100 Scariest Movie Moments: #52 The Phantom of the Opera

I'm not sure why I like Phantom of the Opera so much more than Nosferatu. Somehow, the former comes across as more of a vintage classic to me, while the latter comes across as pure cheese from a time before people knew how to use a camera correctly. I think a big part of it may be the comparison to other versions of the story. There have been far more nuanced and complex versions of Dracula produced since the invention of sound. And while I've only seen two other version of Phantom, the musical and the Hammer version, both were underwhelming. (I believe Richard Roeper referred to Gerard Butler as the “fashionably-scarred stud of the Opera.”) Of course, I probably need to see Claude Rains’ take at some point, but I don't want to get bogged down in Phantom adaptations. (That’s the reason why we have Youtube’s Phantom Reviewer.)

Seeing a silent film is always like looking into another world. I realized while writing this review that if my late grandparents had wanted to, not one of them would have been able to go and see this movie when it first came out unchaperoned. There's only a handful of people currently alive with any connection to the world in which this movie was made, and the number grows smaller every year. In fact, Carla Laemmle, the final surviving actress from this film, passed way in 2014.

I'm not entirely sure to what extent I can judge this film based on the score. My understanding is that silent films were typically scored by a live theater orchestra, so there is no single ‘Correct’ score. And, as I understand it, this film actually has a number of different scores from various re-releases. So on that note, I can only say that score in the version that I watched was very poor, and seemed to have a great disconnect between the mood of the film and the mood of the music.

To quickly review the plot, a mysterious “Phantom” of the Opera (Lon Chaney Sr.) feels entitled to a specific theater box, and is secretly training an Opera singer named Christine (Mary Philbin). He uses hidden passages to get around the Opera House and speaks to her through the walls, and blackmails her into dumping her love interest Raoul (Norman Kerry). To add to the drama, he also threatens anyone he sees as interfering with her career, or her interest in him.

Chaney's performance as the Phantom is rightfully praised. The Phantom is someone you can fear, while also recognizing that his actions are out of pain rather than malice. A deformed being who, with another face, would have been happily accepted as a musical genius by society. I'm sure there's an argument to be made that he represents a ‘Nice Guy’ (TM) with an entitlement complex, but I'll leave feminist analysis to my friend GoingRampant, since that's her specialty.

The most famous scene of the film is the Phantom's unmasking. Chaney's makeup, which he famously did himself, does a great job of creating an unsettling appearance in this scene. However, the scene has become so iconic that it's really lost its kick. To me, there are two other notable scenes that are more frightening. The first is a scene near the beginning in which several people claim to have seen the Phantom, but cannot agree on his appearance. This scene heavily plays with fear of the unknown and the mystique around the Phantom. One person claims he has no nose, another person claims he has a huge nose, but all agree he is terrifying to look at.

The other other is the ballroom scene. (One of two scenes shot in color, but the color print for the Faust scene has been lost.) I think this is the rare scene that may actually be creepier to a modern viewer than to someone who watched the film in 1925. A completely silent color film is something for which we have no frame of reference. In our understanding of the history of film, sound came before color. I think this scene seems so bizarre to us that pop culture refuses to acknowledge it. I don't think I've ever seen it referenced or spoofed, despite being so memorable, and part of such an iconic film.

One final scene is of particular note, because it does not appear to be in the public perception, but is very well known among film buffs, and I can certainly see why. When the Phantom is being chased by a mob at the end, right before his death, he appears to reach for something and holds it up as if he's about to throw a grenade. The crowd stops its advance, terrified. He then opens his hand to reveal... nothing... and he starts laughing hysterically as the mob falls upon him.

It's a bit difficult to say why that sequence is so powerful, but I can at least speculate. The Phantom, like Frankenstein's creature, knows he can never have acceptance. However, the grotesque appearance that drives people away from him also gives him power. He can inspire fear with the slightest gesture, even at the very end of his rope, simply because people are terrified of him. None of them could really believe in their hearts that the Phantom is helpless.

This is a really good movie. For a modern viewer, having to read the title cards might be a bit annoying, but no more so than reading subtitles on a foreign film. Check it out.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #53 Demons

Italian horror doesn't really exist for its plot. There seem to be hints in Demons that there is a villain, but the nature of that villain is never revealed, and he's never seen. Instead, we're given a scenario in which we get to watch people die, and that's what we as the audience are to be satisfied with. And I for one certainly found it to be satisfying.

The movie opens with a University Student named Cheryl (Natasha Hovey) being followed by a strange, masked man (Michele Soavi) through the subways of Berlin. When he finally catches up to her, he offers her a free movie ticket. Cheryl, not questioning why he felt this movie ticket made it necessary to stalk her, simply asks for a second ticket for her friend Kathy (Paola Cozzo). The two girls decide to cut class and see the movie, noticing that, strangely, the tickets name only the theater, and not the movie.

At the theater, the two girls meet two young men named George and Ken (Urbano Barberini and Karl Zinny). The theater is a strange place no one seems to recall having been to before, and it has numerous props laid out in the lobby for the audience to examine and touch. A blind man (Alex Serra) gives dire warnings that there's something unsettling about them, and a prostitute (Geretta Giancarlo) cuts her face on a mask.

I was a bit surprised that the film-within-the-film itself seemed completely normal, and I'm still not sure what its causal affect with the evil actually was. It deals with a group of teenagers seeking out the grave of Nostradamus, and one of them being turned into a demon by a mask. At about this point, the prostitute who had earlier cut her face finds it's bleeding again, and must go to the bathroom. Then the cut becomes a boil and explodes, and she becomes a “Demon.” (Something resembling a zombie. It isn't clear if she's possessed, or if they just use the word).

It's at about this point that all Hell breaks lose. The Demons begin attacking and infecting others and the people flee, only to find they've been locked in. They break into the projection booth, only to find that the entire system is automated. (Presumably, this would have been more surprising back in the 1980’s than it is today.) They smash it, trying to break the movie's evil influence, but the Demons continue to spread.

By the end of the movie, the cast has been soaked in blood and whittled down to just Cheryl and George, who fight their way out of the theater with a motorcycle and a katana. Outside, they team up with a family trying to flee Berlin as the demons have escaped the theater. The movie ends with Cheryl transforming into a Demon, and being taken out as the family rides on.

I highly recommend this movie. While it's true it doesn't follow the American conventions of cinema, particularly in leaving the villain a complete unknown, the plot is actually pretty easy to follow. Most of the characters are given just enough characterization to set them apart from the pack. And while most of the deaths aren't especially creative, they're certainly fun.

The makeup effects are well done and consistently gory, but distinct enough to give each Demon an identity of their own. I think there was an attempt to give the second demon a rat motif with her teeth. In one of the most effective moments, we watch the human teeth fall away to reveal more rat-like incisors hiding behind them. It's a creative and disturbing touch.

I should probably also comment on Tony (Bobby Rhodes). Even though he's a supporting role, he's the character everyone remembers, so I suppose I should say something. He's a large, black pimp who comes with two prostitutes (including the aforementioned first demon). He's notable for bucking most of the typical horror trends for black men. While he dies, he's far from the first victim. He's quite intelligent, takes a leadership role in the group without being too pushy, and shows a good balance of concern for himself and concern for others. Beyond that, Bobby Rhodes is just a fun actor to watch.

So, if you haven't seen Demons, check it out. Sadly, I was only able to find it dubbed into English, but it's a good dub job with voices that fit about as well as can be expected. I really doubt anyone will regret seeing it.

Christmas Review: A Very Supernatural Christmas

I thought I should start including Christmas-themed reviews, but Christmas day obviously wouldn't work. I decided when I started this blog that, until I completed my initial list of movies, nothing would interrupt my Monday/Friday schedule. So, that leaves Christmas Eve, with Demons as my Christmas review. Hooray! And what better way to share the spirit than with my own personal Christmas tradition: A Very Supernatural Christmas.

This has long been my single favorite episode of the series, and one that I've returned to far more times than any other. I doubt that Supernatural fans need any introduction, but for the uninitiated: brothers Sam and Dean come to a town where a mysterious creature is attacking people during the build-up to Christmas. Sam develops a theory that the creature is some form of “anti-Claus,” Santa's evil counter-part, such as Krampus or Black Peter.

Normally with Christmas episodes the story-arc has to be paused for the episode's story. However, here we have a perfect blend, as the story-arc kicks off the main personal conflict of the episode: Dean has sold is soul at this point in the series, and barring a miracle his contract will expire in the next year. He expects to never see another Christmas. So, he wants to celebrate, while Sam refuses to pretend to be happy knowing his brother is dying.

It's a story that works perfectly for both the casual viewer, and the hardcore fanboy of this show. It combines with some flashbacks that make their father's absence on Christmas a major factor in their childhoods. Ironically, the absence of their father from post-Season 2 episodes probably has more to do with Jeffrey Dean Morgan's film career, but here it twists our emotional screws perfectly.

It reminded me of Krampus (I can't talk about that movie enough), mainly because it felt like a legitimate Christmas story. While dark and violent, Christmas was not portrayed as evil itself. Rather, it was portrayed as a shining light of hope in a black world, being intruded on by darkness. The ending completely reinforces this.

As with my Halloween review, I don't want to spoil the ending. I can only say that you'll enjoy it if you're a fan of dark Christmases, and bad Santas.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #54 The Changeling

I was reluctant to see The Changeling. I knew that it was on the list, so I'd have to watch it eventually, but I was in absolutely no rush. The main reason was George C. Scott. I had so much trouble imagining him in the role of a sensitive, grief-stricken father that I expected the movie to be laughable, but I was pleasantly surprised by just how well he carried the film. He showed the appropriate sensitivity, but also gave a strength and a weight to his character that helped the film immensely.

Scott plays John Russell, a wealthy composer whose wife and daughter (Jean Marsh and Michelle Martin) die in a horrible accident. He decides to move from New York to Washington State to get away from his old life. He feels that he needs to force himself to be productive to better deal with his grief, so he resumes teaching and composing.

Strange noises, and eventually visions, begin in Russell's house. He discovers that the house is haunted by a young boy named Joseph Carmichael (Voldi Way). The details of Joseph's death are one of the most tragic things I've ever seen portrayed in film. Joseph's mother was a wealthy heiress who passed away when he was still a child, and Joseph himself was a sickly boy. This made Joseph the heir to his Grandfather's fortune, but if he died before the age of 21, the entire estate would pass to charity. Desperate to keep control of the fortune, Joseph's father drowned him and had him replaced with a healthy orphan, fleeing to Europe until the orphan was too old to be easily identified as a fake. (Under the guise of looking for a “cure” for Joseph).

When dealing with supernatural presences in film, I always find ghosts to be far more interesting than demons. A ghost, even if his behavior is irrational, at least has rational goals. This makes a ghost function as a character we can relate to. In this particular case, a great deal of the fear comes from the fact that there can be little, if anything, resembling justice for the ghost. He's dead, and his father passed without facing any consequences.

The movie does give in to some Hollywood cliches which drag it down a bit. The hero must have a female love interest (Trish Van Devere), to whom he can recite exposition. I have no strong opinion either way on Van Devere's performance, but her actual character adds fairly little. Also, the ghost must, at some point, stop giving people visions and begin attacking them physically.

I also find John's status as a wealthy composer to be a bit baffling. He seems to have been given an arbitrarily large fortune simply because the plot required him to live in a house previously occupied by the fabulously wealthy. I could speculate on several reasons why they made this creative choice instead of just giving him a different job, but it would likely take up far more space than I'm prepared to devote to it.

While the role is small, Scott's real co-star is Melvyn Douglas, as (for lack of a name other than “Joseph Carmichael”) the Changeling. While Douglas doesn't get a lot of screen time, he does a good job of making the Changeling, now a Senator, out to be a decent old man, completely oblivious of his (adoptive) father's crime. His role is tricky, as we have to like him, even as he must be in conflict with John, denying the entire allegation.

The ending comes across as just plain silly to me, and I feel like it's the result of a cop-out with the writers not being able to think of any other way to appease the spirit. The Changeling seems to astral-project himself into the house (rather than, you know, actually going there), and goes to the room of the original Joseph Carmichael to witness the ghostly reenactment of his father's crime. Then, the room blows up, and the Changeling has a heart attack.

I think the idea of the Changeling dying could have worked well. A 6-year-old's concept of “justice” is likely quite weak, and presumably he simply wanted to turn his years of pain onto someone else. However, it should have been done in a more subtle way, focusing on the emotions, and certainly should not have involved an explosion.

I do recommend this movie. It's a bit slow-moving, but it’s entertaining. It's tragic, well-acted, and has some points of real originality.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #55 The Vanishing

Oh, this is one I've been looking forward to. To avoid any confusion, this is the original, Dutch version. I have never seen the American remake, and I have no intention of seeing it. I know how the ending was changed, and I think it's a travesty.

The thing I find fascinating about The Vanishing is how it completely breaks from the traditions of Hollywood. While I have no idea of what's normal in the Dutch film industry, American films typically attempt to either teach morality or subvert it. Either the hero wins, or the villain wins. Here, the struggle between good and evil isn't even present. While this film could be said to have a “villain” the sense of an antagonistic character, who is also a murderer, its protagonist is so far removed from heroic morality that the conflict driving the plot represents something much more complicated that simple good or evil.

There are only three characters who have any relevance to the story, so it should be fairly simple to explain the plot. A man named Rex (Gene Bervoets) is traveling with his wife, Saskia (Johanna ter Steege), when she disappears. It's made clear to the audience exactly who the villain is, although we don't see the actual abduction. We're then given the villain, Raymond's (Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu) back story. The movie eventually culminates years later with Rex, obsessed with finding out what happened to Saskia, finally coming into contact with Raymond.

Raymond says that he will show Rex what happened to Saskia if he takes a pill to knock him out... or Rex could go to the police and tell them to investigate Raymond, but likely never know what he did to Saskia. In the final scene, famous in Europe but not so much in the United States, Raymond wakes up buried alive, his question of what happened to Saskia now answered.

The primary mysteries of the film are Saskia's fate and Raymond's motivation. Raymond's back story builds the tension for both of these. We see him as a person with a duality about him. He's a happy, friendly, likable family man, who periodically goes out and makes unsuccessful attempts to kidnap women. We see his methods and his calculations for how long he'd be able to keep them unconscious to get to his destination. However, we don't have any context for why he's doing this. It's a fascinating way of creating suspense with audiences who are used to killers having throwaway motives that are spouted off on a whim. This movie reverses that: the murder is unimportant, the motive is everything.

The eventual reveal is both amazing and bizarre: Raymond was motivated by a rejection of destiny. As a child, he once jumped from a balcony because his instincts told him not to. Thus, in his mind, he escaped from a deterministic universe by severely injuring himself. Later, he saved a little girl from drowning while out with his family, convincing himself that it was in his nature to be a good and heroic person. Therefore, he attempted to escape from that fate as well by doing something horrible.

I think this idea, that the biological determinism of survival and social cooperation represents what we humans call “destiny,” is the basis of the entire film. We watch Rex continue to hunt for Saskia, long after he's given up any hope for her survival, or even for justice. He destroys the relationships in his life, bankrupts himself, and ruins his own peace of mind, purely out of morbid curiosity. He just wants to know what happened to her, rejecting the “destiny” that most people have of not knowingly allowing a clearly demented murderer to drug you.

The final act of the film is strange to watch. Rex and Raymond have a surprising level of intimacy. By all rights, Rex should be trying to kill Raymond. Instead, they have a detailed discussion of the events surrounding the crime. When Raymond finally makes a direct statement that he killed Saskia, Rex responds with a brief dirty look, and they carry on like nothing else happened. These are men who have ceased to care about the moral implications of anything they're doing, existing completely outside of biological determinism, one by choice, and the other by compulsion.

The director actually seems to embrace this mindset himself, as many scenes that should be tense and horrifying are, in fact, played in a very comical manner. Raymond's repeated failures to kidnap women are played for laughs, as if the subject deserves no sensitivity. Even the music is often lighthearted.

This is a movie I strongly recommend. The story is so interesting that you won't even care about the subtitles. The characters are interestingly written and well acted. And the fact that they needed to remake it, instead of just releasing this film in theaters in the US is an indictment of American moviegoers.

Wednesday Review: Krampus the Shadow of Saint Nicholas

Timing was a bit inconvenient for Krampus: The Shadow of Saint Nicholas. It was originally to be released 3 days before the film it draws inspiration from. However, the film was delayed by a week, and I'm sure I'm not the only Dougherty fan who read it before seeing the film. I strongly advise anyone else against doing this, because the exposition needed to understand the comic is in the film. I don't believe Krampus is ever even mentioned by name, let alone his servants.

There's also a lot of debate about the ending of the film that is indirectly resolved in this comic. Of the two competing theories regarding the film's end, only one seems supported by this comic. I take that as canon...and a massive spoiler

While based on Krampus, this comic better fits the style of Trick 'R Treat and it's tie-in comic. It's an anthology telling three stories, happening on the same night, and tying into sins of the past that Krampus comes to punish. Each of the stories are short enough that telling too much would spoil.

The three are based around an alcoholic Vietnam veteran turned mall Santa, a policewoman dealing with guilt over the death of her sister, and a family that seeks shelter in a large home after being evicted from their house. For my money, I'd say the middle story is the best. It's fairly standalone, and easy to follow. You could actually remove Krampus from it entirely and have a touching and tragic one-shot.

Is the comic as good as the movie? No. But, it's good. Good enough that I recommend picking up a copy right after you finish the film. I wish this review could be longer, but I'm biting my tongue to hold back the surprises.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #56 Single White Female

I honestly find Single White Female to be more sad than scary. It's a good movie, yes, but I can't imagine losing sleep over it. It probably doesn't help that the villain is the most relatable character while most of the others are movie clichés, giving me no real reason to care if they live or die. We have Allie (Bridget Fonda) the single woman whose boyfriend cheated on her, who has the gay best friend in Graham (Peter Friedman), Sam (Steven Weber), the boyfriend who wants to win her back, and Mitch (Stephen Tobolowsky), the sleazy businessman who threatens to drive away customers if she doesn't sleep with him.

Then there's Hedy (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a character driven to madness and obsession by the fact that her twin sister drowned when they were nine. Hedy is pulled into the story when Allie looks for a roommate after kicking Sam out. Hedy is friendly, outgoing, and cares deeply about Allie... to the point of creepy obsession. When Sam tries to win Allie back, Hedy steals letters and deletes voice mails to get in the way. She also changes her hair to match Allie's, and attempts on some occasions to pass herself off as Allie.

This escalation doesn't happen quickly, which is a mistake many movies would make. Hedy doesn't seem scary at first. In fact, the first time she impersonates Allie it's on the phone to Mitch to get him to back off by threatening him. The movie doesn't show her as a monster, but as someone incredibly lonely looking for a familial relationship she lost.

The build-up is probably one of the best I've ever seen. She goes from loving and affectionate, to a nuisance, to a creep, and finally to dangerous. Usually these escalations are in response to some event, such as Sam's return to Allie, Allie discovering that she had lied about her real name and past (she falsely claimed her twin was stillborn), and being told that she would need to leave. However, at no point does the film make her out to be a monster, simply a troubled person.

Certainly, I think everyone can understand what Hedy wants. Even if we were never twins, everyone who’s ever felt alone can imagine having that kind of closeness, and then losing it. Hedy had something valuable taken from her, and wants it back.

There's one scene I feel I should address, simply because it does create a problem in discussing the movie. Hedy tries to “prove” that Sam will always be unfaithful by pretending to be Allie, and performing oral sex on him without his consent. He figures out who she actually is halfway through. It's debatable from what's shown whether he actually allowed her to finish, or was simply not able to put up physical resistance, but either way he never gave consent.

While it's made clear that what Hedy did was wrong, it's treated as a crime against Allie rather than Sam. Sam's facial expressions and body language do give the appearance that he feels violated, but at no point is it stated that he was raped. This scene makes it hard for me to justify my sympathy for Hedy, so the best I can do is to say that I blame cultural ignorance and double-standards concerning female-on-male rape, rather than the fictional character who acts out this cultural misconception in a movie.

The scene that stands out the most for me in terms of Hedy's development was the one in which she receives a phone call from her father who's been alerted to her location by Allie. The phone call is brief and she hangs up on him, but he assures her “no more doctors” if she comes home. This, if nothing else, gives us some idea of why she's hiding her real name; she's afraid of the family that tried to “fix” her.

This movie would be a classic if not for literally every other character and actor in it. Jennifer Jason Leigh seemed to have been under the impression that she was in Oscar bait, while everyone else thought they were phoning in a paycheck. Her performance adapts to every situation, as she manages to simultaneously switch personae like a chameleon, while still letting us know what she's really feeling.

This movie isn't something I would tell you to rush out and watch, but it's definitely worth your time.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #57 House of Wax

It almost causes me physical pain that the Paris Hilton “remake” of this film seems to be better remembered than the masterpiece that is the original. I do not say this out of any hatred of remakes. Hell, this movie is a remake of The Mystery of the Wax Museum from two decades earlier. I say it because one of Vincent Price's best performances seems to be so little remembered.

This was Vincent Price's first horror role, the beginning of what would prove to be an illustrious period in his career. He plays a wax sculptor named Professor Henry Jarrod, whose partner, Matthew Burke (Roy Roberts) tries to burn down his wax museum for insurance money. In the ensuing fight, Burke believes Jarrod to have been killed, and takes the money for himself.

Jarrod survived, but his hands were too damaged to continue as a sculptor, and his face was destroyed. (However, using the magic of a wax mask, he's able to look exactly like unburned Vincent Price until the climax.) So, he began murdering people with faces he liked, covering them with wax, and using them in his new wax museum, paid for with money taken from the soon-deceased Burke (natural causes not involved).

Now, it kind of goes without saying that Jarrod is crazy. He actually has two assistants (Charles Bronson and Nedrick Young) who could easily produce all the wax sculptures his museum requires. So, aside from murdering his partner, most of his actions are just ways of using his own obsessions to justify moving the plot along. However, that's why Vincent Price is so great, managing to make every scene entertaining. He's crazy without being unintelligent. He's arguably an early Hannibal Lector. If you met him, even knowing what he'd done, you'd still want him to like you.

The actual protagonists of the film, a young woman (Phyllis Kirk) who Jarrod wants to turn into Marie Antoinette, and her boyfriend (Paul Picerni) are extremely bland by comparison. They're there because... well... someone has to figure out the secret. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with them. There are, after all, very few cases in horror in which the protagonist is more interesting than the villains (the only case I know of in recent times being You're Next), and you can't expect them to compete with Vincent Price.

While I kind of doubt a human body covered in wax would be indistinguishable from a wax sculpture, the movie sells it. There are numerous scenes depicting people admiring the macabre nature of the statues. These scenes are morbidly hilarious, although some of the depictions of women as being unable to handle the sight come across as rather dated and sexist.

The climax is unbelievably rushed. The police find out the true nature of the wax museum by realizing that Leon, one of Jarrod's assistants (Young), is a petty criminal suffering from alcoholism. Apparently he'd had no problem assisting in murders before, but once the police offer him liquor in the interrogation room he declares “You've got to stop him before he kills again!” I'm not sure how intentional the humor of that scene is, although it's unquestionably the funniest moment of the film. On the one hand, the line is played as if sincere. But on the other, he starts pouring himself a drink as soon as the cops are out of the room, so maybe we're supposed to know he just wanted them gone.

This isn't to say that the film doesn't make use of its final moments. The heroine bound and struggling beneath a pot of boiling wax while the police rush to her rescue and her boyfriend makes a separate rescue attempt. Throw in a near-miss with a Guillotine, and you have a spectacular ending, following the first 80 minutes of showmanship and fun.

I will note as well that this movie seems to represent an early attempt at progressive depictions of heroines. It uses the role of “investigator” to give the woman some degree of agency, while still having her get in over her head and be captured, so that she needs a man to rescue her after she's discovered the secret. However, I don't think the trope originated here, since this is precisely Lois Lane's usual role in just about every Superman story ever written.

This is a movie I fully intend to show my kids if I ever have any. There's nothing overly bloody or sexual in it, but it can still give you the creeps. So it's perfect for younger viewers, scaring them without talking down to them the way RL Stine does. See this movie, and watch it every Halloween.

Wednesday Review: Krampus

I was nervous going into Krampus. I tried to keep telling myself that it was simply unrealistic to expect Michael Dougherty to match the glory of Trick 'R Treat in his sophomore film. Lightning never strikes twice, of course. And a PG-13 rating should completely kill any chance of a worthy follow-up.

That said, as the time to see the film approached, I couldn't stop my anticipation from rising. I became more and more fidgety at work, counting down the precious moments until I could go to the theatre and see the film. Even walking in and buying my popcorn, I was on the verge of breaking down out of fear that the movie would be bad.

Then, I sat down in a dark theatre, and the film began to play. To my shock...the film fully lived up to my expectations, being at least as good as Trick 'R Treat. A day ago I would have suggested removing the tongue of any film critic who dares to say that any film can match Trick 'R Treat, but here I am.

At their core, both of Dougherty's films are quite similar plot-wise. They both involve a powerful Being (Sam and Krampus) coming to oversee the punishment of those who disrespect the spirit and traditions of a holiday. In both cases, the Being is kept mostly in the background, allowing lesser horrors to mete out punishments until quite late in the film, when the Being finally decides to take center-stage.

That said, there are still enough differences to make this film interesting. Where Sam mostly watched independent monsters follow their natural course of punishing transgressors, Krampus seems to be outright ordering his underlings to dish out punishment. This film is also focused on a single family get-together for Christmas, where Trick 'R Treat was an anthology.

Dougherty has also clearly maintained his flair for visual style. The fact that this movie reportedly has a budget of merely $15 million is jaw-dropping. He's an absolute master at creating an atmosphere that's both horrifying, and visually spectacular. As he promised, Dougherty did use many practical effects, but even when he was forced to rely on CGI for some creatures, they look better than would be expected. There's also a flash-back sequence that left me genuinely uncertain whether it was CGI or stop-motion. Either way, it looks visually awesome.

If there is a single effect that doesn't work, it's Krampus himself. He looks fairly lifeless when you see him up close. However, this still works, partially because he's kept in the background for most of the movie, and partially because I suspect he was supposed to appear lifeless. His face looks like it's suffering from rigor mortis.

Above all, however, this movie works because it really is a Christmas movie. Most horror films set at Christmas use the holiday as a backdrop to mock the shallowness of American culture. To this movie, however, the holiday actually means something. A boy's terrible Christmas Eve experience with his extended family causes him to lose faith in Christmas, summoning Krampus to punish the whole family. Dougherty said that he drew inspiration from both A Christmas Carol and It's a Wonderful Life, both of which are very dark stories about the nature of Christmas. Their influence is evident.

Another major advantage over most horror films is that no one in this family is actually a bad person. It wouldn't be a Christmas movie if they were. That's one thing that almost every review I've seen or read has gotten wrong. They're family members from different socio-economic backgrounds, with very different values, and thus they don't do well having Christmas dinner together. However, not a single one of them shows any ill-intent, they hurt each other's feelings through obliviousness, and need to learn respect and tolerance for their family members. This is a surprisingly upbeat cast for a scary movie, and most of their interactions are a lot of fun to watch.

As for the PG-13 rating, I'd say it works here. Trick 'R Treat was actually a fairly mild R itself, not showing a lot of the deaths onscreen. That film could have likely been made PG-13 with very little editing, while this film could likely have been turned into an R with the addition of a bit more blood. However, where Trick 'R Treat had a visual aesthetic of reds, browns, and oranges to show the colors of fall, here we have light blue and white as our primary colors. Quite frankly, a lot of bright red blood and gore would just throw off the visual style. So, I suspect the PG-13 may have been an accidental result of a consistent color aesthetic.

The ending leaves us with two interpretations, which I won't spoil. I'll simply say that one is positive, while the other is negative. My cynical brain keeps trying to force the negative interpretation, but I honestly find the happier ending to be more satisfying. Furthermore, a film about the values of giving and selflessness at Christmas really calls for something upbeat to send it off.

I highly recommend this movie. Dougherty's still got it, and I hope that Sam and Kampus get to meet very soon soon. In the meantime, I hope every has a Happy Holiday!

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #58 Cujo

I think I've decided that the most effective way to open a horror movie is to set up it up as another film entirely. This emphasizes that the horror is entering into the otherwise normal lives of these characters, rather than the characters simply existing to experience it.

Cujo does exactly that. The backdrop of the film is a family of three. The father, Vic (Daniel Hughes-Kelly) finds out that his wife has had an affair, and meanwhile, is having trouble at work due a product he advertised turning out to be dangerous. This story doesn't even fade entirely into the background. Since the father is unaware of the primary action of the film, he remains at his job, still trying to figure out how to deal with his personal issues.

The antagonistic force of the film, Cujo, is a friendly Saint Bernard who lives with the family's mechanic (Ed Lauter). He contracts rabies when bitten by a bat and ends up killing the mechanic and his family, just before the mother, Donna (Dee Wallace) and her son Tad (Danny Pintauro) bring their car over. Cujo immediately attacks them, and they spend most of the remainder of the film locked inside the car, which now refuses to start. (A rare justified use of this cliché, since they were, in fact, taking it to the mechanic due to car problems).

I don't claim to be an expert on rabies, so I can't say with any degree of certainty whether or not the dog's behavior is truly “realistic,” but I can tell you that it certainly feels realistic to me. When I say that, I mean that the dog is not a constant antagonist. He calms down between attacks, lying down, still within sight of the car, until something sets him off again. At one point Donna is even able to open the door a crack to allow her son to pee, uncertain if Cujo will react. Luckily, after a few moments of staring at them, Cujo goes to attack a ringing phone in the house.

I think that the sympathy and uncertainty we feel for Cujo helps the movie greatly. The film makers can pretty much justify having him attack in any pattern that's convenient for the story, simply because he isn't malevolent. At the same time, the story has more nuance as we understand that Cujo is not a force of evil.

The secondary fear of the movie comes from the fact that it's a hot day. Donna and her son cannot open the windows or doors of the car to cool off without providing Cujo something he can force open. So, if Cujo doesn't kill them, then there's a real chance the heat will. And indeed, it's Tad's hyperventilation that forces the final confrontation between Donna and the dog.

The ending of the movie is rather anti-climactic. Donna is finally forced to get out of the car to fight Cujo, and the fight is shown in a fairly awkward manner. This is presumably because there was no realistic way to show Donna struggling with the dog that would not require him to actually bite her. Beyond that, the film brings Cujo back to life for one last scare after Donna stabs him. It's as if they forgot that Cujo was a sick dog, not a supernatural slasher villain, making this scare come across as especially cheap.

I don't claim this to be any sort of masterpiece, by any means. However, I can't imagine that anyone watching this movie will want the hour and a half of their time back. I doubt that this movie would be regarded as a “classic” if it were not associated with Stephen King, but I could certainly see it surviving as a footnote in horror history, with occasional reruns on cable, and a place on Netflix.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #59 Fatal Attraction

The first thing I have to mention regarding Fatal Attraction is that it's dated. Dan (Michael Douglas) is rooted in 80s machismo that really doesn't ring true in the 21^st century. When Alex (Glenn Close) repeatedly calls him a “faggot,” modern viewers don't feel sympathy for him. Rather, we laugh at her for being incredibly juvenile. I'd say that within a generation or two it'll be just downright bizarre, like insulting someone by calling them a “Fan of Musicals.” It just won't register anymore how in the Hell that was ever even supposed to have been an insult. So yeah, a dated movie that's destined to become even more dated.

The plot of the film is that Dan has an affair with Alex, and Alex wants a more serious relationship with him. Next, Alex becomes stalkery, and we find out she's pregnant. Then, Alex becomes violent not just towards Dan, but towards his family, kidnapping and then returning his daughter (Ellen Hamilton Latzen), killing the family's pet rabbit, and eventually attacking both him and his wife (Anne Archer).

I feel like this isn't a bad movie, and it's certainly impactful, but I also feel like the weakest aspect of the film is its focus on Dan and Alex. Fundamentally, Dan brought this on himself. The movie was obviously intended to convey an 80’s pro-family message against adultery by showing the extra-marital partner as dangerous. However, in doing this, the movie tends to portray Dan's wife, Beth, primarily as just being one aspect of his life that is under attack. As the innocent victim, I think she would have been the more engaging protagonist, as her family was under assault due to the actions of her husband and through no fault of her own.

Alex and Dan as characters are also both weakened by the fact that, quite frankly, they deserve each other. They're drama-whores. Either of them could have ended the entire mess much earlier by telling Beth what happened. Alex could have used it as a means of attacking Dan, or Dan could have used it to take away Alex's power, claiming responsibility for his child, saving or ending his marriage as his wife decided, and being free to report Alex to the police as a stalker. Instead, they'd rather just glower at each other from across the room. This interpretation certainly isn't helped by the fact that Dan is willing to attack the woman carrying his child without fear of harming the baby, which makes you wonder why they bothered with the plot point if it would ultimately have no significance to his motivation. Why do we want either of these people as a protagonist?

Most of these weaknesses, however, come out later in the film. The earlier scenes between Dan and Alex, in which they hook up, fight, reconcile and fight some more, are far more interesting. I think this is most likely because the movie was an expansion of a short film, with the pregnancy added on to keep the story going. This shows, with the film feeling almost like two movies. The first, an interesting film about two people having an affair, presented without judgment for the audience to draw their own conclusion. The second, a fairly generic stalker-flick that just happens to have a woman stalking a man.

If there's a single scene I need to comment on by itself, it's the kidnapping scene. Alex picks up Dan's daughter Ellen from school and takes her to an amusement park where they get ice cream and go on a roller coaster. At the end, Beth is a wreck searching for Ellen and Ellen is returned unharmed. She seems to have had the double-motive of wanting to bond with the girl she would make her step-daughter, while also wanting to intimidate Dan and Beth. I have mixed feelings about this scene. On the one hand, yes it is terrifying. Even having already seen it previously and knowing how it ends, I feel uncomfortable watching it. On the other hand though, the fact that she never actually harms Ellen makes it feel like filler. You can just feel the filmmakers chickening out of offing a kid.

This movie isn't really the classic everyone makes it out to be, but it's certainly not bad either. At it's worst it feels like what Pacific Heights would have been if it was made by people who actually cared.

Wednesday Review: Victor Frankenstein

I saw both Creed and Victor Frankenstein this past weekend. While I can't' really do a review of Creed on a horror blog, I highly encourage everyone to see it. It's a movie that deserves to be the successor to Rocky.

Now, to address the movie I'm actually supposed to be talking about: this film is pure wasted potential. The PG-13 rating absolutely kills what otherwise might have been an excellent retelling of the Frankenstein story. This feels like a horror movie that's afraid to be horrifying.

The most obvious example of this comes near the beginning: after rescuing Igor from the circus, Frankenstein reveals that he's not a true hunchback, but actually has a puss-filled growth on his back forcing him to bend over. Once the growth is drained, Victor puts Igor in a back-brace to help him stand, and the issue seems to be completely resolved. Igor's mobility problems have ceased moments later, and there's no indication looking at his bare back that there was ever anything wrong with him. No stretched skin on his back, no scar where Frankenstein drained him, no nothing.

I don't object to this turn of events. In fact, I think it seems like an excellent way to establish Victor's brilliance. However, why not show us Igor's gradual recovery over the course of the film? Is this movie really that terrified of the grotesque, to the point that we can't even see a disabled man for more than a few minutes?

The characters themselves definitely deserve a better movie. James McAvoy's Frankenstein is brilliant and terrifying in his madness. He seems to think of nothing beyond his experiments. I'd call him an interesting mixture of the Colin Clive and Peter Cushing interpretations of Frankenstein, with a nice touch of Herbert West thrown in as well. Daniel Radcliffe doesn't feel like he's taking the movie quite as seriously, but even at his worst is still excellent, and we feel for Igor.

This version of Igor doesn't really fit into any previous film versions. I believe everyone likely to read this blog knows that the original hunchback assistant was Fritz, and Ygor was a broken-necked shepherd introduced into the Frankenstein series several films later. Here, our Igor is a self-taught medical genius, rescued from a life as a circus clown by Frankenstein.

This creates a very different relationship, where their relationship varies. Igor seems to see Victor as a social superior because he was raised to view everyone as his better, but Victor recognizes Igor as an intellectual equal. When they first meet, Igor is able to save a woman's life with just Victor's pocket-watch, proving himself a medical genius.

The relationship is probably best shown when Frankenstein introduces Igor to his laboratory. Igor is probably the first character in any adaptation of this story to show no more than mild surprise when presented with Victor's work. He's already brought a pair of eyes to life. Igor is able to see how it's been done at a glance, and even tells Victor how to improve it moments later.

Moments later, though, Igor reacts in shock when he's told he can read any of Victor's books he wants. Igor is actually less surprised by the re-animation of the dead, than by the idea that he's met someone who views him as an intellectual equal. This relationship is a strong point of the film, and in a more macabre movie, might have bordered on Oscar-worthy.

I should mention that as a hunchback, Igor had been nameless. So, he takes on the name of Frankenstein's drug-addicted roommate who's “never around,” Mr. Igor Straussman. This is another example of a completely wasted opportunity. After enough time had passed in the film that I was sure the real Straussman wasn't going to show up, I began to suspect that the man we knew as Frankenstein was the real Igor Straussman, who had killed the real Victor and assumed his identity to fund his work...nope, no such luck. The actual twist involving Igor Straussman is unpredictable only in how uninteresting it is (I don't consider telling you what twist doesn't happen to be a spoiler)

The movie makes an interesting choice in saving the creation of the creature until very late in the film. I don't fault it for this at all. In fact, I think it makes it unique as a Frankenstein story, almost completely focused on the act of creation, rather than the results. The monster, however, isn't anything special, and the events that lead up to it's creation are eye-rollingly non-graphic.

I would say rent this film. McAvoy's performance alone merits that. However, it's really not worth a trip to the theatre.