31 Nights of Halloween, Scream

Scream - Smart

After the horror and slasher movie boom in the mid-to-late 1980s there was a definite lull.  I mean, name me one horror movie that came out between 1985-1995 that really mattered and changed the genre for the better (okay, I'll give you a few of those).  But the genre was so bogged down in the same cliched plot device (teens isolated and stalked by an unstoppable force) but studios continued to insist on putting these movies out since they were a sure fire money maker.  Everyone knew that these movies were getting worse and worse, and it was the elephant in the room for the genre.  It wasn't until 1996 that Wes Craven, who had recently fallen on hard times himself (ever seen "Vampire in Brooklyn") got together with future "Dawson Creek" creator Kevin Williamson, and told everyone "Hey, these slasher movies are ridiculous."  Thus, "Scream" was created.

"Scream" follows the exploits of a group of teens in Woodsboro, CA who are terrorized by a masked killer who we now know in horror lexicon as "Ghostface" (see above).  Sidney Prescott, played by Neve Campbell, becomes the prime target of not only the killer, but of newscaster, Gale Weathers, who wrote a tell-all book about the murder of Sidney's mother and the possible conspiracy revolved around her convicted killer, Cotton Weary.

The film follows all the standard horror tropes, but they are smart about it.  Williamson weaves a decent story with smart writing and a pretty hip cast (for the time of course, I'm mean have you seen "Chill Factor").  Before "Scream" there weren't any other films that would have characters addressing their current situation and comparing it to something they'd seen in a movie.  In a way it was breaking the 4th wall without talking to the audience directly.  As a horror film fan it was awesome to see nerds like me on the screen telling themselves what they needed to do to survive in a horror movie, when in fact they were in one.  It was not only smart but extremely self-aware and it knowingly made fun of how stupid horror movies had gotten.  There was also the fact Craven killed off one of his main stars within the first ten minutes, which I always appreciate.

During his post-Nightmare on Elm Street era, Wes Craven tried his hands at everything from Bush-era poverty to voodoo, but it wasn't until he returned to the slasher genre where his career took back off, I mean he got to work with Gloria Estefan* for God sakes....Miami Sound Machine man!  Anyway, what I always found ironic is the fact that Craven created a new series that was poking fun at the ridiculousness of slasher films and all of their sequels, and "Scream," to a degree, became something it was making fun of in first place three sequels later.  I do, however, find "Scream 2" to be a sequel that surpassed it's predecessor in many ways.

Craven has always been a trendsetting director; from "The Last House on the Left" to "Scream 4" and everything in-between (remember....."Vampire in Brooklyn"**).  He's adapted to the times, for the good and bad, but when you're a director that has created two of the most well known horror figures in the past 25 years (Freddy too of course) it's easy to forgive some of the mistakes.  If you haven't seen "Scream," be smart, don't be dumb, check it out.

Fun Fact:  Craven had a cameo as the janitor "Freddy" in the same iconic red and green sweater.  Check it out.

* "Music of the Heart" which also starred Academy Award winner, Meryl Streep.

**For the record, I really don't mind "Vampire in Brooklyn."  It was last decent movie Eddie Murphy made.

Read More

31 Nights of Halloween, Silent Hill: Revelation

Silent Hill: Revelation -Lifeless

Video games have had a rough history in cinema.  Aside from maybe "Tron," video games and movies are like oil and water.  The problem is that studios try to pander to the people that play the games as opposed to an entire film audience.  I liken it to an inside joke where the people that get the joke love it and everyone else is left scratching their heads.  That's how "Silent Hill: Revelation" is, in addition to being a lifeless sequel that probably came five years too late.

I'll preface with what I'm about to unleash on "Revelation" with this; I like the "Silent Hill" franchise.  When the first game came out on PlayStation it was atmospheric, creepy, and the plot was relatively coherent.  That continued into the first sequel with more back-story given to the city of Silent Hill, but the game started to fizzle after that.  The first "Silent Hill" film had some good ideas and a decent writing and directing combo, Roger Avary of "Pulp Fiction" and "The Rules of Attraction" fame and Christophe Gans, who directed the underrated "Brotherhood of the Wolf," respectively.  Neither have anything to do with "Revelation" and it shows, you can tell that the studio is simply out to make money and pander to hardcore "Silent Hill" fans that still think the franchise is relevant.

The plot, if you can call it that, revolves around Heather Mason, aka, Sharon Da Silva from the first film.  Heather, and her father Harry Mason, played by Sean Bean, are on the run from a mysterious evil looking for Heather.  At some point Harry is kidnapped and taken to Silent Hill and Heather, along with Vincent, Kit Harington from "Game of Thrones," venture into the darkness.  What plays out is pretty much what you would expect;  there are freaky monsters, including the iconic "Pyramid Head," a moment where all hope seems lost, and finally our heroes riding off into the sunset, escaping Silent Hill.  I'll tell you what; go find "Silent Hill 3" in the bargain bin for your PlayStation 2 (or even Xbox 360 at this point), play it, and I assure that you'll have a better time.

"Revelation" tries to build on the mythology of the first film, but it comes off as a slow burn with music and jump scares that come off dated.  Its not a bad film, but it certainly isn't a good film either.  However, I will say that Adelaide Clemens (who has to be the love child of both Carey Mulligan and Michelle Williams) is the splitting image of her video game counterpart, but some of the other characters......ugh.  Bean is mailing it in despite his limited screen time, and the once great Malcolm McDowell is at his hammiest, even outdoing his performances in the Rob Zombie Halloween remakes.

Will there be another addition to the "Silent Hill" film franchise?  I hope not.  I will admit that I was excited to see "Revelation," but it ended up being just like the scary nurses....lifeless.  Oh I nearly forgot, I didn't bother to see this in 3D either, there is no reason for 3D in modern cinema.  It was cool in the 1950s when giant insects were attacking us, but it's time to grow up and take off those silly glasses.  You look like this guy, and that's scarier than "Silent Hill: Revelation."

Fun Fact:  The high school Heather attends is All Hallows High.  Halloween is also called All Hallows Eve.  Freaky. 

Read More

31 Nights of Halloween, Click: The Calendar Girl Killer

 Click: The Calendar Girl Killer: Laughable

A perfect early 90's horror film in all the wrong reasons.
If there is a word for beyond cheesiness it would fit for this film.

What we have here is another transvestite killer with some major mommy issues. I really don't have much to say for this review, so I made a few notes for you while I watched.

Other then that, its a bad horror film. Fun if you have a pizza, beer and some friends come over to watch it but yeah other then that its pretty bad.


Some Notes While Watching! (Now with 40% Extra Denim!)

First bad line of the film, "You are gonna party to you die...keep the bubbles going". Followed by some creepy laughing.

Wow another line, this one is better! "She's a bitch...but she screws like a demon". Followed by Two 90's guys with mullets laughing.

Im going to use that line one day, somehow I will!

There is a moment when two people fall into a spa and get wet. Next shot they're dry and only their hair is wet.

Denim vest! All I see is Denim in this shitty film!

The main guy is a photographer and his camera only has one lens!

Yep the guy crosses out the victims with red ink.(Thats how you know they're dead...from being apart of this film. Hope to see my photo get crossed out with red ink soon!)

He goes to Chinatown looking for models. And apparently only finds white models. So no asian women in chinatown?... Thats kinda odd.

Stereo typical biker boyfriend with the black leather jacket, jeans and white t-shirt. Always a good sign in a film.

(Nothing happens for awhile, well something does but it goes nowhere)

90's sex scene, with 90's sex scene music!

And they have a tea kettle in front, blocking all the nudity! And yes the kettle goes off at the right "moment" of the 10 seconds of crappy sex.

Hey everyone! The killer looks like game show host Chuck Woolery!

90's poolside slow-mo oil up scene, now with more denim!

Follows 90's poolside fight scene also in slow-mo and with bad sound effects.

Finally some, Boobies!

Some stupit shit happens.

More bad dialogue.

The killer dresses up as a nurse with a wig and lipstick. It looks...bad.

He also talks. Which is clearly ADR at its worst.

More Boobies, but with strobe lights, which gets old very fast.

The strobe light is still going this time a murder is taking place which last a few mintues. Yeah a few mintues of fast flashing strobe light, I feel sick now thanks guys.

The fight scenes are soooooo bad.


Remember the main guy? The photographer with the one lens? Well it is officially the whole film, only one lens!

The killers outfit also has fake boobies and socks up to his/her knees.


The final fight scene is a "Jesus on the cross remake", yep no lie. I uploaded it so you could watch it, if you like. The Biker boyfriend knocks the killer down and thinks its over, clear it's not. The killer gets up and they both pick up torches to fight almost like a fight with swords. And thats it, it just ends.

Wow thats the film, Click...it really is bad, but funny...but still really Bad!

Read More

31 Nights of Halloween, Halloween (1978)

Halloween (1978) - Classic

Thinking about the history of horror films there have been five distinct eras that I can think of; The early 1900s brought us the classic monsters like Dracula and Frankenstein.  Post World War II films brought us atomic age monsters that ranged from giant ants to komodo dragons.  The Vietnam War introduced zombies and class war horror.  The late 1970s started the slasher trend, and most recently (from about 1999 to now) we've had an epidemic of remakes, torture porn, and found footage.  While I appreciate all eras for what they've done for the genre, the most lasting of impressions on me were the 1970s and 80s slasher genre, and the cornerstone of that era was John Carpenter's 1978 classic "Halloween."

For my money, if you re-released "Halloween" right now, it would still bank, which theaters are actually doing this year.  It's a simple concept; a young boy, named Michael Myers, brutally murders his sister on Halloween night and is locked away in a sanitarium.  On one fateful Halloween Eve, during a routine prison transfer, Myers escapes Smith's Grove Warren County Sanitarium.  Myers' doctor, Sam Loomis (sound familiar) pushes the panic alarm as he fears that Myers will be heading back to his hometown, Haddonfield, also the scene of his original crime.  We meet three teenagers, including a very young Jamie Lee Curtis, who plays Laurie Strode, looking forward to a fun Halloween night, which of course turns into "The Night He Comes Home."  I'll try not to give too much away, but considering "Halloween" is 35 years old, it might be time for you to get off your ass and finally watch the most influential horror movie in the past 50 years.

"Halloween" is what really kicked off the modern slasher genre in the early 1980s, and created the so-called "formula." However, if you watch the movie now, it's surprisingly tame, with very little blood, just a little bit of boob-age  and a relatively low body count.  The blood and gore is more implied than splashed all over the screen.  Take this for an example; "Halloween" was rated R in 1978, but a movie like "Tourist Trap" from 1979, a year after "Halloween" was only rated PG, and I find "Tourist Trap", while very cheesy, extremely creepy, and at times, harrowing.  If "Halloween" was put out today the same way it was shot by John Carpenter 35 years ago, it wouldn't be anymore then a PG-13 film.

Enough politics of course, and we'll continue with this question; What's so good about "Halloween?"  Damn near everything!  From the opening theme and titles, to the camera work, to the acting, which isn't perfect, but when you have teenagers talking about bullshit it will have to do.  Everyone in the film is believable, with Sam Loomis, played by the late Donald Pleasence, the stand-out.  What I credit Pleasence for the most is that fact that he stuck around for four sequels, and while he got hammier and hammier, he always added a touch of class.

What makes this film a classic is what it inspired.  While I would credit both "Night of the Living Dead" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" with jump-starting the independent horror movie movement, "Halloween" made the most with what it didn't have; money. For a movie made for less then $350,000 it looks great, has a good cast, and considering the fact that getting Pleasence to appear in the film was a decent part of the budget ($20,000) it doesn't take away from the mood the film conveyed or compromise the quality.  "Halloween," along with it's predecessors proved that you didn't need a ton of money to make a suspenseful and wildly entertaining film.

As far as Rob Zombie's remake, or re-imagining, of "Halloween" in 2007 goes, while it's not perfect, the more I think about it, its it's own movie and can act as a stand alone film.  I almost take it as the "Henry:  Portrait of a Serial Killer" version of "Halloween." What makes Michael Myers so scary is the fact that you really don't know what drove him to kill his sister when he was a boy, or why he insists on always returning to Haddonfield to kill.  You find out later that he dabbles in the occult and celebrates Samhain, but in Zombie's version he shows you Myers' bad home environment and gives reason.  Once you do that the "magic" of Michael Myers is gone and he just becomes another John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy.  Once the mystery behind his actions are revealed he just becomes another serial murderer and it takes the luster off what you thought was just an unstoppable killing machine with no motive, which I find more frightening.

There really isn't anything else to say about "Halloween" that hasn't been said.  It's a classic film, not just in the horror genre, but film in general.  It not only set a standard for the genre, but single-handedly created a sub-genre that is often duplicated, but never really reaches the standard of its predecessor.  It's October people, pop "Halloween" into your DVD, Blu-Ray, VHS, Betamax, Laser Disc, or Reel-to-Reel and enjoy greatness.

Fun Fact:  An inside-out William Shatner mask was used for the iconic mask that the Michael Myers wore.

Read More

31 Nights Of Halloween, The Exorcism Of Emily Rose

INDELICATE

As I've stated before, you gotta bring something different to the table in order for your horror film to pique my interest.  Stereotypical slashers bore me to tears.  Found footage 'Paranormal Witch Projects' are just poorly shot films with the same cheap scares as a haunted house visit at Halloween Horror Nights.  And torture porn.  Don't get me started on torture porn. You want to scare me to my core?  Give me a film that grounds the supernatural element you are playing with in reality.  Write characters that aren't "Lets go investigate" idiots that I can't relate to, let alone, root for.  And an occasional loom of the prince of darkness doesn't hurt either.  The Exorcist was that for me.  It was the benchmark for the best the horror genre had to to offer.  I'd swat away any comers trying to claim supremacy over it like an old man asked to indulge in some newfangled fad.  The Exorcism Of Emily Rose is the newfangled fad the grandson of that old man forces him to try or else he'll ship him away to a home.  Somewhere an AARP member just sh*t their pants...um...uncharacteristically.

Now films love to slap the "Based On A True Story" label on their films.  Mainly, for the reason I stated before. Ground your film in reality and it immediately becomes much more interesting.  Sometimes, however, it only serves as an unnecessary distraction.  You get so wrapped up in if it is actually true or not. Especially, the more fantastical the film gets.  The Coens caught some flack for saying Fargo was based on a true story when it wasn't.  The claim distracted critics from the point of how great a film it was.  You can make your film feel real without reassuring us.  But I digress.  The Exorcism Of Emily Rose is a story loosely...and I mean loosely based on the real life exorcism of German born, Anneliese Michel.  See?  I just did it.

The one thing I really liked about The Exorcism Of Emily Rose is that it is a postmortem.  Whatever the traumatic event that happened to this girl has already happened by the start of this film.  We learn about the specifics mainly through flashbacks and testimonials.  This, to me, puts the audience in the mind of the skeptic.  As the film goes on we are put in the position of either being doubtful of what we're told happened or convinced.  Because make no mistake, this is a film about belief.  An interesting approach to the material that had the potential to make an interesting film.  But what was the operative word I just used?  It was 'had'.  This film's INDELICATE, rushed, stomping through the material makes it a marginal effort at best.   A film of this ilk is more effective when handled with more subtlety.  Director Scott Derrickson actually shoots the one exorcism scene in this film more like an action scene, tossing all intensity out the window...literally.

Another miscalculation The Exorcism Of Emily Rose has is the numerous divergences from what makes it good.  The film is mostly set in a courtroom, pouring over the facts of what actually happened during the exorcism.   Was this young girl taken over by demons or did her priest criminally harm her?  However, it tries to slide in some suspense with a pointless subplot involving star Laura Linney being accosted by dark forces.   It feels totally out of place and stops whatever momentum the film has built up.   I am convinced these scenes were jammed in because of studio pressure for more jump scares and exciting moments.  You see, studios hear subtlety and automatically think boring.  Their low respect for the audiences they constantly pander to usually short circuits modern horror films.

Jennifer Carpenter, from Dexter fame, does most of the heavy lifting in this film.  Now, I won't go into comparisons of scary between her in Linda Blair.  However, I will say I was more impressed by Carpenter's terrified Emily than her possessed one.  Tom Wilkinson is great as usual, though underused.  Laura Linney is nothing special but is still solid.  The only really poor performance that sticks out to me is given by Campbell Scott.  I've seen him before on the television show Royal Pains and a short bit as Peter Parker's dad in....(Rolling Eyes With A Wanking Motion)...The Amazing Spider-Man.  In those parts, his super stoic delivery, nature, and overall presence didn't particularly bother me because they're small.  In this film, Campbell Scott is tasked with carrying a significant part of the film.  He is the voice of the doubters.  He is, in actuality, the secondary villain of the film.  And he has about as much personality as a creaky ironing board.  A great character actor like Victor Garber or John Noble could have put some heft to that part.  Instead, we're left with a walking talking popsicle stick.

So, yes.  I tried another one of these fads.  But after watching The Exorcism Of Emily Rose, it might have been a better choice to just get shipped to the home.  If the power of Christ compels you...watch it...then tell me I'm wrong.

Read More

31 Nights of Halloween, Dawn of the Dead (2004)

Dawn of the Dead (2004) - Run

The bane of the horror genre for the past decade has been the remake.  Hollywood has gotten so lazy and they've treated the horror genre like a dumping ground for bad updates on generally good horror fare.  I understand the point; horror is cheap for a studio to produce, they can introduce fresh new actors (namely females that will bring in the male audience) and generally, they will at least break even no matter how bad the film.  Not to say there aren't exceptions to the rule, and 2004's "Dawn of the Dead" remake is an example of a horror remake gone right.

Before I go into the actually movie I'm going to say this:  I do not like Zack Snyder.  I'm not really impressed by his body of work, and I think he bites off too much, thus, his work suffers.  That is the problem with "visionary" directors like Snyder.  Take "Dawn of the Dead" and compare it to something like "Sucker Punch."  "Dawn" is great because the concept is simple, effective, and done very well (while I may not agree with everything in it, but I'll get to that later).  "Punch" was for prepubescent boys, and it included girls in cosplay costumes, a paper-thin plot, and a severe case of style over substance.  I understand this is his style, but when big ideas are only half-realized its hard to take him serious as a director when I'm taking him as a one trick pony.

While I don't really enjoy Snyder's other films (see above), I did enjoy "Dawn of the Dead."  While on the surface it's a remake, there are things that are done well, and other things that tweak me.

The premise is the same as the George A Romero's original; The zombie apocalypse is in full swing and a small group of survivors head to the mall to buy some Dockers and make their stand.  While the mall provides the group with everything they need, from food to recreation, they begin feeling trapped by the zombies outside the mall hungry for their flesh.  As its been told over and over, ad nauseam, the film's setting, a mall, along with the zombie invasion, is an allegory for consumerism and how we, the "zombified" public, feel the need to endlessly consume and spend.  While Snyder's remake does have a mall where survivors are holed up, the meaning behind the film is lost and is essentially a zombie action film.

What Snyder does right is pay homage, in part, to some of the original actors.  Both Ken Foree and Tom Savini have fun cameos as a preacher and a sheriff, respectively.  He also, as opposed to his other films, keeps the slow-motion to a minimum and tries to flesh out his characters with somewhat of a back story.  The actors look like they are having a good time, and while cheesy at times, the acting is solid for a horror film.  As a Troma fan, I also appreciate the fact that James Gunn wrote the original script of "Dead."  An independent dude makes good.  Now, let me explain why run is the word of the day.

What I can't get behind, and the problem I've always had was this......the running zombie.  Oy vey!  I'm a purist first of all, zombies are shamblers, walkers, they might have a little giddy-up, but they are not sprinters.  When you die you develop rigor mortis brain/body decay, which would have a major effect on the way that you move and react. 

I'll also say this; I love "28 Days Later."  There is an explanation why those "zombies" run.  They aren't zombies!  They don't die, re-animate, and come looking to eat your brains, this is because they are infected with a virus (a rage virus to be exact).  If you're going to be the "living dead" you shouldn't be able to run, its physiologically impossible.

For as much of a problem that I have with the running zombies, I enjoy "Dead" very much, it's just the little quirks that stop me from saying this remake is better than the original.  It appeals to the ADD crowd with running zombies, slow-motion, quick cuts, and isolates the purists a bit, but overall, Snyder creates a neo-zombie film that gives the audiences everything they want; hardcore zombie gore, boobs (a little), and intense action.  Zack Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead" is worthy of your time.

Fun Fact:  While the original "Dead" took place in the greater Philadelphia/Pittsburgh area, the remake takes place in Milwaukee, WI.

Read More

31 Nights Of Halloween, Shocker

Shocker: Mess

The Idea is fun, The Content is weak

This is a review and also a questionnaire if anyone knows the answers to. I have so many question on this film. The first time I ever knew about this film was at the dollar store years ago. I had found the soundtrack there for just a dollar and thought it would be a cool film to watch. After listening to the disk I just had to watch this film, which brought up a ton of question. Never has a film left me with so many questions before.
"I eat this wimp's will power for breakfast, John-bo." Let me say first I know its a comedy-horror hybrid. It just doesn't work for me this time around. Peter Bergs acting is not the greatest, lets just say that. Mitch Pileggi is the only reason to watch this poorly made film. Wes Craven is a favorite of mine mostly do to, A Nightmare on Elm Street, a horror masterpiece (In my opinion). This film isn't even close to good let alone a masterpiece. Craven seems to wanna recreate that magic that was on Elm Street and as well as a new franchise. By trying to recreate, they created a film that so bloated it seems they tried every idea they could think of. It's almost 2hrs long and thats way too long for this film, just way too long. The idea is so stretched out it gives stretch armstrong a run for this money. That line there might of been bad, but its nowhere near the cheesy dialogue in this film.

Here is a film that knows its not suppose to be good (at least I think so) and goes with it. Only redeeming value is watching this with friends do to its stupidity, other then that is hard to watch by yourself. 

The scene that sticks out for me, is the Park scene, in which we get a odd "gun shooting count".
This is how it goes...
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12
(Reloads)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
(Reloads)
Throws Gun
New Gun
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
"It's no good, Pinker; Alison told me the secret. Maybe you *were* my father, but you know who my father is now? You know who's responsible for me? Me; no one else."(Spoilers if you care ahead!)

Side notes: Nobody seems to care that there is a cop trying to kill a kid at this park. Also the children continue to play as gun shots ring out. And why does Jonathan seem to be running in a circle that whole time? Really lets just say, the whole direction of this film is a Mess. Doing this creates many plot-holes and makes the movie not a movie but a joke. The script needs a line of time to stay on its course, like a train on a track. The film seems to have its scenes written individually, thrown in a bag then picked out one by one for the film. This makes things tough to follow and allows the viewer to really not care. As you watch this film things just pop up for no reason, like Alison talking from the dead, did I miss something? And the damn necklace that Jonathan gives to her, apparently it has a bit magic, how? And didn't he get rid of the necklace 6ft under? How did it come back from being 6ft under? 

"It smells like the goddamn electric chair in here." 
So as I watch this film I asked myself, if Pinker is apparently Jonathan's father, then why is he trying to kill his own son? Because his son shot Pinker in the leg? Seems a bit much I think. Also why the hell is Jonathan so damn hard to kill? Because Jonathan doesn't seem so bright, I mean he does run in circles as Pinker tries to kill him. Oh and I don't think anyone will disagree on this one, but Jonathan's adapted father is a idiot. Why was he written so badly? He doesn't realize anything, even when Jonathan proves to him he knows things that can help catch Pinker, he keeps shooting down his adapted kid who knows things he shouldn't know.

How could he travel into bodys, because of the devil worshiping he did? Is that why he can't die? And how can Jonathan see into the future? I found it funny the cops have to read the miranda rights from a piece of paper, they don't know it by heart yet?

And why was finding one killer so difficult? Seriously they had a shitty group of police in that town.
Why? Why? Why?
Maybe I just don't remember, but I do believe they didn't explain this stuff. Hey possibly I had passed out or something because I've never had so many question after watching a movie.
Listen I usually don't care so much about stupid films like this, I really like stupid horror films for the comedy side of it but this film had too many questions on this one.

Like I said in the beginning watch it with friends or if you can't sleep one night pop it in.

Read More

Simplistic Reviews Presents: Word Association

The second feature for the upcoming Simplistic Reviews Podcast proves that all you need to make a great game show is a simple concept, catchy music, and a rather unorthodox announcer.  Welcome to Word Association.

Read More

31 Nights of Halloween, Psycho (1960)

Psycho (1960) - Prodding

Slasher films have been around for a loooooong time, and have had plenty of ups and downs.  Take "Halloween" for instance, it pretty much invented "the formula." Then you have "Friday the 13th" that perfected "the formula." After that you had plenty of other slasher fodder, including any holiday being translated into slasher fare.  Let me illustrate.

I digress, I'll continue this rant in another review, but it does bring me to a point; recent slasher films (and I use that term loosely) are awful.  There is nothing iconic about the sub-genre anymore.  Gone are the days of Michael Myers, Jason Vorhees, and Leatherface.  However, it does bring me to the most recent review on the "31 Nights of Halloween" and that is Alfred Hitchcock's proto-slasher film, 1960's "Psycho."

You might think that I'm going to laud "Psycho"and say how great a film it is, well, it's just okay.  While there are many redeeming aspects, namely the cinematography, music, and the balls Hitchcock had (spoiler alert, c'mon this is a 50 year old movie) to kill off his star, Janet Leigh, "Psycho"doesn't hold up as well as some people think, and watching it again as an adult with more of a appreciation of the genre and film in general; it's prodding.

Maybe I'm committing blasphemy (I must be, because there is nothing negative out there about this film).  I've besmirched the greatness that is Alfred Hitchcock, The Master of Suspense.  Sorry Alfie, no hard feelings I hope, but "Psycho"just seems antiquated in this day and age.  It's almost a procedural serial killer/cop drama, which wouldn't work for the genre today.

"Psycho," based on Robert Bloch's novel of the same name, and loosely on 1950's serial killer, Ed Gein, is about Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), whose on the run with $40,000, and finds her way to the Bates Hotel, run by Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) and his domineering mother.  Crane is soon murdered by what seems to be a woman while taking the most famous shower in cinema history.  Bates finds the body, and disposes of both it and Crane's car.  Worried about her sister, Lila Crane (Vera Miles) hires private detective, Milton Aborgast (Martin Balsam), to track down her sister.  The P.I. meets a grisly fate at the hands of the same woman that murdered Marion.  Hearing nothing from their detective, Lila and Marion's lover, Sam Loomis (John Gavin), take matters into their own hands and head to the Bates Hotel. Lila, while investigating the Bates' residence, stumbles upon the basement revealing the skeletal remains of what seems to be Norman Bates' mother, revealing the twist that Bates was actually acting as his mother, thus committing the murders of both Marion and Aborgast.

When you break the movie down that way it sounds great; simple, effective, and trendsetting.  No one had seen that level of violence from a mainstream film, especially one done by Hitchcock.  The problem with "Psycho" is the pacing.  The interactions between characters seems forced (granted, I'm looking at this from a 2012 perspective as opposed to the 1960s) and it takes a while to move the story along.  I understand that is the point of a suspense film, but "Psycho" comes off as more of a noir, and when you think about it in that sense, it's an excellent study in noir film making.

What drives "Psycho" lies in the director and the composer.  Hitchcock brings an eeriness unlike any film before it and Bernard Herrmann's score brings a sense of dread in every scene, and "the shower scene" speaks for itself.

The point I'm trying to get at is this; would "Psycho" make it in today's horror market?  No, and the proof of that is the 1998 remake.  It's the same exact movie, only with different actors and in color.  If it didn't work then, it won't work now.  You also have to take into account what movies studios are pitching; found footage films.  You might say, "Hey Matt, you just watched "V/H/S" and you said you liked it?!"  Yes, I did enjoy "V/H/S", but when it comes to the horror genre that's all you're going to get.  That, and another "Final Destination" and something else that has something to do with demonic possession.  No matter how bad the film is, people will eat it up, and a relatively smart film like "Psycho" wouldn't stand a chance.

"Psycho" is a film that you can call timeless in it's direction, tone, and music, but the way the story is constructed and once the twist ending is out there is little replay value from a shock standpoint.  If you want an education in film study, sure, "Psycho" is great, but it's a time capsule film what worked then, but doesn't really work now.

Fun Fact:  John Carpenter named Donald Pleasence's hero psychiatrist from the "Halloween" series after Sam Loomis from "Psycho."

Read More