The Evil Dead (1981) Review

Five Michigan State University students venture into the hills to spend a weekend in an isolated cabin. There they find the Book of the Dead (a Babylonian and Sumerian text, unrelated to the Egyptian Book of the Dead), otherwise known as the Morturom Demonto. They also find a tape recording by a professor translating the ancient text and reading it aloud. An amateur book-on-tape if you will. Much to the protest of one of the students they play the tape which unleashes demonic forces that take them down one by one. Are you annoyed by the lack of a more in-depth plot summary? To be honest the above paragraph is all I am really able to tell you and still keep this review spoiler free.

The film, written and directed by Sam Raimi, is easily one of the scariest low-budget films I have ever seen. Once the horror scenes begin they don't let up until the credits roll and by the end of the film I was genuinely upset by what all had occurred. Not because it's gruesome or needlessly filled with sex but because I wanted things to work out for the characters in the film. It is one of those films where you are happy it is over.

Perhaps the best scene in the film is when the first character is possessed. She gains an ability to guess the cards in a deck and she turns to reveal hollowed out eyes, a scarred face and a much deeper voice. As if she had inhaled Sulfur Hexafluoride. She contorts her body while the demon inside her reveals its intentions. Many of you are aware that I don't generally care for splatter movies unless they can bring something to it besides blood and guts. What the film brings is false leading. There's several moments where you expect the monster to jump out and when it doesn't you can't relax.

An interesting, cheap and classic way to not have to reveal your villain is to run the camera across the ground in the spirit's point of view. I know I have discussed the trend where, because of a POV shot, we are unable to sympathize with the main characters and eventual victims. However if you never show what happens when your monster attacks you are never really put in the eyes of the villain. Sure the effects are dated and the acting is a bit cheesy but what is the most basic purpose of a horror film? It's to scare you. I have to ask myself did the film fail at its intentions. After a night of uneven sleep, I say without a doubt most certainly.

★★★★

 

 

Scream (1996) Review

Slasher films are that sub-genre of horror that give the rest of the horror films a bad name. Their purpose is put a bunch of pretty people in a situation where they have a very good chance of being stabbed, shot, disemboweled, decapitated, burned, electrocuted or disposed of. After all those films with Freddy, Jason and Michael Myers certain patterns begin to emerge. You know the big ones. Virgins never die and strange noises ought not to be investigated but probably will be so you can see another gruesome kill. There is no subtlety in a slasher movie and, since they don't scare someone by raising tension and building suspense, they increase the body count. There are always exceptions to the rule that says these films are dreck. Scream could possibly be the first one to break that rule effectively.

Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is having a rough time lately: After the brutal rape and murder of her mother a year ago, one of her classmates (Drew Barrymore) has been killed by a lunatic who harassed her with terrifying phone calls and quizzing her on the details of such films as Friday the 13th and Halloween. Soon Sydney starts receiving similar phone calls and is attacked by what we presume to be the same cloaked maniac. With her father missing, she has hardly anyone on her side except her best friend Tatum (Rose McGowan) and Tatum's brother Dewey (David Arquette), a half-bright cop. The murderer could be any number of people: Sydney's father; her cute but overly intense boyfriend Billy (Skeet Ulrich); Tatum's boyfriend Stuart (Matthew Lillard); Randy the movie geek (Jamie Kennedy) or the "tabloid twit" Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox).

Generally when people think of modern horror they are usually aware of two names even if they have never delved into it before. Now that I think about it can you imagine a film directed by Wes Craven and based on a book by Stephen King? I digress but those were the names I planned to mention before I got off-track. Craven, the director, knows how to structure a film to get your audience reacting whatever that reaction may be. He also knows enough about the horror genre to make fun of it intelligently. What he manages to do with Kevin Williamson's script is put more of the focus on the scenes in between the murders. After the horrific opening scene we go to Sydney's bedroom and a scene that for all intents and purposes is sweet and almost romantic. These scenes serve to give the audience a sense of who the characters are as people instead of happy, brainless creatures who spout one-liners until they die.

One of the many things that work so well about the film is its willingness to poke fun at itself and the genre. One does not realize while you watch it that the film is almost self-aware. The characters in it even speak about their lives as if they were in a movie. Its jabs at the horror genre are whimsical and clever. So much so that it crosses into the realm of satire without losing its horror film feel.

★★★1/2

House of Dracula (1945) Review

The third film in my OctHorrorFest series of viewings and reviews is House of Dracula. It's one of the two major monster mash-ups that Universal put out to milk the money for their creations. Sometimes what happens when studios decide to combine their most popular creatures is disastrous. Remember Alien VS Predator?

Dracula (John Carradine) and Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) are tired of being monsters and so they both travel (separately) to Visaria, presumably somewhere in Europe, to enlist the help of a Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) who has a reputation of treating patients with strange diseases. With the help of his hunchbacked assistant Nina (Jane Adams), Dr. Edelman discovers that Dracula has a rare blood disease and Talbot has pressure on certain parts of the brain which bring about his hideous transformation. Unfortunately Edelman's treatment will take more than a month to be ready. Talbot, in a last ditched effort to end it all, jumps off a nearby cliff and into the ocean. He survives (as happened with all his previous attempts) and washes up into an underground cave. When Edelman joins Talbot they discover the body of the Frankenstein monster (Glenn Strange). How the monster managed to go from sinking in a swamp in House of Frankenstein to a cliff-side cave here is not clear. While he deals with the moral question that plagued all the other scientists who came across the monster, Edelman realizes that his experiments with Dracula have caused him to become a vampire as well. All of this leads to a showdown where only one monster can survive.

It's a shame that Onslow Stevens' career took a downward spiral towards the end of his life because he is really quite good in this film. The juxtaposition of the two sides of Dr. Edelman in the final act of the film has an almost Jekyll/Hyde feel to it. It's more than tousling up his hair and moving around with an evil grin on his face. He looks like Dr. Edelman, he sounds like Dr. Edelman but we know that these two are not at all the same. Although Stevens shines the truly great performance of the film is given by Lon Chaney Jr. who was an actor that, unfortunately, was not appreciated during his lifetime for the wonderfully complex portrayals of tortured souls or hulking monsters that he brought forth. By this, his fourth appearance as Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man, Chaney exudes a tragedy that is familiar to those who have seen the other films but no less meaningful.

My only lament for the film is that the Frankenstein monster is left with nothing to do but lie on an operating table and, in the film's climax, have a thankless lurch around the lab. This is a far cry from Boris Karloff's riveting emotional portrayal of the monster in three of the earlier films. Still the fault is not with Strange. He does the best he can with what he's given which sadly isn't much.

Offering just enough scares and plenty of camp, House of Dracula is a wonderful monster mash up for a more civilized audience. Is it perfect? No but the thing about these films that you have to remember is that they are like a fine wine. They just get better with age and the more you watch them.

★★★



 

The House on Haunted Hill (1959) Review

This film is a frequently viewed favorite of mine. I try to watch it at least once a year. Usually this happens during the month of October. Featuring plenty of twists and a couple effective scares it is the second of my daily reviews for a horror film this month.

Vincent Price stars as Frederick Loren. A sinister gent (you're surprised?) who owns a sinister mansion on a sinister hill. He offers several of his enemies $10,000 each. As is the normal practice with such an offer he, just for fun, throws in a catch. If they agree to spend one night in his mansion they get the prize. If they leave or are somehow murdered they don't receive anything and their prize money is divided evenly between the remaining guests. Frederick festively gives each of his invitees a tiny coffin containing a handgun, then he takes delight in setting in motion a number of gadgets and devices designed to frighten the guests to using their weapons. The end result, he hopes, being that they all kill each other.

There's a certain moment in the film which utilizes what I like to call a "jump scare". A jump scare is intended to make people jump and then chuckle. This is a cheap technique that gives your audience five seconds of shock and then they're only reaction is to laugh at themselves. However in this film the jump scare is a primitive version of that technique in that there is no loud bang or sharp musical chord to accompany the scary image. I don't want to ruin that moment for the people who haven't seen the film or have never heard of said moment. Besides if you have seen the film you know exactly what moment I am talking about so I'll just say that after more than fifty years it still startles people and Vincent Price is still at his creepiest (you're surprised?) in this film.

All I can suggest is that, if given the choice between this film and the inadequate remake with Geoffrey Rush, search for this one. It might take you a little longer to find but trust me. It's worth it.

★★★1/2

 

Monkey Shines (1988) Review

You know those films that are so bad they're brilliant? Films that offer more enjoyment to make fun of than to take seriously. They are the films that you must take with a grain of salt. Otherwise you should be prepared for an awful experience. Frequently these films tend to be low-budget horror films. Monkey Shines is a film that is no exception. It is most certainly one of the films that the term "awesomely bad" seems to be coined for. Therefore I shall be giving it an earnest and occasionally good review. I know that the film is fairly, for lack of a better phrase, crappy but in this case entertainment value trumps what I know to be a low quality film.

Allan (Jason Beghe) takes care of himself. He eats healthy and jogs several times a day with a backpack full of bricks. His lifestyle and habits make little difference when he is hit by a truck and becomes a paraplegic. Allan loses all will to live until his best friend Geoffrey (John Pankow) gives him a genetically engineered monkey as an assistance animal. The monkey's name is Ella (Boo) and she becomes Allan's best friend while helping him. Eventually Ella's extreme intelligence causes her to develop feelings toward her master while developing feelings of jealousy toward her trainer (Kate McNeil). Ella begins to carry out Allan's subconscious wishes caused by his rage and his desire for revenge.

So much of this film is too ridiculous to be scary. I hope that director George A. Romero knew what he was doing when he decided to write this film. After all he's a man who has made a career out of making zombie films with underlying social commentaries for those smart enough to notice them. I admit I have not read the novel by Michael Stewart on which the film is based. I'm willing to give Romero the benefit of the doubt since this film was re-cut by Orion Pictures, the studio that released the film. The performances for the film are just bloody awful. Boo, the monkey actually outshines all of her human costars. Just as an example Beghe spends nearly the entire film paralyzed from the shoulders down. This means that he retains the ability to move his head and instead of moving as a realistic person he becomes a bobble head. The best example of this is when Allan yells at his overprotective mother, "Mother did you see my hand move or didn't you?!"
I admit the film itself is awful but God help me I liked watching it. If I didn't do you really think I'd give it such a high rating. Oh, what would we do without our guilty pleasures?

★★1/2