did Linda Blair's makeup in such a way that she completely transformed into this evil, demonic character while still having us know it's a child.  The makeup wasn't unrealistic, basically being composed of various bruises, cuts, shadows under the eyes, contact lenses, and clothes soiled with blood or split pea soup.  Even the makeup for Max Von Sydow was amazing!  The man was about 44 years old when he did this film, and yet they made him look as if he's in his 70s!  Until I started watching Bergman films from the 1950s and noticed that this was the same guy that was playing Ming The Merciless in Flash Gordon seven years later, I thought he was actually a 70 year old guy at the time!  It's that convincing; much better than the makeup effects in Back To The Future and most present-day tv shows where they try to make someone look much older.  

     Now about the special effects.  They sell the film.  If we'd seen the wires that make Regan levitate above her bed, if we'd seen the tubes that forced the pea soup vomit out of Regan's mouth... the movie would be forgotten by now.  But we don't see the wires, we don't see the tubes...  Heck, even the dummy with the rotating head doesn't look THAT fake!  And remember, this was 1973!  These were amazing special effects for the time.  No wonder people were having trouble sleeping and fainting in the theater.  It looked real.  For horror to work, it has to be considered realistic.  

     I believe that demonic possession is possible.  I know, I'm being laughed at right now.  Well, I come from a very religious family.  (Imagine if I was catholic!  I'd be even worse!)  Most often, protestants don't believe in demonic possession of those that believe, or even in that at all.  Does the film exaggerate?  I don't know.  I'm not an expert on possession or exorcism.  I'm glad I'm not.  Still, even though I have the belief, sometimes I still catch myself laughing at the film's more... out there... scenes.  And a lot of people don't remember, there's actually quite a bit of humor in the film.  The detective character is comic relief, as is the Burk Dennings character.  Even the possessed Regan is amusing at time... intentionally.  Such as when Father Damian first goes to see her to find out if she's really possessed.  When the demon shows off it's powers with glee and then coyness.  Sometimes we laugh because we're disturbed.  Many laugh now at the crucifix masturbation scene, some because of uncomforableness, some due to it being just out there, and others because they lack decency.   Humor and horror are on a very fine line next to each other.  I've heard this said in many scientific interviews, and indeed it's said by many directors and authors as well.

     Of course the film is scary on other levels as well.  There's the forced loss of innocence of a child, a molestation in many ways.  One that people are forced to watch, yet powerless to stop.  Some critics even considered the film a form of child pornography when it came out.  I wouldn't go that far, but the fact that the Academy Award didn't go to Linda Blair for acting (I guess because it wasn't her voice that was used when she was possessed and spoke?) is a crime.  The fact that she pulled this off so well is remarkable.  The fact that her career went nowhere afterwards is sad.  She'd been typecast.  There's the almost subliminal images put in the film.  The face of Captain Howdy appearing during dream sequences still give me chills.  That's a damned scary image.  The poster I put at the top of this blog post is of Captain Howdy.  In fact, the original trailer for the film was banned due to the images of Captain Howdy and of possessed Regan.  

     Some freaky stuff right there.  And a stroke or epileptic seizure waiting to happen.  This film is an example of the way horror films can work.  It's stood the test of time in spite of numerous parodies and countless showings.  It still effects some people.  Horror films won't work for everyone, but this came damned close.  For some of us it's too over the top now due to the waning of Victorian arbitrary morality.  When we get to the point of laughing at a girl being forced to forcefully masturbate with a crucifix until she's a bloody mess, and it's not laughter brought by uncomfortableness, well...  Wow.

And to finish up, here's a behind the scenes picture.  The dummy and Linda Blair all made up.  And man, that dummy is still scary as hell... and realistic!

15 Favorite Horror Films - #7

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

     I'm truthfully a bit burned out on zombies now.  Or the undead if you prefer that term.  They've been overused in the past ten years or so in various incarnations.  We've had fast zombies, slow zombies, zombies that eat animals, zombie animals, zombies brought about by contagions, zombie comedies, zombie tv shows, zombie self-help books, talking zombies...  They aren't scary anymore.  And they mean nothing.  That wasn't the case in 1968... or 1978... or 1985... even George Romero's fourth Dead movie in 2005!  They all had an axe to grind about the social condition of the United States.  Whether it be racism and the counterculture, consumerism, military strength under Reagan, or the post 9/11 world.  When it's gotten to the point where zombie films are actually about zombies like the bulk are now, the genre needs to take a break for a while.  I'm tired of even seeing the amount of juvenile and young adult books about middle school zombies.  

    There was a time when zombies were frightening.  Even before Romero's film, there was Jacques Tourneur's I Walked With A Zombie, which came out in 1943.  It dealt with the supposed real zombies in the Caribbean... The voodoo kind.  It was still creepy though, as most Val Lewton-produced films were.    And there was of course the 1932 Bela Lugosi film White Zombie.   Back in those days, zombies were mindless bodies controlled by evil forces like wizards or magicians.  Then there was the adaptation of Richard Matheson's I Am Legend, which was titled The Last Man on Earth and starred Vincent Price.  Romero freely admits to ripping that one off.  Even two years before George Romero's legendary film, Hammer Productions released Plague of the Zombies.  That film has been considered to possibly have been an influence on Romero, as the zombies in that film fit more in with Romero's vision of re-animated corpses thinking only of feeding on human flesh.

     When Night of the Living Dead was originally released in October of 1968, people didn't know what they were getting into.  Horror was considered a kid-friendly experience.  The film premiered as a matinee in most places around the country, which meant teens and pre-teens were the primary audiences.  The MPAA didn't go into effect until November of that year, so there was no rating, even though the Hays Code had basically ended in 1967.  Critics bashed the film as most wanted the Supreme Court to establish censorship rules.  The devil himself, critic Vincent Canby called the film a junk movie that was really silly.  However, not all critics hated the film.  My favorite critic, Pauline Kael loved it.  She called it, "one of the most gruesomely terrifying movies ever made – and when you leave the theatre you may wish you could forget the whole horrible experience. . . . The film's grainy, banal seriousness works for it – gives it a crude realism".  Over the next decade it became the most successful independent film ever made.  And sadly, it went into the public domain.  (Look on youtube.  You can legally watch the whole film there, as it was never copyrighted.)

     What's so effective about the film?  Well, for starters, the use of  black and white film was a great idea.  By 1968, very very few films were shot in black and white still.  However, the use of it in this film gives it an old-time horror feel.  It doesn't feel like 1968.  People are dressed conservatively, it's set out in the country, it could be set anytime from 1945 to 1968.  Sure, it's dated now, but any film made before cell phones is.  Horror doesn't work a bit with cell phones.  The black and white photography makes the film more realistic.  In color, the undead makeup would most likely be laughable.  The tension would be cut in half.  The shadows wouldn't be quite as dark, which means that a ghoul couldn't just jump out at you from nowhere. 

     The film is mostly set in a Pennsylvania farmhouse.  After the first few minutes of the film, the action only goes outside the house a few times, and even then, only within a few yards of it.  I mean, there are ghouls out there, man!  (Ghouls are what the undead are called in this film.  They started calling them zombies in Dawn of the Dead.)  The sparse location of the film leads to a sense of claustrophobia, especially as the more annoying people end up showing up.  There's no help coming, no way to leave, and the farmhouse is being surrounded more and more.  The ghouls know where the food is. 

      This was also one of the first films to show a black character in the lead.  He takes charge, is the strong character, knows what he's doing.   Some feminists have complained about the weak female character of Barbara in the film, as she basically does nothing but sit in shock for most of the film.  Well, not all female characters can be Ripley from Aliens, people.  It's my opinion that these social critics should get out of the film critiquing business, as they suck at it.  We have a strong black character here in a time when America was trying to finally control it's racism, and that's good enough for me.  Speaking of racism, the film is supposedly some sort of veiled attempt at social commentary in and of itself.  Something about the old generation giving way to the new... and by force from the new!  I like to view it as just a horror film myself, but I can see where some get that.  It's got a strong black lead, constantly being told off by an old white guy who wants to control things himself.  However, I don't know how zombies fall into that mix.  I'm sure someone will tell me.

     I think the movie is still powerful and effective.  It may not scare many people (no one gets scared by films anymore... except me apparently) but it's entertaining, it's artful in a low-budget workingman kind of way, and it's actually still pretty gory.  It opened film up to more gore, showed people that horror wasn't just for kids, that it could be smart.  To me personally, it showed that even with a small budget you can make a very effective film if you put all your effort into it and have good friends to help you out.  Why is it one of my favorites?  Besides what I just wrote?  Well, it's a film I'd been afraid to watch since I first heard about it.  I finally saw it when I was 18.  I'd seen Dawn and Day of the Dead before I saw this one in it's entirety.  I'd even seen the surprisingly good remake from 1990 which was directed by Tom Savini (who did the effects for Dawn and Day) before this one!  And it still lived up to expectations.  I was actually surprised at how gory, creepy, and effective it still was.

   So board up your windows, lock the doors, get a gun (remember, only a shot to the head will kill em), and never forget...  "They're coming to get you, Barbara!"

* There are at least 6 copies of the whole film available to watch on Youtube.  Most look to be in great condition as well.  And it's completely legal that they are on there, as it's a public domain film.  So if you haven't seen the film, or want to see it again, there it is!

15 Favorite Horror Films - #8

The Thing - (1982)

     1982 was a good year for film.  Especially that summer.  This is the year that gave us E.T., Poltergeist, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, First Blood, Tootsie, Blade Runner and Conan the Barbarian.  It was the beginning of a long popularity in action films, and continued the science fiction trend that had begun with Star Wars five years earlier.  However, one film that was darned good didn't do well in the box office.  The critics thought it was too dark, too gory, too depressing.  It came out two weeks after the phenomenal family-friendly success of E.T, and the same day as Ridley Scott's Blade Runner.  That movie was John Carpenter's The Thing.

     John Carpenter had a very successful career up to this film.  His first film, Dark Star, done while he was a student at USC film school and written by Dan O'Bannon (he wrote Alien) wasn't successful.  Assault on Precinct 13 was a bigger hit than Dark Star, but was still mainly shown at drive-ins.  His big success would come in 1978 with Halloween, which has of course become a phenomenon.  He followed that up with the TV movie Elvis which was one of the top watched TV-movies of the time.  It also got Carpenter and Kurt Russell into a great friendship.  the great vengeful ghost story of The Fog, which gets sadly overlooked and is not the director's favorite film due to all the reshoots he had to do to make it effective.  Then came the successful Escape From New York which starred Kurt Russell as Snake Plissken.  The next year, Carpenter began work on this film.  A film adaptation of the novella Who Goes There? by John W. Campell Jr.  It had been adapted to film before in the 1950s as The Thing From Another World, however due to censorship and practical issues of the time, it strayed quite a bit from the original story.  Not so with Carpenter's version.

     The film is set in Antarctica, where after a Norwegian helicopter tries to shoot the dog of an American research camp, the Americans investigate the Norwegian camp to see why.  They get there and everyone is dead, but they do find grotesque bodies of warped humans and a hollowed out chunk of ice.  Something was in there but is missing now.  They go back to camp, and little did they know that the dog was actually the alien in disguise, which starts to transform.  The big element of the plot is that the alien can imitate any other life-form.  This may not sound very interesting on paper, but the way it's done in the film is quite effective.  The special effects are quite phenomenal for 1982.  Here.  Look for yourself.

     

     In fact, critics of the day bashed the film for it's gore effects.  This is something that I disapprove of critics doing.  They should not be there to moralize on if a film is gross or not.  Morally irresponsible?  Okay, they can do that.  But there's little that's morally irresponsible in this film.  Vincent Canby, one of my least favorite critics in the history of film criticism (And you can see why), wrote this about the film.  "a foolish, depressing, overproduced movie that mixes horror with science fiction to make something that is fun as neither one thing or the other. Sometimes it looks as if it aspired to be the quintessential moron movie of the 80s."  Ouch.  And screw you Canby!  Even my goddess of film criticism, Pauline Kael, disliked the film.  However, this is one of the few films skewered in it's day that's come to be known as one of the best films created, sort of like The Shining or Rocky Horror Picture Show.  

     The scares of the film apart from the gory aspects of the animatronic and make-up work, come from not knowing who is really the alien at a given time.  The imitation is without fault, so it's hard to know.  There is a scene late in the movie where they figure out how to tell who the creature is, a moment that is quite effective, but for most of the movie they have to find out by other means, such as the creature unintentionally revealing itself.  The film is also frightening by having no means of help from the outside world.  These people are in Antarctica, for cryin' out loud.  And their radio doesn't seem to be working.  The weather is too bad to leave in the helicopter, and the alien ends up sabotaging that anyway.  It's set mainly after the sun has set.  It's claustrophobic as most of the action takes place in a bunker that only has a few rooms.  There are plenty of jump surprises and the score, one of the few not done by Carpenter himself but done by Ennio Morricone in Carpenter's electronic style, is suitably repetitive, quiet, and suspense building.  

     But the big reason this is one of my favorite horror films is that it's such a blast to watch!  I hope one day I can see it in a movie theater since they have started releasing older classics back into theaters for select dates.  Kurt Russell is of course one of my favorite actors, and I think this is his best role.  In fact, the actors all take it so dead seriously that I believe it's what makes the film work.  If this was done with an ounce of tongue-in-cheek, it'd be doomed to failure.  But it's so bleak, cold and methodical that it's right on par with the best of the Cold War/McCarthyism films of the 1950s, which is what the original version was.  Why don't I consider this a science fiction film?  Because it isn't.  It's earthbound, it's believable, it's grounded...  It could happen.  The only reason this could be considered sci-fi is due to it having an alien, which isn't enough for me.  This is horror, plain and simple.  It's there to shock you, make you think, and make you leave the viewing shaken.  It may not do that to many, as people don't get scared of movies anymore.  But it is effective in entertaining, of being a great film, and of having some of the best special effects in history.  Skip the prequel/remake that came out a few years ago which relied heavily on CGI.  CGI is of the devil and should be used sparingly.  To prove my point, here's a scene of this film with just regular physical effects.

I can't link to any of the clips from the new film, as Universal has disallowed that.  Still they are on youtube, and are depressingly stupid.  Watch this version.  It's great.  If you don't agree... Well... Sorry, but you're wrong.

15 Favorite Horror Films - #9

The Orphanage - (2007)

     I remember seeing this film in theaters.  I was living in Wilmington, North Carolina at the time, as I went to college there.  I had seen very glowing reviews for this Spanish ghost story, and that it was produced by Guillermo Del Toro.  Now, Del Toro had amazed me the year before with Pan's Labyrinth, which is to this date still his strongest film.  I figured if he was producing it and it got good reviews from just about everyone, it must be fantastic.  So I went to the not-so-great movie theater in midtown...  The movie theater that was obviously THE movie theater in town in the early 90s, but hadn't been well kept since the new theater opened across town.  They were the only theater showing the film.  I went with two friends who had also loved Pan's Labyrinth, and we all went in not knowing exactly what to expect.  The trailer was pretty vague.  Well, what we got was a damned good ghost mystery thriller.  (And one jump scare that got all three of us.)

     The movie is about a woman, a man, and their son moving into an old orphanage where the woman is from originally.  She plans to reopen the orphanage for disabled children.  Her son starts to have seemingly imaginary friends, and they apparently show him information that he's not only sick, but he has HIV.  Then after getting in a fight with his mother one day, the boy disappears... and it seems as if an old lady social worker may know what's up.  Then there's ghosts, paranormal teams, that sort of thing.  It may not be the most original film in the world, but we get so few ghost films that don't rely on CGI or cheap scares every few minutes that it really does stand above most other films of the type.  

     This is a ghost story in the style of The Haunting or The Woman In Black.  The scares are based mainly on the gothic stylings.  It owes a lot of it's feel to Henry James' The Turn of the Screw and it's brilliant film adaptation The Innocents.  There's that feeling amongst the surrounding characters that the mother may be going crazy, which is a plot point in The Haunting and The Innocents as well.  The big difference between those two films and this one is that this is in color.  I found the creepiest scene in the film to be one filmed completely in night-vision, as we see the medium going through the rooms in a seeming trance linked to the past, and the mystery of the orphanage on a tv monitor.  She describes what she sees, which we as the audience don't.  She sees children writhing and sick in bed.  In pain they call for help.  There's one ghost in particular that wears a type of scarecrow mask.  Apparently the child is grotesquely deformed beneath the mask.  And he likes to startle the mother in the film...  The mystery apparently has a lot to do with this kid.

     Then there's the scenes where the mother tries to get in contact with the ghosts.  To do this, she plays a children's game.  It's a variation of the game 'Statues'.  Here's what wikipedia says about how the game is played.  (I'm not great at explaining rules.)

1. A person starts out as the "curator" and stands at the end of a field. Everyone else playing stands at the far end (distance depends upon playing area selected). The object of the game is for a "Statue" to tag the Curator, thereby becoming the Curator and resetting the game.
2. The Curator turns their back to the field, and the "Statues" attempt to race across and tag the Curator.
3. Whenever the Curator turns around, the Statues must freeze in position and hold that for as long as the Curator looks at them. The Curator can even walk around the Statues, examining them. However, the Curator needs to be careful - whenever his back is turned, Statues are free to move.
4. If a Statue is caught moving, they are sent back to the starting line to begin again (or thrown out of that round, whichever way is preferred.) Usually, the honesty of the Curator isn't enforced, since being a Statue is more desirable.

They call the game Knock On The Wall in the film, and honestly I've never seen a childrens game become so darned creepy.  Now the orphanage holds a pretty startling secret.  And only the ghosts know what it is.  The movie also has a complicated ending.  One that's both a happy ending... and not so happy.  It's something you don't come across too often this side of Casablanca.

     I truly suggest that all of my friends seek this movie out.  Watch it in the dark.  Pay attention (it's subtitled, so you kind of have to anyway.).  Watch it with a surround sound system... with the volume turned up to get those loud creaks and groans and bumps.   It's not a very popular movie, probably due to it being a spanish film.  But it's well worth seeing.  It's got only one scene of gore... It's actually a pretty tame film in that regard.  As I said before, it's more like an old gothic horror film set and filmed in the modern day.  See it!

15 Favorite Horror Films - #10

Frankenstein (1931)

    

     Thus begins Frankenstein, the film that Universal Studios became known for, and that cemented the studio as a maker of horror films.  Earlier in 1931, Universal had opened Dracula to great success, it's first horror success since the death of Lon Chaney the year before, and the first one done in sound at the studio.  The studio had done many silent horror films which were great successes, most with Chaney.  This film was made during the depression, and supernatural, monstrous horror was something to take peoples' minds off the all too real horrors of homelessness and starvation. 

     Frankenstein was published in 1818 anonymously, but written in the 'year without a summer' (so called due to the volcanic winter caused by the eruption of Mount Tambora) in 1816.  The year was continuously dreary, cloudy and cold.  The perfect weather to write horror.  Mary and two friends, her husband-to-be Percy Shelley and Lord Byron,  had a competition that year to see who could write the best horror story.  Percy's didn't come to fruitation and so he helped Mary write Frankenstein and Lord Byron wrote some fragments that would find their way to John Polidori, who used those fragments to create the first vampire novel, The Vampyre.  The novel would not be credited to Mary Shelley until 1822.  The text was redone by Shelley in 1831 due to political pressures, and it is this version which is mainly read now.  The book was a phenomenal success both critically and publicly.  The book was about a man, Victor Frankenstein who is obsessed with fringe science and is convinced he can create a man.  He eventually does so and is repulsed by the finished product which he had hoped would be beautiful.  In the book the monster is intelligent, thoughtful, and a sad figure.  He is angry at Frankenstein for making him and leaving him different and alone, and wants him to make him a mate.  Frankenstein agrees at first, but then decides he doesn't want a race of mutants being created by his two creations and destroys what he's done of the mate.  The monster follows Frankenstein home, kills his wife after the wedding and then leaves, Frankenstein following him all the way to the North Pole.  

     The movie is quite different, losing a lot of the philosophy (but still enough of it), the monster's speech and wisdom, and the whole thing about the monster's bride.  The film has been streamlined into a simple horror film about a man that dares to play God, and his creation that he can't control.  The monster, turned into a six and a half foot toddler that doesn't know his own strength.  He's still a sad creature, but he can be violent and scary as well.  The first time we see the monster must have been pretty chilling to a 1930s audience.  Victor Frankenstein and Fritz hear the monster coming and we hear his footsteps.  Then the monster backs up into his room.  We can't see his face at first.  The camera goes to a close-up on his head as he turns around.  We slowly see the flattened top of the head, the sunken in eyes, the scar where they put the criminal brain in.  And the eyes have this sort of demonic glow to them as he stares at us through the camera lens.  

     Perhaps the most famous scene in the film is one that was cut out of the film after it's initial release after the Hays Code started to be more strictly enforced in the mid-1930s.  Here's the scene. 

    It was pretty shocking to see a child killed on screen at the time.  Heck, it still is considered somewhat of a taboo in modern film.  As you can see, the child is not killed in malice, but as a mistake.  The monster simply thought she would float.  (Although I don't see how she drowned two feet from shore like she did.)  Actually, I find the shot of her father carrying her lifeless body through the celebrating town a few minutes later to be just as, if not more disturbing.

      The film was directed by James Whale, who wanted a sort of German Expressionism feel to the film, those movies being quite popular at the time.  Exaggerated shadows, distorted lines, in your face makeup...  Those were the hallmarks of the style.  While not as pronounced as, say, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari or Metropolis, the film is still shot in that same sort of style.  I suppose we could say it's been Americanized; watered down.  There's also no music in the film besides for the credits, something that was done for Dracula as well.  And it works.  I can't imagine the movie with music.  I tried watching the old German expressionist film Nosferatu today, and with orchestration, the images lose their power...  And expressionism is all about the image.

     I've never been scared by the film.  Not in the least bit.  However, it's one of the most entertaining horror films from the time period.  Much better than the boring as hell Dracula, and the crowning jewel, along with it's not so horrific comedic sequel Bride of Frankenstein.  (And if you want to really know the best Universal Horror films, add The Invisible Man (also directed by James Whale), The Wolf Man, and The Mummy.    The movies are classic, and this one especially.  Don't be afraid to watch older films.  They may not pack the same punch for modern audiences, but there's a skill to their production that present films no longer match most of the time; at least in films like this one. 

    

15 Favorite Horror Films - #11

Ringu (1998)/ The Ring (2002)

      These two films have given me more sleepless nights than pretty much any other horror film.  Combining a overwhelming sense of melancholy, a dark mystery that just gets darker and darker, horrific images of the art-house type, and the knowledge of unavoidable death by fear, they are some of the most frightening films ever made, in this man's point of view.  I think the only reason I fell asleep the week after seeing The Ring in theaters (which I knew nothing about as the trailer for the film was non-descriptive) was due to exhaustion.  As I've stated many times before, I love allowing myself to be drawn in completely and deeply into films I watch.  To let them take me away with it.  I did that seeing this movie for the first time, sitting in my dark theater seat, completely enthralled yet scared out of my wits at the same time.  I was 17 at the time the film came out in October of 2002.  It was a choice between seeing this and Swimfan, and my family, my friend Michael and I obviously made the right choice.  Over the 11 years since the film was released, the criticism of the film has grown, (it was given good reviews on it's original release) partially due to the film's horrible sequel and partially due to the imitators it spawn, most of which were pretty bad.  However, this film itself is a remake, which a lot of people didn't know at the time... Including me.

     The original film, Ringu, was a Japanese film made in 1998, which was itself based on a Japanese novel of the same name written by Koji Suzuki which had plenty of differences from all the film versions which I won't go into, as the book should be read as well, as it's pretty great.  And since it's different, that's another reason for you to read it.  Anyways, the original film isn't too different from the American remake that came four years later.  Directed by Hideo Nakata, the film follows Reiko, a newspaper reporter who investigates the strange death of a group of teenagers who it seems all watched a videotape and who all died seven days later.  She stupidly watches the tape herself along the way, and both her son Yoichi and her ex-husband Ryuji watch the film as well, getting cursed themselves.  The mystery of the tape, which they try to solve by studying the film, leads them to Izu Oshima Island and an event in the past that everyone wants to bury.  The Japanese film is actually not quite as dreary as the American version, but it's just as scary.  There are enough differences to warrant watching both films.  Even the images on the cursed video are different, along with the story of the girl involved.  There's no CGI as there is in the American version, which leads to an added sense of realism, however the Japanese acting style may turn some off.... or the subtitles.  I think by this point, you can assume I'd never tell you to watch a dubbed film.  Subtitles all the way.

     The American version of the film was directed by Gore Verbinski, who would go straight to directing Pirates of the Caribbean after this film, his future appearing to be very bright.  Sadly this year he directed the box office and critical bomb The Lone Ranger, but that's neither here nor there.  His directing style in this film is very much an homage to David Fincher, director of Seven, Zodiac, The Game, and Fight Club.  It's set in Seattle, Washington instead of Japan, bringing with it the neverending gloominess of the area.  It's seemingly always rainy or misty, and the film has a greenish blue tint to it.  I believe this was the first film I noticed that effect used, and color tinting films is now commonplace.  Without it, I wonder if the mood of the film would still be as dark, dank and sad.  

    The films both have horrifying scenes besides the videos themselves.  The visit to Samara's family home in the remake is so full of dread and sadness that it permeates every frame.  The empty horse stables, the run down barn with the loft made up as a small kids room, how you can see landmarks from the images on the video...  Even thinking about it creeps me out right now.  In the original film, there's a scene not in the American version which is a vision of Sadako's mother's botched psychic reading.  The Japanese film keeps a lot of things just barely in shadow so you have to think "did I just see what I though I saw", and that's what makes it so frightening.  Even viewing the movie with other people, it's frightening to me.  

    Now, let me point out that this film did not start the tradition of Japanese women with long black hair covering their faces scaring people.  That's been around for a long long time.  They are called onryo.  The Japanese are a very image based culture, using visuals to elicit emotion, and it's a long tradition having been used in kabuki theater and in older Japanese horror films like Onibaba or Kuroneko.  Both totally different films, but both very much visual horrors.

    You may have noticed I did not link to any clips this time.  The truth is, I mean to sleep tonight, and watching clips right now would leave me awake for the rest of the night.  My mind tends to wander at night, and usually to things I would rather not think about when trying to get to sleep.  After all, I have a TV in my room...  One big enough for some girl to come out of and scare me to death... and it's less than 4 feet from my bed.

15 Favorite Horror Films - #12

Suspiria - (1977)

      As I warned, some of the films on this list are also included in my previous list, 30 Films That Made Me Who I Am.  This is the first of those.  Since I already spoke at length about Suspiria just two months ago, I'll try to make this installment a bit shorter.  If you'd like a more in-depth view on the film, go read that one.  It's still on here.

     Dario Argento back in his early days made very interesting crime and horror films utilizing interesting light schemes, camera angles, and of course deaths.  Many critics bemoan his lack of plots that make sense, but in Suspiria's case, the fact that parts of the film are never explained or don't really make much sense (Who makes a room, puts the floor 8 feet deeper than the door, and fills it with barbed wire?) actually add to the film.  I get tired of many of the current crop of horror films springing up recently.  They try to explain every single thing that happens in the film, leaving their endings sub-par.  Making people who have seen the films not have any lingering effects.  You want to let people leave the theater wondering what was going on in the film.  Make things open to theories or not revealing a cause at all.  This is why The Shining, The Birds, Jaws, Hellraiser, Halloween...  Why all of those work so well.  Not everything is handed to you on a plate.  Why did the shark attack so often in Jaws?  What caused the birds to suddenly attack in The Birds?  Why did Michael Myers go after white teenage girls?  The unexplained or inexplicable are the biggest causes of horror, but studios don't really understand that anymore.  And neither do audiences, sadly.  If you don't explain everything, it's considered a plot hole unfortunately.

I think the Bravo special of 100 Scariest Movie Moments have said much of what I want to say. 

And of course I must again mention the genius that is the music of Goblin.  The soundtrack is in your face, filled with primal drumming, John Carpenter-like repeating piano lines, and raspy voices shouting "Witch!" and singing along with the piano melody.   Suspiria is an art horror fantasy film.  It's like watching a Hieronymous Bosch painting come to life.  Each image like a beautifully put together picture.  Those rich primary colors taking you into a dream-like film.  And in fact, the film has a sort of dream logic to it.  The door knobs are at head level to the girls in the film.  The hallways are lit in bright red and blues as it storms outside.  I would say it's like a fever dream come to life.  Only in a nightmare would a bunch of maggots start falling from the ceiling.  It sounds like something that would happen in one of mine.

In case you haven't gotten the hint yet, I heavily suggest you see this film.  And if you have already, see it again.  It's on two of my lists so far, so it definitely has my endorsement.  I mean, look at this clip and tell me it isn't beautiful!

15 Favorite Horror Films - #13

Poe-Corman Series (1960-1965)

House of Usher, Pit and the Pendulum, Premature Burial, Tales of Terror, The Raven, The Haunted Palace, The Masque of the Red Death, Tomb of Ligeia

     Yes, I know.  I cheat.  This is actually 8 films.  However, they have the same mood, same director, all but one star Vincent Price, all were done for American-International Pictures, all were done in the early to mid 60s, all were filmed in under a few weeks, and all cost a pittance to make.  Note that I didn't say they were all based on Poe stories.  Even though they were considered Poe films, a few of them took only the name of the story and maybe a character or two.  The Raven was turned into a comedy about competing magicians.  The Haunted Palace, while using the name of a Poe poem, is actually an adaptation of an H.P. Lovecraft story, The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.   The Masque of the Red Death was a combination of two different Poe stories to great effect.

     Roger Corman started to direct films in 1955, when he was 29 years old, with a film called Swamp Women.  He continued to direct cheap westerns, horror, exploitation and science fiction films.  He directed up to 9 films in a year during the late fifties, and was known to finish filming some movies in under a week.  For example, in 1960 he did the original Little Shop of Horrors in three days.  In  1963, in order to fully use the set he had rented for The Raven, which had been completed before schedule, he used the same actors to do a hastily written horror film called The Terror in just two days time.  He was known for this sort of thing, and most would think his work was horrible.  Some were a bit under par, yes.  However, most of his films have gone down as cult classics or simple real classics.  After and during his big successes in the 1960s with the Poe pictures, he continued to nurture his group of production assistants and the like, called his 'school' who have now become big names.  Such people as Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Jonathan Demme, Joe Dante, Ron Howard, Peter Bogdanovich, Nicholas Roeg, Paul Bartel, James Cameron, Curtis Hanson, John Sayles...  They all owe their starts to Roger Corman.  Jack Nicholson was found by Corman and starred in quite a few of his films.  Come time for the 1970s, Corman founded New World Pictures, which produced rip-offs of more popular movies on the cheap.  Without it, James Cameron may not have got his start, as he did production design for a number of these.  (And the movies aren't bad as far as exploitative rip-offs go.)

      But let's get back to Poe adaptations, shall we?  Corman asked AIP (American International Pictures), a cheapy B movie studio, to do an adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe's Fall of the House of Usher.  It was a gamble for the small budget studio as it was to be more expensive than most of their films, but trusting Corman they gave him permission.  The film was done in two weeks on existing sets and became a surprise box office success in the summer of 1960.  It also catipulted Vincent Price, before known as a good character actor into prominance as a king of horror films.  House of Usher is known for its lush color, it's fantastic sets, it's overwhelming sense of dread and sadness, and it's acid-like dream sequences.  It truly is a beautiful film, and does stick pretty close to the original story.  There are a few changes, such as Philip Winthrop being betrothed to Madeline Usher, while in the story the narrator is a friend of Rodrick Usher's, not betrothed or in any sort of romance with Madeline.  However, I think this change makes the movie better.  There are a few good scares in the film, but mostly the movie is a mood piece.  The pure melancholy is contagious here, Vincent Price not cracking a smile in the whole picture.  His performance is unusually understated.  The film is also now in the National Film Registry, meaning it will be forever preserved as important.

     That film was followed by The Pit and the Pendulum, which I think is a better film than the former.  However, it's very different as well.  This one is less beholden to the original two-page short story.  You can't faithfully make a two page short story into a 90 minute film.  So what the writer, Richard Matheson, did was used the short story for the last few minutes of the film, and attempted to make the rest of the film have a Poe feel.  With this, he very much succeeded.  The film is also more violent,  scarier, and in some ways darker that the first film.  This one involves many methods of torture, as Vincent Price's character is haunted by his dead father and his, uh, hobby of torture.  It doesn't help that his father's torture chamber is in the basements of the castle, everything still in working condition.  As a child, Price's character stumbled upon his father's secret, hiding as both his brother and mother were tortured and murdered by his father.  Over the course of the film, he's driven insane.  It's a great great film, and one of my favorites of the series.  It was filmed for $300,000 and made over $2 million in the box office.  It also was again critically praised, though not to the extent of the first film due to it's departure from the original story.

    The next film in the series I've only seen once and don't remember that well.  The Premature Burial does not star Vincent Price, the only film in the series that does not.  Price was supposed to be used, but as Corman intended to make this away from AIP and Price was under contract there, he didn't.  However, once filming started, AIP started threatening Corman with all sorts of things, and he decided that AIP could release it, so the absence of Price is lamentable.  The story is about a man that fears being buried alive, which is a common theme in Poe stories.  I don't know much of the rest of the plot of the film, and it remains the least known of the series.

   Following that, Tales of Terror was made.  A collection of three adaptations of Poe short stories, however one of the stories also includes much of another short stories (The Cask of Amontillado) in it as well.  For the first time, humor was included in one of the stories, The Black Cat.  That one stars Peter Lorre, and I consider the lesser story in the movie.  The other two, one starring Vincent Price (he's in all three of the stories), the other starring Basil Rathbone are straight up horror stories, and are much better, though this is again one of the lesser films in the series, in my opinion.  The last story is the best.

     The Raven is again one of the better films in the series, but for other reasons that the others.  This one is a straight up comedy.  It stars Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff, and Jack Nicholson and it's pure fun.  It's not horror at all.  The poem is used as a transition device at the beginning of the film, but the story is really about a magician (Peter Lorre) having been turned into a Raven by another one (Boris Karloff) and having come to yet another magician (Vincent Price) for help turning him back.  The climax of the film is a battle of magic spells that are pretty humorous as well.  You can tell everyone was having a great time making this one.  

     The Haunted Palace is a Poe film in name only.  It takes it's name from a Poe poem which was added on by AIP, who wanted another Poe film, whereas Corman wanted to adapt an H.P. Lovecraft story.  Which is what he did.  It's a pretty good film, about in the middle of the set of films.  It also has Lon Chaney Jr. in it as a mysterious servant.  (With a green face no less.)  Price is amazing in this one playing two characters, one nice and one very much evil.  His transformation towards the middle of the film is fantastic.  The way they make him look like his ancestor, who has possessed him, is remarkable.  The castle itself is a character in this film, with its dark hidden passageways and the creepy portrait of the warlock Joseph Curwen.  The plot to this one tends to confuse me, so you'll excuse me if I don't explain it.  It's better to just watch it for yourself.

     My favorite of the series comes next.  It's the penultimate film in the series, and has the best production values.  The Masque of the Red Death is Corman's best work.  I can say that without a doubt.  It helps that the film was photographed by the great director Nicholas Roeg who would go on to make The Man Who Fell To Earth, Walkabout and Don't Look Now.  The film is an amalgamation of two Poe stories, the title story and one called Hop-Frog.  The film shows Price as an evil Satanist, Prince Prospero.  The surrounding countryside around his castle has started to be effected by the Red Death, which is a fatal highly contagious disease.  He brings the upper-class to his castle to avoid the disease along with a woman he fancies from the village who has not been effected.  He burns her village down and sentences her lover and father to death at each other's hands.  The film from there on gets rather complicated with the Red Death showing up in person, Prospero's other lover commiting herself to Satan against Prospero's wishes because of jealousy towards his new lover, there's midget servants killing guests... mass hysteria.  It's all very Freudian and weird, and I think that's why I love it so.  Price is over the top and mustache twirling here, and it's a very Shakespearian film, with a lot of nods to Bergman's The Seventh Seal.  The ending is one for the books.

    The last film, The Tomb of Ligeia, I have actually never seen.  I just ordered the DVD of it today, so that will be remedied soon.  I hear it's good, but I can't talk about it, as I've never seen it.

    The films, along with the Hammer horror ones that came out at the same time frame, kept horror going in the 1960s.  Bringing about a new renaissance of the genre.  It brought in color and gore to the genre, something you didn't get on the new overwhelmingly popular television, which film was at war with at the time, and losing.  The films were lush, theatrical, mostly shot in wide-angled widescreen.  It was a very new brand of horror, nothing like the Universal Horror films that were the big thing before these.  And most of all they gave good box office returns.  Even better, they were cheap to make and could be made in a matter of two weeks!  Money speaks loudly.  The series was a huge influence on Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, which is one of his better works.  

    A lesser series of Poe films followed done by AIP without Roger Corman or Vincent Price.  And they basically just used Poe titles on unrelated films.  Still, some of them are pretty good.  Note I said 'some' not all.  Stay away from Murders In the Rue Morgue fro

    Four of the films discussed here (Pit and the Pendulum, House of Usher, Haunted Palace, and Masque of the Red Death) are in the newly released Vincent Price collection, along with two other great Price films, The Abominable Dr. Phibes and Witchfinder General.  I highly suggest the set, as it comes with many special features including at least one commentary track for every film and two long interviews with Price, who has been dead for twenty years this year.  It's a great tribute to a great actor.