31 Days of Halloween

The ending is superb for sure.

I really dig Coppola's Dracula, even with its flaws. The awesome stuff in it is really awesome.

Film Twenty: The Conjuring 2 (2016)
The original The Conjuring was to my eyes incredibly over-rated. When it came out people were going nuts over it but I was a bit bearish on it in part because it just didn’t seem to be adding much of anything to the very familiar “haunted house” format that has been dominating contemporary horror. I feel like the world is coming around on this because that film’s sequel was not seen as much of an event so much as just another movie where ghosts jump out at you and go “boo!” Indeed, this is basically a complete retread of the first movie which was itself a retread of a pretty common formula. It’s a series of jump scares and haunting clichés one after the other with nothing making it stand out aside from the fact that it pretends to be based on a true story with more conviction than most. That having been said, my expectations were in the right place this time around and in some ways I actually enjoyed this more than the first movie because of it. I guess it’s because I do see an end in sight to this goofy trend in jump scare movies and if they’re going to keep making them for another couple of years I’d rather they get someone like James Wan to do them because he does do it better than most and that does kind of make the Conjuring movies the king of a dumb fucking hill.

*** out of five 

31 DAYS OF HALLOWEEN


SALEM'S LOT (1979)



Salem's Lot is the story of a small town invaded by vampires. In America, it was released as a 3-hour TV mini-series and in Europe it was a 2-hour theatrical film. Baby Boomers and Generation X seem to favor the TV mini-series since it's a better adaptation of its source material - a Stephen King novel. Millennials, however, may gravitate towards the European Cut. The vampire scenes are awesome, but the small town drama is like watching paint dry. Most younger viewers aren't gonna tolerate a 3-hour version of this story and the 2-hour version isn't that great either. Salem's Lot, really, just seems to be a generational thing.


THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (1979)



Can I borrow Superman's X-Ray vision?

For aspiring filmmakers the horror genre is a great way to make money and get noticed by the industry, but it's also uncommon for the genre (and its sub-genres) to have blockbuster-level successes. By my rough estimation, about 25 horror and horror-related movies made more than $200 million at the domestic box office. Those numbers are adjusted for inflation.

Among the 25 is The Amityville Horror. Now, why did this film become a huge success? Could it be cause it was based on a true story? Hoax or not, it is something that happened in real life. People WERE murdered in that house and the next owners did claim to be attacked by the supernatural. Or could it be cause it took place in New York? I'm sure you can find similar stories and hoaxes in other parts of America, but New York IS a major attention-seeking place. Or could it be cause of the times? The 1970's gave us The Exorcist and The Omen. Supernatural thrillers were in fashion. The answer, of course, is all of the above. But since The Amityville Horror inspired a slew of imitators, we must look beyond the 70's and see what makes it click with audiences.

Non-believers aren't easily frightened by these type of movies - especially if they're based on a hoax - and The Amityville Horror doesn't help by having an inconsistent screenplay. So it's very easy for that crowd to shout, "overrated." But everyone else eats this shit up and terrifying those people is where The Amityville Horror succeeds. The scary scenes are legitimately well-done, and quite frankly, set the standards. A lot of the haunted house cliches you see in modern supernatural films comes from The Amityville Horror. I'm not saying it invented those cliches - I'm sure it didn't - but it definitely refined them. So regardless of how incoherent the screenplay is (characters are one-dimensional and there are pointless sub-plots), this IS a pioneering work of horror.


THE CONJURING (2013)



Look! Behind you!

You gotta give credit where it's due. James Wan knows what he's doing. Ed and Lorraine Warren are the hoax masters of the late 20th century, but they sure know how to tell a good story. The Conjuring doesn't pretend to be based in reality. They acknowledge the shenanigans of the Warren's within the movie, but they also say "fuck it" and go for the scares. That gives James Wan the license to be as grounded as possible and then have those moments where you're practically watching The Evil Dead. A lesser filmmaker would have lost the audience at some point, but James Wan knows his craft and balances the two tones exceptionally well. The result is The Conjuring as a master work of entertainment. I don't think it's a great horror movie. It does rely almost entirely on cliches, but it is really fun to watch.

Day Twenty: Them!


Them! is one of the most iconic giant monster movies from the 1950s and the film is a good bit of fun. The ants themselves look pretty good (I mean, relatively speaking) and the action sequences featuring them are really entertaining. I also thought the film was really well-paced, providing sufficient amounts of giant ant action without ever spoiling the fun of them. The film's opening, which depicts a catatonic little girl wandering through the desert is also fairly chilling. If the film goes wrong in any major area, it's the climax. The scene itself is fun enough, but we've already seen soldiers storm Ant caves. I was hoping for something a bit more, maybe an all-out battle in the city. I also found some of the moments with the scientist a little eye-rolling. This world class scientist and genius doesn't know how to use a radio or even worse, how to wear goggles? Get the fuck outta here.

Them! is outclassed by Godzilla in every way (both were released the same year) but, for what it is, Them! is certainly entertaining.

B-

Never quite saw the appeal of Them! It's a fun movie at times, but it was hardly alone in the "50s giant monster nuclear scare" genre and I don't get why it seems to get more attention than the rest.

Oh man, why would you don't that to yourself, Drac?

31 DAYS OF HALLOWEEN

TALES FROM THE CRYPT (1972)



Before the cult HBO series, and even before Creepshow, there was the British movie. It adapts five stories: a woman murdering her husband and then getting attacked by a serial killer moments later, a cheating husband turning into a walking corpse, Peter Cushing as an old man seeking revenge and the prototype for the Saw franchise. They're all very well-done, but only satisfying if you ignore it's Tales from the Crypt. What made the comic (and later the TV show) so beloved was its blend of horror and black humor. There's a lot of horror here, but very little humor. That's blasphemy.


THE VAULT OF HORROR (1973)



1972's Tales from the Crypt was successful enough to spawn a sequel. I'm guessing feedback for the original was only lukewarm cause the follow-up is much closer in spirit to the comic book. Here, we get the blend of horror and dark humor that Tales from the Crypt is famous for. Five stories are adapted. They are: a man commits murder in a town inhabited by vampires, an abusive husband gets what he deserves, a murderous magician performs his last trick, an insurance scam turns deadly and Doctor Who has the power to kill through his paintings. All the segments are well-made and fun to watch.

31 DAYS OF HALLOWEEN

CAT'S EYE (1985)



Many actors have been robbed by the Academy Awards, none more than the cat from Cat's Eye. He's a better actor than Leonardo DiCaprio. Where's the Internet outrage for his snub? Oh, right, the cat's been dead for 20 years. No worries - I'll invent a time machine, go back to the 1970's and make sure the Internet is alive and well in 1985. In the meantime, the only way to celebrate the achievements of General the Cat (that's his name, right?) is to watch Cat's Eye. Witness his torture at an anti-smoking clinic. Witness his near-death experience at the hands of a notorious gambler. And witness him rescue Drew Barrymore from an evil troll. Be amazed. This cat has seen it all and can do it all. He'll make YOUR cat look pathetic. R.I.P. General the Cat

31 DAYS OF HALLOWEEN

SON OF FRANKENSTEIN (1939)



I've never fully understood where the "3rd movie curse" comes from. Growing up there was Goldfinger, The Good The Bad and The Ugly, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Die Hard with a Vengeance, and debatably, a few others. So where did this notion come from? The disappointing trilogy conclusions to Star Wars and Back to the Future? The Godfather Part III? Surely, people had to have known these weren't the norm. They must have seen Indiana Jones. Or maybe they thought it was the other way around. Indiana Jones WAS the exception. Regardless, the fact there are exceptions proves there's no "curse", AND you can trace exceptions all the way back to 1939's Son of Frankenstein.

Universal's Frankenstein trilogy from the 1930's is remarkable. At the beginning of the decade, Frankenstein is released and it's a bonafide classic. That's followed by Bride of Frankenstein at the middle of the decade and many think it's even better than Frankenstein. And finally, right as the decade is about to end, Son of Frankenstein is unleashed and it's a GREAT movie. This is a major accomplishment and should be celebrated more. People talk about Lord of the Rings setting the standard, but I say, Frankenstein set the standards.

Now we have to go back full circle. If you asked people to rank these movies, most of them would put Son of Frankenstein in 3rd place. So there is definitely a stigma attached to 3rd movies. It is very difficult to continually raise the bar. There's a point where you're gonna have to settle for "good enough." But is that really an issue when the result is still great?

Son of Frankenstein takes place decades after Bride of Frankenstein. Frankenstein's son, played by Basil Rathbone, is a grown man with a wife and child. He moves from America to the family castle in Europe and tries to redeem the bad reputation of his father. It doesn't work. The townspeople are suspicious and a police inspector with an artificial arm is monitoring him. The plot obviously inspired Young Frankenstein. The difference is that Frankenstein's son doesn't create a monster. His father's monster, played once again by Boris Karloff, is still around and living in the castle. The townspeople don't know this because the monster is being hidden from them by a blacksmith named Ygor. That's pronounced I-gor. Kidding. It's E-gor. Anyway, Ygor is played by Bela Lugosi and is essentially the star of the movie. Somehow, Ygor survived a hanging and is using the monster to get revenge on the people responsible for his hanging.

This is where the movie shoots itself in the foot. Frankenstein's monster is a small part of the story. Frankenstein's son, the police inspector and Ygor take up like 97% of the screentime. If this were a standalone story and/or the beginning of a new series, that would be fine, but this is Part 3. Frankenstein's monster SHOULD have been a major character. Other than that, and a few minor things, Son of Frankenstein does live up to its predecessors. Everything good about those movies is good here too. The difference is just Ygor in the spotlight instead of Frankenstein's monster. They're completely different characters with different emotions, but the entertainment value is the same. Ultimately, that's what matters.


THE REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1958)



I wasn't a fan of the Curse of Frankenstein. It had no sympathetic characters. That must have been a general complaint in 1957 because Hammer rectified that for the sequel. Here, we see Frankenstein helping the poor and using his moonlighting to help even more poor people. He arrived at the conclusion that his previous monster failed because he used a dead brain. So he takes a handicapped person and transfers that person's brain into a healthy body. Everything is fine until this new body inherits the deformities of the previous body and the person goes on a murderous rampage. Then it's deja vu for the good doctor. Overall, this is a pretty good movie. The story is decent sci-fi. Peter Cushing is a good Frankenstein. I like the new "monster." And as a James Bond fan, I enjoyed watching Eunice Gayson in a leading role. Her character is totally pointless, but heck, who cares? It's Sylvia Trench!


MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN (1994)



I watched Bram Stoker's Dracula as a kid and loved it. I defend it to this day. The same can't be said for Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Although I knew of Dracula through marketing and parodies, the movie was my genuine introduction to the character. That obviously influences my opinion. With Frankenstein's monster it's a slightly different story. I was already a fan of The Munster's and Young Frankenstein. Those featured comedic interpretations, but it remained true to the characters. You can't tell me Herman Munster and Peter Boyle aren't cousins of Boris Karloff. So when I watched Robert De Niro in the role it just didn't click with me. Also not helping matters was Kenneth Branaugh. He's no Gene Wilder. Then as the years passed and I watched the Universal and Hammer films, this adaptation became even more irrelevant to me. And I would have continued to ignore it had Kenneth Branaugh continued to be the Shakespeare guy. For whatever reason, probably financial, the man who devoted most of his career to Shakespeare has now added Thor, Jack Ryan and Cinderella to resume. That obviously made me think of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and I just had to watch it again.

Surprisingly (or not), I liked it. It's really weird and fun. Kenneth Branaugh must have been on cocaine when he made it. The camera is flying all over the place. The music is ridiculously over-the-top. He's shirtless a lot. It's hilarious. If his Shakespeare movies had been this crazy, I wouldn't have fallen asleep while watching them in high school. As for Robert De Niro as the monster, he's really good. His experience with a cocaine-fueled Martin Scorsese must have come in handy here cause his scenes are the only calm and civilized ones. It makes an interesting contrast. You have the mad scientist in insane scenes and the misunderstood monster in slow-paced and emotionally charged scenes. Maybe Kenneth Branaugh wasn't on cocaine and these were just his artistic decisions. No. I'm sticking to the cocaine theory.


VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN (2015)



Because of an awful title, a bad release date and poor reviews, Victor Frankenstein flopped at the box office and seems to have vanished from public consciousness. That's a shame because, really, it's not THAT bad. James McAvoy is great in almost every role he's played. Here is no exception. Harry Potter can be good in the right role. This is one of them. And the "twist" to the story is actually pretty good. It's told through the point-of-view of Igor (pronounced E-gor) and doesn't feature the monster until the very end. The movie is mostly the relationship between Frankenstein (pronounced Beren-stain) and Igor. That's - different - and it's well done. If we ranked all the Frankenstein movies ever made this would be somewhere in the middle.

A lot happens in the story. Wolf Frankenstein (stupid name) arrives in town, deals with the suspicious townspeople and noisy inspector. He then collaborates with Ygor and the monster, learns the truth about them, and has to stop them. Meanwhile you have Ygor lurking the castle (which are great scenes), deceiving the townspeople, deceiving Frankenstein and ordering the monster to murder people. Stuff happens, man. The running time is justified.