31 Days of Halloween

I was more baffled by someone finding susan sarandon attractive?

When I first read the description for this movie I nearly did a spit take. You mean to tell me that this whole time I’ve been alive there’s been a horror anthology film where Roger Vadim, Louis Malle, and Federico frickin’ Fellini direct shorts based on lesser known Edgar Allen Poe stories and features performances by Jane Fonda, Peter Fonda, Alain Delon, Brigitte Bardot, and Terence Stamp? Why was I not informed of this sooner? This feels like a systemic failure. Well, watching the movie I get why it’s not talked about more. These shorts aren’t “bad” exactly but I can’t say they’re being made with much passion. The by far weakest of the three, Louis Malle’s “William Wilson” was by the director’s own admission only made to get a paycheck that could be applied to his next film Murmur of the Heart and it was made with exactly as much passion as you’d expect given that. This isn’t to say that the segment is completely charmless, it’s ending if a cool weird bit of filmmaking, but the lead-up is pretty dull. The Vadim movie is a little more interesting as it depicts a sort of 18th Century decadence (including a pet cheetah) and that story at least goes towards a neat little finale but in terms of sets and atmosphere it doesn’t feel like it’s too many cuts above your average Hammer movie or Cormon Poe adaptation. The Fellini short is the most interesting by far in that it discards the period setting that the other two use in favor of a more modern adaptation of the Poe story in question, which was itself less a sincere bit of story-telling than it was an attempt to troll the transcendentalist writers. The film features Terrence Stamp as an actor not unlike the real Terrence Stamp coming to Italy to star in a Spaghetti Western which is billed as “the first catholic western.” The movie has kind of that “dude walking through a crazy decadent industry” feel of something like La Dolce Vita or 8 ½ but the filmmaking is a lot cruder. It was filmed in that Italian style in which everyone speaks their own language on set and everyone gets dubbed, and in the case of the version I saw (the one on the Criterion Channel) that meant it was dubbed in French, which is odd, and I would also say that the print up there is pretty scratchy and in need of restoration. As a whole the film is pretty inessential despite being from three important filmmakers but is an interesting curio to be sure.

Not unreasonable in this case.

This sounds right up 1godzillafan 's alley.

THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972)

To avoid fainting, keep repeating, it’s only a movie. That’s what the marketing’s tagline says. The film is about two girls being raped and killed by a gang of criminals. But what the advertising doesn’t tell you is that there’s two idiot cops roaming around who make Barney Fife from The Andy Griffith Show look like a genius. And then the bad guys get defeated by an old couple using booby traps. And don’t even get me started on the awful soundtrack. So to say that The Last House on the Left is overrated and misleading is an understatement. You’re better off watching the 2009 remake featuring Aaron Paul from Breaking Bad. That one has a consistent tone, doesn’t include comic relief, and never gets overly ridiculous.


THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977)

Some directors have a great debut and then follow it with a disappointing film. They call it a sophomore slump. In the case of Wes Craven, it’s the opposite. He had an underwhelming debut and then an excellent second movie. The Hills Have Eyes is about a family on vacation. They get stranded in the Nevada desert while the military is performing experiments around them. And if that wasn’t bad enough, they get attacked by a group of deformed cannibals. As silly as it may sound, The Hills Have Eyes is genuinely frightening and all the characters are well-developed. It’s one of Wes Craven’s best films.


DEADLY BLESSING (1981)

Deadly Blessing is about a young couple who live in a farm next to an Amish community. One night, the husband is killed. The prime suspect is a creepy Amish man played by Michael Berryman of The Hills Have Eyes. But then he gets murdered too. So the widow, who’s scared at this point, invites two of her friends to move in with her. One of them is played by Sharon Stone in one of her earliest roles. What follows is a series of strange occurrences and a few more killings. Then, the villain is revealed but it leaves a few questions unanswered. And that’s when we get a “shock ending” that will have people rolling their eyes. Overall, Deadling Blessing is a decent movie. It can get silly at times, and all the characters are dumb, but I still consider it a hidden gem.


SWAMP THING (1982)

Under the right direction, Swamp Thing could have been an amusing B-movie, a tragic monster film, or a combination of both. Instead, it’s a cut-and-dry movie by Wes Craven. You can tell he had no passion for the project and just did it for the paycheck. Or maybe just to get his foot in Hollywood’s doorstep. Nonetheless, I do enjoy the make-up effects and some of the action sequences. Plus, Adrienne Barbeau is fun to look at. So if curiosity gets the best of you, at least you won’t be bored.


A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1984)

A child murderer is set free after a technicality. So, a group of parents get together and burn him to death. Years later, he returns by haunting the dreams of their children. If they die in their dreams, they die in real life. It’s a brilliant premise - but - Wes Craven doesn’t execute it as well as he could have. The sequels did a great job of depicting elaborate dream sequences. Here, the best Craven can do is get Johnny Depp, in his film debut, to be sucked into a bed. Regardless, I’ll give him credit for launching one of the greatest horror franchises. And for making a genuine horror movie instead of a dark fantasy film.


DEADLY FRIEND (1986)



Wes Craven's follow-up to Elm Street is a Frankenstein story for the 80's. Deadly Friend tells the story of a teenage boy, who upon learning of the death of the hot girl next door (played by Kristy Swanson), decides to turn her into a cyborg. And as we all know, anytime someone plays God, the results aren't good. Deadly Friend is an odd movie to critique because it's essentially two movies. On one hand, you have a Spielberg-esque story of suburban teenagers trying to survive their everyday struggles with extraordinary means. On the other hand, you have the story of a killer cyborg. The two stories don't always match well, but a good effort was made.


WES CRAVEN’S NEW NIGHTMARE (1994)

Wes Craven never wanted A Nightmare on Elm Street to become a franchise, but it did, so he returned 10 years after the original to write and direct a prototype for the Scream series. This time it takes place in the real world with all the actors playing themselves. A new Freddy Krueger movie is in production but it keeps getting interrupted by supernatural forces. It turns out that a demon is using Freddy’s physical characteristics to unleash hell on Earth or something like that. Honestly, I really don’t care. Most people claim this is the 2nd best Freddy Krueger film but that’s ridiculous because Freddy Krueger isn’t technically in the movie. We see Robert Englund, as himself, play Freddy. And then we see the demon use Freddy’s image. But Freddy, as a character, is nowhere to be seen. So why should I care? If you used this same concept on a Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees film, it would definitely work. But with Freddy Krueger it doesn’t. He’s too rich of a character to be replaced by some boring demon. Some people would say that Freddy is too silly to be taken seriously but I disagree. What makes him standout is the enjoyment he gets from torturing and killing. That’s more frightening than some silent murderer. I understand what Wes Craven was trying to do but it doesn’t work for me. Besides, he did a much better job with the Scream franchise which uses many of the same themes explored in New Nightmare. So that makes this movie even more pointless to watch.


VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN (1995)

Some people don't value the importance of a good story. Vampire in Brooklyn isn't technically a bad movie. There are some funny scenes, especially when Eddie Murphy is playing multiple roles, and there are some good horror scenes directed by Wes Craven. But the story is so bad that none of that matters. It's about an African vampire, with some history in the Caribbean, who travels to Brooklyn to find and seduce the half-vampire daughter of a former colleague. It's an interesting tweak on a familiar premise but the script does nothing with it. It's just a plain, by-the-numbers, story of a vampire trying to find a mate. And yet, it's better than most of Eddie Murphy's movies from the 21st century. That's kind of sad when you think about it.


SCREAM SERIES (1996-2011

The Scream series is credited with resurrecting the slasher genre after it had lost mainstream appeal in the early 1990’s. Screenwriter Kevin Williamson (Dawson’s Creek and The Vampire Diaries) had the clever idea of taking advantage of post-Quentin Tarantino cinema and making a self-referential and self-aware horror film. The story of each movie revolves around a murderer that calls his victims on the phone, quizzes them on horror films, and then kills them. The original Scream was released in 1996 and centered on Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), a high school girl who is the killer’s main target, and no one knows for sure why he is after her and killing all her friends in the meantime. But it probably has something to do with her mom’s murder a year earlier. The plot is pretty straight-forward but it’s the comical elements that take center stage. For example, the cast is ridiculous. There’s David Arquette, Courtney Cox, Matthew Lillard, Jamie Kennedy, Henry “The Fonz” Winkler, and Johnny Depp look-a-like Skeet Ulrich just to name a few. Another example is the dialogue. Who can forget lines like:

“Mom says that when I have the badge on you have to respect me.“
"25, huh? You know, I’m popular with males 11 to 24 and you don’t look a day over 12.”
“We were R-rated and heading towards NC-17.”

However, the most comical part is the ending where the killer’s identity is revealed and it’s done in a ridiculously over-the-top way. I understand what Williamson was going for. He was mocking the notion that violence is created by the entertainment industry but director Wes Craven is not exactly known for his comedic skills and he doesn’t handle it properly. Craven is actually at his best during the horror scenes, so we get a mixed bag of results.

Nonetheless, Scream was a success at the box office and spawned a sequel in 1997. This time, Sidney is in college and has her peaceful life interrupted when a copycat killer shows up just as a movie about her life is being released. The sequel is superior to the original since Craven and Williamson perfected the formula. Unfortunately, “the reveal” is too silly and the actors really ham it up. That was probably because the original ending got leaked on the internet and they were forced to change it. But once again, it didn’t matter becauseScream 2 was a success as well and a third installment was released in 2000. This time, however, Kevin Williamson did not return as screenwriter and he was replaced with Ehren Kruger who has become notorious in recent years because of his scripts for Michael Bay's Transformers sequels. So right away you’ll know Scream 3 is a piece of crap. His brilliant decision was to bring comedy back to the forefront. There’s even a scene with Jay and Silent Bob. That’s how stupid it gets. But anyway, in the threequel, the actors of the latest film based on Sidney’s life are being killed. Then, things get more complicated when the killer starts leaving photos of Sidney’s mother in the crime scene. The reveal, surprisingly, isn’t as eye-rolling as in the previous two installments but it’s still a bit too overdone. Also, it’s worth noting that no one in the cast and crew seemed to care about the movie. Scream 3 comes across as heartless and JUST a paycheck for everyone involved. But luckily, in 2011, Scream 4 came along to get the bad taste out of our mouth. Kevin Williamson returned as screenwriter while director Wes Craven and the cast and crew seemed re-energized. The movie returns to the formula that worked very well in Scream 2 but also updates the story and its character to reflect our current culture and the latest trends in the horror genre. It’s a very well-made sequel and restores the Scream series to its former glory.


CURSED (2005)



After the success of Scream in 1996, many people tried to replicate Kevin Williamson's formula of meta-comedy and teen horror, but no one was able to pull it off with the possible exception of Urban Legend in 1998. And Wes Craven, despite his history of cheap and overrated horror movies, became the perfect collaborator for Williamson. Craven doesn't get in the way of the humor. Instead, he makes sure the horror is effective. And 2005's Cursed is a good example of their teamwork. By this point, it's obvious that Williamson was burned out and his script is very weak. It's about a young woman and her teenage brother, played by Christina Ricci and Jesse Eisenberg, who are turned into werewolves by silly Hollywood people. The comedy is mostly random and the Los Angeles setting doesn't really work. But Wes Craven is so good at creating memorable horror scenes that the flaws in the story and characters almost come across as the movies charm. Cursed is such a distinctively Williamson and Craven movie that fans of the horror genre will be oddly amused by it.

Brotherhood of the Wolf came out the year after Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and I remember at the time there was some thought that this would be the next movie to break the one inch barrier of the subtitle to get some mainstream popularity by virtue of being a cool action movie but that wasn’t really to be firstly because France is not the place people go to for action cinema and secondly because… well, the movie is no Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. I was pretty excited to check this thing out. Not excited enough to get to it less than twenty two years after the fact, but still certainly excited because it certainly looked cool on the posters and has a cool title and just generally had the aura of being cool. And this extended into watching the actual movie too. I was really on board with this for the first hour or so in which we’re introduced to this weird 18th Century milieu in which a veteran of the French and Indian war is called in to investigate a series of killings that have seemingly been carried out by a monster in the countryside and he’s assisted by this Iroquois guy he met in New France. So far so interesting, and if you know that all of this is loosely based on an actual mythical creature that was said to have killed a bunch of peasants during this time, though that is perhaps where the film started to go wrong. I was kind of hoping this would be something akin to Sleepy Hollow, which goes full supernatural, but it instead has perhaps a bit more in common with From Hell in that it’s trying to give this plausible but fictional explanation for a legendary string of murders and, well, I think just making the bad guy a werewolf might have been the more appealing option. Instead once the film finally does stop playing the Jaws game of keeping the “monster” off screen and starts giving you close up it looks kind of terrible and any suspense evaporates. The title and some of the advertising makes this look like a semi-horror movie but it’s really more of an action/adventure thing and while it does have some neat moments in that regard it’s filmmaking lacks a certain mastery that would make it work as pure cinema. It’s also way too long and spends too much time trying to tie all of this into arcane French political history and the movie had pretty well lost me by its last third. Still, there was some promise there I will give it points for putting this kind of thing into a time and place we don’t normally see action movies set in and that is almost enough to make it work.

I want this poster.








And this one.








And this one.

Yes.

The fall of the house of usher was so sick. Prob Flanagan's best for me.

8/10

I'm thinking about giving it a whirl...in spite of the cat violence I'm hearing about.  Which actually seems to be a commonality from what I hear about Flanagan's other shows.  As a cat lover/owner, it's something that's kept me kind of hesitant about Flanagan's Netflix output, silly as that may sound.