Like I said, I do occasionally read a bit and this has been on my agenda for too long: I read John Dies at the End and I need to tell you what I thought. So, here goes nothing!
The book is written by David Wong, a feature writer over at Cracked.com (hilarious website, I recommend you check it out if you get a chance) and it's abundantly clear from the beginning this book doesn't take itself too seriously. John Dies at the End has a brilliant mix of comedy and horror contained in its pages, showing Wong's love for both genres. For example, a monster composed entirely of pieces of meat (the head is a turkey, a deer tongue hanging below it, hams for legs, sausages for fingers) actually conjures up quite a scare when it first comes to life. However, as it speaks, it says, "So nice we could meat again." Wong says he has no way of knowing if it actually said "meet" or "meat", but he gives it the benefit of the doubt. Oh, did I forget to mention the main character (besides John, that is) is also named David Wong? It's not his actual name, but it's a combination of a generic American first name and one of the most common last names in the world, so as to make him hard to find. As David does battle with the "meatstrocity", you find a writer who knows how to make you laugh but create a terrifying situation to laugh at.
The stories told by the character David Wong get increasingly stranger towards the end of the book (yes, the meat monster is one of the tamer tales in the beginning of the book). Wong is being interviewed for a magazine article and he delves deeper and deeper into a world of the unknown opened up by soy sauce and tiny, brain-eating worms. As wig monsters try to hunt him down in a Vegas hypnotist's show, he manages to avoid the all-seeing eye of Korrok. John then tracks down a giant crab with a gorilla riding it and opens an inter-dimensional rift to a place where naked people try to kill the fake John and David. Are you following any of this?
Trust me, it's just as absurd in the book.
However, it will make more sense if you read the book. And that's where the strength of this book lies: in its absurdity and ability to make light of terrifying situations. The descriptions in the book are fun to read and you wonder just what sort of screwed up monsters Wong will craft for you next. And aside from an unhealthy obsession with phallic objects, the monsters remain original and different every time he introduces them. The book is a spellbinding read and highly enjoyable. It's also fairly quick, for those of you with short attention spans.
I urge to find it and read it. John Dies at the End is great fun and a must-read for horror and comedy fans alike.
So I'm going to keep on telling you guys about the great little gems I find that go straight to video here in the US. I will also try to include movies that either got a very limited release in theaters or ones that were released in other countries but not here. So today, I give a little love a personal favorite of mine from the last couple of years:
The Signal
It opens with a woman by the name of Mya cheating on her husband and her lover Ben tells her they can run away together and be happy. She doesn't know what to say, so Ben tells her to think about it and gives her a mix cd he made for her. As she goes down to the parking structure, she has a couple of odd run-ins with some random people and gets a little freaked out. As she arrives home to her husband Lewis, strange things are happening in the hallway of their apartment building. Lewis is getting ready to watch the game with his friends, but some sort of strange signal is coming through the TV instead of the game. It seems to effect Lewis in a very strange way. A small argument amongst the men escalates into Lewis going berserk and killing one of his friends. As Mya scrambles to get away from Lewis, she finds more terrible things going on in the hallway. As chaos envelopes everything around her, she scrambles to find a safe place and thus begins Lewis and Ben trying to find her before the other.
The movie is shot in 3 different parts: the beginning, which is straight horror; the middle, which is more lighthearted and would qualify as a dark comedy; and the end, which is more of a blend of horror, comedy, and love story. Each segment is written and directed by a different person, giving it three distinct styles in one movie. But the most impressive thing is that while each segment feels a little different, they all still flow and gel like a single entity, never making you feel like you are watching a different movie. They all work together really well and give the movie just the right feel. Some people will tell you they didn't like how the movie never really decided what it wanted to be, but I perceive that to be The Signal's greatest strength: it does three genres (horror, comedy, romance) and does all of them well.
The beginning deluge of chaos gives it a very frantic feel and the gore in it is pretty sparse. It's violent, yes, but it's more blood than gore, just opting to splatter people in fake blood rather than disemboweling them. There is a lot of violence however, so faint of heart beware. However, the bloodiest parts are often some of the funniest parts once you get past the first third of the movie. A couple expecting guests for their New Years Party and one winding up dead, a man talking to a disembodied head, and a guy spraying bug spray in people's eyes are all among the things that would normally seem rather grim, but The Signal handles all with a comedic deftness that most funny movies can't even achieve.
Overall, The Signal is one of my favorite movies of the last couple of years, let alone horror. I really enjoyed watching it because it was something new to me. The plot is pretty heavily borrowed from the Stephen King novel Cell (or coincidentally is very similar), but it's just different enough that it isn't just a rip-off. It's a very worthwhile film if you have a chance to check it out!
After coming across this nice little video, I just had to share this with all of you guys:
It is quite the cop out: no cell reception. But it makes sense in a lot of the movies because of the location. I am not mad because if you didn't insert that one little line, then everyone would ask, "Why don't they just use their cell to call for help?" It's a bit of a crutch, but it's rather essential to most of the movies. Any thoughts?
So in my previousinstallments of my Master of Horror theme, I have examined filmmakers and how their movies rate. Well, with the upcoming release of his new book, I decided to take a look at Stephen King's writings and how they have fared being turned into movies. Now, I haven't seen all of the movies that have been made from his books, but i have seen a good deal of them. I had to narrow down the list, so here are the requirements for my list:
1. No miniseries. Yes, I liked The Stand and things like that, but I want movies here. 2. Has to be based of a book or story by King. I love Creepshow and Rose Red, but I want this to be an adaptation of an existing work. 3. I will stick to the horror side of King. Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile are all good movies, but they aren't horror. 4. No sequels. Yes, he may have made up the characters for Children of the Corn 4 or Pet Sematary 2, but he didn't write what they were based off of. Well, in a way I guess, but no. 5. No matter how the movie was, it's not King's fault (necessarily).
*As always, this isn't a complete filmography. If you want to see that, go here.
Carrie (1976): A brilliant movie. Not much can be said about this Brian De Palma masterpiece. It's a little dated, sure, but even film critics that don't like horror can't help but admit this is a great movie. Good book too.
The Shining (1980): Replace "Brian De Palma" with "Stanley Kubrick" in the previous review, and that's how I feel here. Consistently number 1 or 2 on my favorite horror movies of all time lists, The Shining is amazingly well done and terrifying to this day.
Cujo (1983): This movie wasn't that bad, but it didn't have nearly the punch the novel did. This stems greatly from the severely changed ending. Warning: Spoilers for a 20 year old film and older book!: In the book, the mother and her son are trapped in a car in the heat. She ends up killing the rampaging dog to come back to the car and find her son died. She snaps and coddles the dead boy even after the EMTs arrive and try to take the body from her. It's powerful, disparate, and moving. The movie ends with her and the son surviving. Sure, it's a happy-go-lucky standard Hollywood ending, but come on! That really bugs me. The movie isn't terrible though, so you can still watch it.
The Dead Zone (1983): One of David Cronenberg's few horror movies that doesn't feature a lot of grotesque creatures and gore effects. However, it's still captivating. The Dead Zone was an establishing movie for Christopher Walken and even though he does mostly goofy stuff now, you can see that he can act very well if need be. A must see, in my opinion. Christine (1983): A double whammy: Stephen King and John Carpenter. The duo did amazingly well with this movie, making a murderous car one of the scariest things in the 80s. It's not Carpenter's best film, but it's a good one for sure, and an essential for any fan of either Carpenter or King.
Children of the Corn (1984): A cult classic. While it looks a little more dated than some of the other King movies from this era, it did manage to spawn quite the movie franchise and it terrified me when I was a kid, that's for sure. After a recent viewing, it didn't quite have the same effect, but it's still a good movie.
Maximum Overdrive (1986): This is the only movie that King has no excuse for. It's a bad movie, based off a mediocre short story that marks the only movie King ever directed. He was so turned off after doing this movie, he vowed never to direct again. Probably a good thing.
The Running Man (1987): So bad, yet so good. So very 80s. It's cheesy, but that's half the appeal of the movie. I can't in good conscience call it a good movie, but I can't say it's a bad movie either.
Pet Sematary (1989): One of my favorite horror movies of all time. It's so very creepy and macabre, I can't help but love it. Gage still creeps me out and the Achilles' tendon scene will forever give me the willies:
Misery (1990): Rob Reiner does it again with a Stephen King story. Kathy Bates is perfect. James Caan gives a great performance as the crippled writer. And we find the second consecutive movie with a brilliant "cringe inducing moment": the hobbling scene. Just watch this and tell me you don't shudder:
The Lawnmower Man (1992): Yeah, King actually removed his credit from this movie because he disliked it so much. It wasn't very good, but it was still based off a story by the man himself, so like it or not, he's got a tie to it. This one was pretty bad.
Sleepwalkers 1992): I can remember watching this as a kid and being fairly frightened of it. The problem is, when I bought it a couple years ago for $5 on DVD, it definitely has not aged well. I was tempted to call this a good one, but it's not. It's a pretty bad movie upon my recent review.
The Dark Half (1993): Romero directs this rather dull adaptation of a King story. It's pretty uninspired, but I already wrote about it in my Romero MoH article.
The Mangler (1995): You would think that if Tobe Hooper and Stephen King hooked up, they would be able to make a good movie out of that (especially featuring Robert Englund!). But alas, The Mangler pretty much sucks, so it was not meant to be.
The Night Flier (1997): I actually think this is an underrated King adaptation and that it deserves a better reputation. I liked this movie, even if it was a bit low budget. It's by no means the best King adaptation out there, but I feel like it's a nice little flick.
Apt Pupil (1998): I wrestled with putting this on the list as it's more of a drama than horror, but I feel like the performance Brad Renfro turned was haunting enough. A movie that should be on everyone's radar, we find a Nazi war criminal (Ian McKellan) hiding in America for 50 years, only to have a high school student recognize him and make him tell war horror stories. A truly frightening film.
Dreamcatcher (2003): One of my favorite King books turned into a rather thin movie. It was pretty boring and not nearly as engaging as the book was. Though seeing a "shit weasel" come to life on screen was pretty satisfying.
Secret Window (2004): So this movie isn't really anything all that great, but the actors in it are the reason to watch it. Johnny Depp, John Turturro, Maria Bello, and Charles Dutton are all quite good in their roles. The ending is trite and been done before (and better), but the rest of the movie is made good by the actors.
1408 (2007): I really liked this short story and the prospect of seeing John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson bring the main characters to life excited me. It was, however a pretty forgettable horror movie. I didn't dislike it, but it wasn't anything I have any desire to watch again.
The Mist (2007): I love this movie... in black and white. I like it in color too, don't get me wrong, but it's amazing in B&W. It's so well done and the creatures look great in the grayscale color scheme (they were a little hokey in color). The ending is so powerful, it's amazing.
And that's all I've seen of his. That totals up 8 great movies, 6 okay movies, and 7 bad movies. It seems that the 90s weren't very good to King, as most of the bad movies came from that era. Although that's also when a couple good miniseries came (It, The Stand) and when some of his best non-horror work was done (Shawshank, The Green Mile, Dolores Claiborne). But in the end, I consider him a Master of Horror regardless of the number of bad movies, mostly because he had little influence over them (aside from Maximum Overdrive). Stephen King continues to scare to this day and let me tell you, I am excited about an adaptation of Cell, if it ever happens (especially now that Eli Roth isn't attached).
So there aren't that many horror based TV shows out there (which is a shame) and the few that show up often aren't that great. I am a purveyor of such shows however, and I am trying to come up with what I would consider the best horror TV shows of all time. The problem is that I haven't seen such classics as Kolchak: The Night Stalker or haven't seen that many episodes of things like The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits, or Alfred Hitchcock Presents. So, I am going to do the 5 best Horror Themed TV Shows Since 1990. But where to begin?
*A couple points of criteria: 1. They have to be shows I watch(ed). 2. The shows need to be American in origin (sorry Riget). 3. Not miniseries or one-offs, actual series. 4. I need to consider them horror (Buffy and Angel, while good, are not quite horror enough for me).
5. Masters of Horror (Showtime 2005-2007): It only ran for two seasons (and the second season wasn't quite as good), but it definitely made me take notice. With episodes like "Incident On and Off a Mountain Road" (Coscarelli), "Cigarette Burns" (Carpenter), and "Imprint" (Miike), the series could chill and frighten. It also showed that some directors still had the ability to make something good. I really enjoyed the overall run of the series, but when it went to Fear Itself, it pretty much lost me. But watch the 2 seasons of Masters of Horror for some great moments, even if not all the episodes are that great.
4. Millennium (Fox 1996-1999): Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files, managed to create another gem with Millennium. It follows Frank Black (played wonderfully by the amazing Lance Henriksen), a detective who has the ability to see things from the mind of a killer and try to track them down. As the series progressed, Frank got deeper and deeper into a conspiracy involving the mysterious Millennium group, not knowing what he had gotten himself into. It was dark, scary, and unfortunately short. The series was so poorly wrapped up that Carter wrote an episode into a season of The X-Files in order to wrap up Millennium. It was a great run for this show, even if it was a short run.
3. American Gothic (CBS 1995-1996): Featuring the considerable talents of Gary Cole, Lucas Black, and Jake Weber, American Gothic was a nefariously overlooked show at the time. It has since gained a bit of a cult following, but it nonetheless remains a criminally underrated show. Cole plays a vicious Southern sheriff that is trying to take Black as his own son. As the series played out, you find that Cole has some very evil intentions (and equally evil powers) for our young hero, but Black has his dead sister and a friendly doctor (Weber) to protect him. With a tagline that still creeps me out ("Someone's at the door"), the show was a great mix of scares and serious storyline. Buy it on DVD if you have a chance!
2. Tales from the Crypt (HBO 1989-1996): Yeah, I said since 1990, but this is close enough for me. Quite frankly, no list of horror TV shows is complete without Tales from the Crypt. From the intros by the Cryptkeeper (which scared the hell out of me when I was a kid) to the theme by Danny Elfman to the many great guest stars, it was just an incredible TV series. I can't tell you what my favorite episode is, but I can tell you that anytime I go back and start watching them again, I still enjoy them. Anytime I find them on TV (which is rare), I stop and watch whatever happens to be on. It's just that good.
1. The X-Files (Fox 1993-2002): The show that redefined Sci-Fi and Horror television. It made people that didn't care about horror and sci-fi tune in week after week to see what would happen next to Mulder and Scully. I started off watching the show every Sunday. After a couple of weeks, my mom would sit and sew while sort of watching it with me. Pretty soon she wasn't sewing anymore and was just watching the show. That brought my sister and father in out of curiosity and pretty soon, it was a family viewing experience. The show was so well written, wonderfully scary, and just all around a blast to watch. I have the first 7 seasons on DVD (after Mulder left, I didn't like the show as much), and I still watch them. My mother will still tell me that her favorite episode is "Home", which features inbred brothers trying to produce offspring with their mother. The episode was banned from TV for a couple of years because of its graphic subject matter and it remains one of the best episodes of The X-files or any other TV series ever in my opinion. Plus, I bet if you start whistling the theme song, nearly everyone will know it (and probably get a bit freaked out in the process).
So after re-watching Paranormal Activity (sober this time) and watching [rec] this weekend, I started to compare the two movies quite a bit. They are both handheld horror, so that started the obvious comparison. But the main thing to remember is that they are both very good handheld horror. While the movies both have quite different plots, they are similarly terrifying and both highlight the idea that there is no escape from the respective terrors. I just had to wonder how they stacked up against each other. So we have a rumble on our hands folks!
First, a look at [rec]. This is the Spanish film that inspired Quarantine, in case you don't know that already. Well, the movie opens with a film crew doing a show about what happens when you sleep. They are following a group of firemen for a night when they get a call about an elderly woman who is hurt in her apartment. After the woman attacks a police officer already on the scene, the building is suddenly quarantined off and the survivors aren't allowed out. They find out slowly that whatever was wrong with the old woman can be spread to others and things start going very poorly for our poor residents. Things escalate into one of the creepiest final scenes in horror history.
Paranormal Activity is an American movie made about 2 years ago, but until recently never really saw the light of day in theaters. It follows a couple that recently moved in together and you discover that the woman has been haunted by something since she was very young, no matter where she was living. As the young couple begin watching the footage after each night, they discover that whatever it is that haunts them is getting bolder and stronger. Finally, things escalate into one of the creepiest final scenes in horror history.
Both movies rely on the cinema verite angle of film making, going for the found footage look to the movies. However, [rec] seems to be riding the wave of "zombie" films that have been permeating the film industry lately. I put zombie in quotes because while [rec] isn't a true zombie film in the Romero sense, it is close enough for me. That being said, [rec] is an exceptional zombie movie, so it does have that going for itself. Paranormal Activity is a unique story of a haunting in that it's not tied to a house or location, but a person being tormented by a demon. The two movies are both in established genres, but you don't see as many haunting movies like that recently, so the edge goes to Paranormal Activity.
Paranormal Activity relies a lot on the static shots of the bedroom at night. Those shots are the scariest of the film, and they are great because of their simplicity, but that's exactly why it's not quite as interesting on a cinematography level. [rec] is very shaky and frantic, often reflecting the tone of the action on screen. It gets a bit hard to watch at times because of the movement of the camera, but it's interesting to see what gets framed up. The best shots of the two movies come from [rec], framing up all kinds of scary things on the fly, rather than having the benefit of being statically set up. Therefore, [rec] gets the edge for cinematography.
Well, what is going to be the tie breaker? I have to go with scare factor on this one. Starting with [rec], you get some truly great scenes. The initial old woman attack is tense and taut. The scene where the little girl is on the loose is nearing brilliance with the way she shows up in frame. The shot of all the infected people in the staircase is one of the craziest, most frantic scenes in recent memory. It's full of scares.
Paranormal Activity is a fairly regular movie until the static bedroom scenes. Those scenes are where the movie really truly excels. The shot where the sheets billow up and the shadow moves across the door is amazing. The shot where talcum powder is put down and footprints appear from nothing is brilliant in its simplicity. And any of the shots with just sounds are wonderfully frightening.
So it comes down to the final scenes of both movies. Both are amazing. I won't say what happens in either, but when it finally came down to it, I had to think of which one was more original. Something I truly hadn't seen before. That went to Paranormal Activity. It was so brilliantly simple and creepy. While [rec] had an amazing creature in the end that I can't seem to forget, it's what is not shown in PA that makes it scarier. So in the end, Paranormal Activity is scarier to me and therefore, wins the battle.
The honest truth is that if you watch either of these movies, you will be scared and satisfied. They are both great, but I think PA seems to be a bit more ingenious in the way it is presented. Watch both of them and tell me what you think!
I was ordering things on Amazon, as I am often doing, and I needed to get my order up to $25 (so I could get the free shipping), and I saw Death Watch sitting there in my recommendations. I had heard some good things about this movie, so I blind bought it, eagerly awaiting its arrival. It came this weekend, so I popped it in and watched it. The question is, how did I like it? First, a brief plot synopsis:
In the brutal trench fighting of the First World War, a British infantry company is separated from their regiment after a fierce battle. Attempting to return to their lines, the British soldiers discover what appears to be a bombed out German trench, abandoned except for a few dazed German soldiers. After killing most of the Germans, and taking one prisoner, the British company fortifies to hold the trench until reinforcements can arrive. Soon, however, strange things begin to happen as a sense of evil descends on the trench and the British begin turn on each other.
As always, if you don't know my criteria, here's an explanation.
Cinematography: The movie mostly takes place in the trenches of WWI, so it's pretty claustrophobic. And that's exactly what it needs to be in order to show the immediacy of the action. The movie is a lot of close shots (with a few range shots thrown in when appropriate), but that's what makes it feel so scary. Everything feels immediate and right next to you. The entire movie gives a good sense of dread and the shots at night really set a great atmosphere. The use of fog is quite effective as well, adding an almost dreamlike state to the film, which works perfectly with the subject matter. The use of shaky camera style is used a couple of times, which I didn't feel was necessary and the first battle scene felt a little forced, but it was an otherwise very well filmed flick. I give it 3.5 out of 5 for Cinematography.
Execution: You don't see a whole lot of movies based around the time of WWI, so right away I was intrigued by that. The costumes and settings make it feel like you are watching people in that era, which I appreciate a lot. The actors are all quite good, with the only remotely famous actor being Andy Serkis, who is best known for being the basis for Gollum and King Kong. But the actors all carry the film along very well, each playing the role amply. The characters are ones we have seen before (the tough, grisly soldier; the inept officer; the cowardly new recruit), but they are all engaging. Even the people you don't want to see survive keep your attention, so I give Death Watch a 4 out of 5 for Execution.
Sub-Genre Comparison: Well, there aren't a whole lot of WWI horror movies as I said before, so the movie can't really be compared to anything on that front. Death Watch is, at its core, a haunting movie, so it should really be compared to other haunted house movies. The heavy hitters in that category for me are The Shining and Event Horizon. Death Watch isn't quite as good as those movies, but there's a pretty good reason why I consider them to be the comparison points: they are two of my favorite horror movies of all time. Death Watch is definitely one of the better haunting movies I have seen recently and more than stacks up against anything of the last couple years. Death Watch receives a nice 3.5 out of 5 for Sub-Genre Comparison.
Production Value: This is not a big-budget Hollywood film. It doesn't look like one either. You can tell this movie was done with a lower budget. That being said, it does well with what it was given. The make-up effects are pretty good when used and the gore is generally well done. However, the use of CGI is pretty apparent and a little off-putting at times. That being said, the CGI wasn't terrible (and the movie is 7 years old now, so it's somewhat excusable), but the traditional effects were much more convincing and powerful. As I said before, there is a bit of gore in the film, but it is only used when necessary and is used as an effective product. It would be nice to see this movie with a bit more of a budget, but for Production Value, it earns 3 out of 5.
Scares: Finally, the all important question: was it scary? Well, as I said before, the movie is claustrophobic and shot mostly in the trenches, which right away makes it creepy. One thing that Death Watch does very effectively is set an atmosphere that makes you want to look away. It has a great creepy vibe with rats all over the place and a bunch of dead bodies everywhere. There is a scene in particular where a character finds 3 people standing at the end of a trench, unmoving. When he gets closer, the people are found to be rotting corpses encompassed in razor wire, but standing up under their own power. As the soldier investigates them, you start to cringe just thinking about the situation. It's a very effective scene in the movie. Death Watch is very good at setting tense situations, so I give it 4 out of 5 for Scares.
And the final tally is a nice 18 out of 25 for Death Watch. This would put it above average, but not a must see movie. It's a good movie that I haven't heard a lot about though, so I encourage you to go and watch it. There are some great scenes and watching Andy Serkis hit things with a club with nails sticking out of it is almost worth the price of admission in itself. I recommend this movie!
Posts
