Let The Right One In (2008)

Let The Right One In, or Låt den rätte komma in, was directed by Thomas Alfredson, and stars Kåre Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson. It was filmed in Sweden, and can now be seen in theatres with English subtitles. It is based on a book by the same name, by John Ajvide Lindqvist. There is currently an American remake in production.

Let The Right One In is an excellent film. I attended with both my parents, neither of whom particularly enjoy Horror, and we all left with similar feelings of satisfaction. Let The Right One In combines just the right amount of gore and grisliness with what is, at heart, a love story. Oskar and Eli are, despite Eli's status as a vampire, just two isolated children who find solace in one another.

The treatment of Eli's character is really what makes the movie unique. She is not Anne Rice's Claudia, a spoiled and cunning woman in miniature, but a child. Her every movement is imbued with vulnerability, and the need to be accepted. When Oskar buys her some chocolates from a shop, she eats one, though she throws up moments later, because she so wants to be his friend. Eli is innocent, a word almost never used to describe a vampire. Her stomach rumbles with hunger before she goes out to feed, and she kills not out of blood lust but out of necessity.

This is not to say, however, that she is "good" or "tame." She does not feed on animals or from willing donors, but on any person she can. When Oskar is attacked by bullies, she responds with all the violence that comes with uncontrolled power. She is the perfect mix of monster and angel, making her awkwardly budding relationship with Oskar darkly endearing.

Overall: A+

The Dead Travel Fast: Stalking Vampires from Nosferatu to Count Chocula

The Dead Travel Fast: Stalking Vampires from Nosferatu to Count Chocula by Eric Nuzum, published in 2008 by St. Martin's Griffin. Available in paperback.

I really enjoyed this book.

It's really more of an anecdotal retelling of Nuzum's encounters interspersed with facts than a scholarly text, but this what, in the end, keeps this account appealing. Rather than composing a thorough and, in the end, lifeless account of the psychological motivations of the vampire-obsessed, or theories concerning how the vampire archetype originated, Nuzum focuses on what most audiences would most be interested in: stories about hanging out with crazy weirdos who think they're vampires.

However, this is also the weakness of the text. Though Nuzum sets out to discover the appeal of the vampire image and lifestyle, he has seemingly already made his appraisal: that these people are simply outcasts looking for empowerment, which they find through self-delusion. Nuzum fails to truly bond with any of his subjects, and keeps a cynical distance which is then imposed upon the reader. There is no growth over the course of the work. Nuzum gains no understanding, and many of his subjects are simply minor characters, passing in and out of the background.

However, this is not to say there is nothing to learn from the book. If one is interested in the history of Bram Stoker, this book provides quite a bit of information on his life and the conception of his most famous novel, along with the facts about his inspiration Vlad Tepes. However, I felt there were a few topics that were grievously overlooked. Anne Rice was barely mentioned, and though I harbor no particular love for her work, one must admit that she revitalized and forever altered the vampire mythology. Nuzum says he watched every episode of Buffy, in order, yet he never sets down his conclusions about the series. All in all, there were quite a few loose ends.

Research: A

Book Overall: B-

True Blood and Twilight

True Blood is currently airing on HBO on Sundays at nine.

Twilight is the first in a book series by Stephanie Meyers, and is now a movie starring Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson.

True Blood is what Twilight should have been. As I type this, I can hear the rattle of sabers as an army of thirteen year olds gathers at my door, but it is the truth. Really, the show is just a sexier interpretation of the books, with a dash of "Heroes" for good measure, set somewhere that isn't so horrendously rainy. This doesn't mean True Blood doesn't have its flaws, or Twilight its strengths, but True Blood is better if one is looking for horror.

I've read all of Twilight, New Moon and Eclipse, but only about a third of Breaking Dawn, as it was simply too ridiculous to allow me to continue. I can really see why all the Twi-Hards (this, or sometimes Twi-Nerd, is the proper term for Twilight fans) were so upset after its release. Though I only spent a few days on the series as a whole, I felt cheated. I can only imagine how everyone else felt.

There is simply too much to expound upon here in regards to the series. Beyond bad writing, or obsessive description devoted to Edward's beauty, intelligence and gentle disposition, Bella's character is obnoxiously weak. I wanted to scream at her. When Edward leaves for what he sees as Bella's own good, she basically goes catatonic for four months, as she can not function without him. Though she is a good student, she gives up on college for she no longer sees a reason for it now that she has found her "true love."

She is unable to defend herself, is manipulative and so emotionally immature one wonders how Edward, in his advanced age, can manage to hold a conversation with her. In what I think was a bid to make her character "lovably flawed," she is clumsy to the point of handicap, and basically must be rescued from herself every few pages. She does not even have a good nature to redeem herself, but is shrill and overly-opinionated in what I think was Meyer's failed attempt to make her a "strong female character." She is, unequivocally, a bad example for all those thirteen year old girls who love her, especially in concerns to romance. Everything is simply presented to her, and Bella and Edward's problems mostly stem from loving each other too much. It sets up unrealistic expectations.

On a more horrific note, Meyer's vampires are anything but. They possess every power, but every weakness of their kind has been eradicated. They can not walk in the direct sunlight not because they will burn, but because they will sparkle and thereby attract undue attention. They do not feed on humans, and seem more like good faries than creatures of the dark.

However, there are moments of danger and appeal. In Eclipse, which I think was actually acceptable as a novel, Edward rips a fellow vampire's head clean off her shoulders and it rolls to Bella's feet. These kind of moments, though few and far between, highlight the true essence of a vampire. That is exactly what NEEDS to be seen in the series, but are most often censored out.

This brings me back to True Blood. I have only watched the first four episodes, as I do not own a television, but I feel the basics of the series are already apparent. Violence pervades every scene of this show, and not only from the vampires.

Sookie, the main character, saves Bill the vampire from a couple attempting to steal his blood in order to sell it as a drug. Though she looks just like Hayden Panettiere from Heroes, she defies her tiny, blonde appearance and attacks the man with a chain. She sucessfully rescues Bill, but is later ambused by the couple, who throw her to the ground and kick her in the ribs until blood pours from her mouth.

As one can see, the makers of True Blood do not shy from violence, but I also enjoy that this violence is not soley the domain of the vampires. It certainly makes for a much more complex set of morals than the normal "humans good/vampires bad" party line.

I could go on about this, but I'm running out of room. Basically, True Blood simply has what Twilight lacks: violence, sex and above all, heart.

Twilight, the book: C-
New Moon: D
Eclipse: B
Breaking Dawn: F

Twilight Movie: B

True Blood: A

Almost Christmas

Such a long break between posts! I've been meaning to do many more movies, but the time between Halloween and Christmas Break was gobbled up by the Demon Exams. I am hoping from now on to do at least one post a week, every Sunday, though hopefully more often.

Another entry coming right up!
DR

Midnight Meat Train (2008)

Directed by Ryuhei Kitamura and starring Bradley Cooper, Midnight Meat Train is based on a short story by Clive Barker.

I know I've said this before, but what's with all the blurry blue/green posters? Bug (2006), Pulse (2006), Quarantine (2008)... Come on guys. You would think an original concept would better sell a movie than attempting to package it as another rip-off. However, the title still rocks.

That said, this movie was good. Not great, just good, as much as my Clive Barker-loving heart pains to say. However, it got me thinking about the nature of the conspiracy.

The Midnight Meat Train basically exists as a food supply for a race of demons that live beneath the city. The police and the conductors are in on the whole thing, and protect the one person whose job it is to dispatch the unlucky late-night passengers. This job is passed along as each executioner becomes less efficient and is found out by someone else. As one would expect after this information is revealed, the narrator, Leon Kauffman, becomes the next butcher after his ride on the Midnight Meat Train. He is actually presented with his equipment by the Chief of Police in the ending scene.

To me, this ties into a basic human fear, which is the fear of isolation. What is frightening about conspiracy is not what is actually being done, regardless of how malevolent the intentions, but one's own exclusion, that things are going on without one's knowledge.

It points to the powerlessness of the individual, and to the fact that one is NOT special. This, I think, is at the heart of all horror, and what makes it diametrically opposed to other genres such as fantasy: the protagonist, and thereby the reader/viewer, is not of any real importance. Underneath this, I think, is the message that most people try to avoid in their day-to-day lives, that someday they will die and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Midnight Meat Train: B-

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

THE day for Horror. I hope to see Midnight Meat Train tomorrow and hopefully post about it soon. :)

Watch out for monsters!
-DR

Richmond Zombie Walk!

The Zombie Walk was amazing. Over two hundred people showed up, and we shambled and growled through the streets of Carytown and made quite a ruckus. Photos from here and here. Sadly, all of my own photos are trapped on my cell-phone.

Sarah Palin Zombie!

Me and my friend Dominik, who is mostly obscured.

Really good gore effects.

Snarlin' for the camera. I did both Dominik's and my own makeup. I really wish I could get a close up of Dominik's, I think I did a good job on his. He had little flecks of green, like his body had been left in the woods.

So cute! A whole team of ice-skater zombies!

Jesus has got my back, yo.

Bird Flu Vaccine Study

A Bird Flu vaccine study?

This is totally code for injecting people with unproven cures, then rubbing sick birds on them and recording the results. If fast, infected-style zombie break out in Seattle, you'll know why.

Masters of Horror: Imprint (2006)

Imprint was made for the series "Masters of Horror," and aired as episode thirteen of the first season. It was directed by Takashi Miike of Audition(1999), and features Youki Kudoh, Michie Itô, and Billy Drago.

The Masters of Horror opening reminded me of a Gothed-out Nip/Tuck trailer with all the Photoshopped moving gargoyles and bleeding doll eyes and such. I felt like it was trying too hard to impress.

Really, if the director wants a movie to be truly lifelike, he or she should really dispense with most CGI work. I feel that most CGI effects end up falling into the Uncanny Valley. The effects are just real enough that the viewer's mind that the unrealistic bits seem more jarring by comparison, and ruin the effect overall. This idea is more closely associated with robotics, but I think it applies here just as well.

After the Masters of Horror opening, and up until about half-way in, I wasn't enthused. The first thirty minutes play like a high budget SciFi channel movie. This is especially bad because it it essentially the low budget that makes SciFi movies entertaining.

I almost turned it off, despite the cinematography, which was absolutely stunning. Everything is saturated in rich rainbow color, even during scenes of torture. The costumes were amazing.

However, beauty doesn't make up for bad scripts. Seriously. This movie is set in Nineteenth Century Japan, and everyone talks like characters in a teenage Lifetime movie. Even aside from a certain lack of originality in dialog, people in Japan a hundred years ago would not be using English proverbs like "Keep your chin up." I am sure there's a Japanese equivalent that would have meant the same thing but not sounded so out of place.

In addition, the script really didn't do the idea behind the movie justice. Miike really plays with the idea of narration, of what makes a story "true" or believable. He leads the viewer deeper and deeper into the story of Komomo's death, showing each scene in the scarred woman's story change as the facts behind it shift.

The story begins basically as a set of cliches, with a man returning to rescue the beautiful hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold and take her home with him to America. Though Kokomo is not at that geisha house, he is forced to stay the night and hires a geisha who keeps to the back of what looks like a jail cell the girls are kept in. Her face is scarred on the right side, the skin stretched oddly, giving her a permanent lopsided smile. She informs Christopher that Kokomo killed herself a few months before, as she believed Christopher to have abandoned her.

Christopher refuses to believe her, prying for more details. As he questions, her story expands and changes. The scarred woman herself transforms along with the shifts, going from noble hero to betrayer to monster. I don't want to give too much away, but in the end, the viewer is left in suspense as to what truly occurred, and left questioning who, exactly, is the monster.

Theory: A
Execution: C+

Dead Alive (1992)

Dead Alive, also known as Braindead, was released by Peter Jackson and stars Timothy Balme and Diana Peñalver.

First of all, this movie blew The Lord of the Rings (2001) right out of my head. This is what Peter Jackson should be known for, not hobbits tromping around New Zealand, no offense to the LoTR fans. There were literally buckets of blood sloshing over everything. It was like the hallway scene in The Shining (1980), but with chunks. Simply awe-inspiring amounts of gore.

The only problem I had was at the end. When Lionel and Paquita, the heroes of this fine piece of cinema, kiss in the end scene, they are absolutely covered in what must be at least a dozen zombies' worth of goo, but they don't even wipe their lips. Things like that bother me in movies.

However, that scene is the least of the disgusting things contained within this film. I have a pretty strong stomach, and I still had some trouble at times eating my cheese and crackers. I threw all my limbs in the air with disgust many times throughout the movie, but I tell you, I never took my eyes off the screen.

However, there was never a scene that felt smug. Watching, say, Hostel, (2005) one feels as if the film-maker is sitting back, smirking to him or her self and thinking, "Those smucks won't be able to handle this." In contrast, Dead Alive seemed gleeful in its treatment of the disgusting.

Every way that a person could possibly be killed is shown in amazing, over-the-top detail. It's intended to be gross, but any torture it intends to bring upon the viewer seems entirely good-natured. The message of the movie is basically, "Gross! Dude, come look at this!" and that is exactly what makes it enjoyable.

Dead Alive is high camp of the first order! A+

Zombie Walk!

Just thought I'd post some of these amazing pictures from Toronto's Zombie Walk. People went all out, and it really shows. Here's a few of my favorites:




Pictures from this site.

If you'd like to participate in a Zombie Walk, here's the site to see if there's one in your area. There'll be one in Richmond on Saturday and you can bet your brains I'll be there.

Quarantine (2008)

Quarantine was directed by John Erick Dowdle, and stars Jennifer Carpenter and Steve Harris. It is now in theaters.

Okay, I know a lot of people were angry that the trailer showed the end scene of the movie, which I agree was a stupid move on the part of Andale Pictures, but to me, the fact that the trailer AND the poster state "The residents were never seen again" gives more away. The inclusion of that sentence contextualizes the movie as just another "found footage" film, putting it up against Cannibal Holocaust,(1980) the horrible little movie that invented the genre, The Blair Witch Project (1999) and Cloverfield (2007), all of which could be said to have more going for them.

Without the trailer and poster, Quarantine stands up much better against the competition. The point-blank explanation of the cover-up given in the trailer dehumanizes the terror of the people trapped in the building. I finished the movie feeling spooked, but then I looked up the poster and it made me say "Meh" and basically forget everything I had just enjoyed about the film. The image, which is taken from the last minutes of the movie as well, makes the movie seem generic and derivative. It is practically interchangeable with the poster from Pulse(2006).

This is not to say that the plot isn't derivative. It absolutely is. Quarantine is a remake, specifically one that was put into production before the original, [REC] (2007) was even released. As a result, there's no way this movie wouldn't suffer somewhat. The thing that saved it, however, was the acting, which is something that can rarely be said about a horror movie.

This is evident in one of the last scenes, in which Angela, the reporter, and Scott, her camera man, are the last two people left uninfected. They enter a dark room for a reason I'm not too clear on. Angela is wailing and crying, and she keeps repeating "Keep the light on me!" to Scott, whose camera has a lamp attached to the front. To me, this captures perfectly the irrationality of terror. The light won't save her. In fact, it will probably attract more infected to her, but her human need for illumination, for vision and for the clarity she instinctively feels vision will bring her, is too strong. She descends into gibbering fear in a realistic way, without going over the top, and it really is the strength of the movie.

Scott has a similar moment after he beats an infected person to death with the camera. This not only makes for a really cool scene, but the few seconds shot with the lens spattered with blood are harrowing. Scott has a Lady Macbeth moment, with the camera trained on his face as he obsessively wipes off the blood long after it is gone. This is his only real screen time, but he certainly makes the most of it.

The movie also got me thinking about the new "fast" breed of zombie that has been so popular since the release of 28 Days Later (2002). I think their rise in popularity is not only due to the fast zombies' increased virulence as villains versus traditional shambling zombies, but to changes in what we fear as a culture. This fast zombie is never a dead person risen from the grave, but someone infected with a rage virus (28 Days Later), a mutation of rabies (Quarantine), or something similar. Even I Am Legend, (2007) which was based on a book about vampires, was transmuted into a movie about zombies caused by a faulty cure for cancer.

I've heard theories that zombies are a personification of people's fear of meaninglessness, but I think a greater, less existential fear has taken over: the fear of science. This is similar to the proliferation of nuclear mutation films in the 1950s. With all the current talk of pandemics and biological warfare, disease is in the front of everyone's mind, and corruption of the body is one of the most personal and intense fears a person can have. What is the fear of death if not a fear of betrayal by one's body, of pain? Combine this with a distrust of government and you get Quarantine.

Acting: A
Movie: B
Marketing: C-

Hatchet (2006)

Hatchet came out in 2006, was written and directed by Adam Green and stars Joel Moore, Tamara Feldman,and Deon Richmond, along with a supporting role from Mercedes McNab, or Harmony from Buffy!

First of all, holy cheese on a cracker. I just had to get that out there. If you want some fantastic, no-cut-aways gore, watch this movie. Seriously. There was no cutting away to the shadows on the wall, and the effects were creative and well done. I really wish I could have seen it in theaters, or in HD or something. Whoa.

Now that I'm finished gore-geeking out, on to the review. This movie is billed as a Horror Comedy, and it manages to fulfill the requirements of both genres in a way that is quite satisfying. It is what I think so many Horror Comedies fail to be, which is funny but still frightening.

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006) manages both, but even Shawn of the Dead, (2004) which is often cited as people's favorite Horror Comedy, fails in this respect. A zombie friend one keeps chained up to play video games with is funny, but all the bite, so to speak, of the zombie threat is neutralized. Needless to say, Hatchet does not end on such a light-hearted note.


The scene I found the most interesting on an intellectual level involves two older, Midwestern tourists who are dispatched early on. Everyone is stranded in the bayou near the house of Victor Crowley, and the only way out of the swamp is to pass this haunted, murderous house. The husband, Jim, has been injured by a crocodile, and Ben and Marcus, the College guys in New Orleans for Mardi Gras, are helping him to walk. Once they find out the house is haunted, they immediately abandon the older man. His wife, Shannon, takes him on her own shoulder, leading him towards the road and the house. As she walks with him, she says "Everything's going to be just fine... We have the Good Lord with us, baby. The Good Lord will protect us." Of course they are both immediately and gruesomely killed.

The fact that Shannon utters those lines moments before her death is quite significant. In horror, no matter the medium, the true terror lies in the fact that no one, not even God, can save you. There is no escape. Belief is, in fact, often the way deeper into trouble. Take Bug, (2006) with Ashley Judd, or Kate Hudson in Skeleton Key (2005). These examples don't necessarily deal with religion, exactly, but they show the downsides of belief in a way not usually seen in the media, that faith in the wrong thing can hurt just as much as positive faith can heal. I think this illustrates what the true purpose of Horror movies is: not only as a catharsis, a release of all the negativity inherent in the human psyche, but as a outlet for ideas that, though valid, are considered unacceptable in society.

One last thing: The tag line to this movie is ridiculous:
"It's not a remake. It's not a sequel. And it's not based on a Japanese one. HATCHET: Old School American Horror." A Japanese what? I mean, I know the meaning is inferred, but that just sounds bad syntactically. Come on, people. Also, a movie based on an earlier Japanese film would be a remake as well, so that's redundant.

Movie: A
Syntax: D-

Sleepaway Camp (1983)

I thought I'd start off with something considered a classic, but not something too well known. (Spoiler Alert, btw).

Sleepaway Camp was written and directed by Robert Hiltzik, starring Felissa Rose and Jonathan Tiersten. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086320/)

First of all, I like slasher movies. They just rock, despite the many problems inherent in the genre, and this one is a perfect example. The politics behind this movie made it hard for me to enjoy in retrospect, though I was riveted while it was on-screen.

I can't deny that some of the kills were effective, even if they seem a bit old-school now. I mean, getting scalded while trying to boil corn is a bit less impressive than the gore of the torture-porn genre. However, what made these kills frightening was that they left something to the imagination. There was a lot of shadow work and shots of grasping hands, with a few well-done shots of the dead body thrown in as well. Much of the kill is not actually shown on-screen.

This means that, rather than squirming away from something that is graphically depicted, the viewer's mind has to fill in the gaps, which is always so much worse, or better if one prefers. The viewer didn't have to physically see Judy, the camp mean girl, get violated with a curling iron, the shadow on the wall was enough.

Judy's death, to me, sums up her status in the movie. It is a symbol of femininity, a curling iron, that kills her. Overall, she exists only to be the Whore in contrast to Angela, the almost-mute new camper's, initial status as Virgin. When she first really attacks Angela in the cabin they share, she focuses on her body. She asks why Angela showers alone, and speculates as to if she's reached puberty yet. To Judy, this is the most insulting thing she can say to Angela. Judy's status at the camp focuses directly around her body, as do all the girls'. Angela's failure to fit into their concept of girlhood enrages them. Most of Judy's interactions with Angela consist mainly of Judy screaming into Angela's passive face, though this may just be a result of bad acting.

The "twist" ending held just as much gender bias. Angela is reveled as being male, and the killer to boot. The end scene, especially Angela's bug-eyed expression, is creepy, but the underlying morals are creepier. Angela's true crime is not conforming to society's gender roles.

Her motivation for killing is apparently not the horrible accident that killed her father and brother, which was caused by careless campers, but instead being raised as a girl by her aunt, who it seems was transgendered and preferred to have a girl child. This experience, though it would be confusing to a child in real life, is positioned as so inherently traumatic as to turn someone into a psycho killer.

It also seems that the end shot provided the genesis of all the J-Horror screaming ghost children, as Angela could easily be transported into The Grudge during this shot. If this is good or bad, that's personal preference.

Overall:
The Film Itself: B
The Film's Politics: D-

Cruel Intentions

As a first post, I'd thought I'd lay out my intentions.

I've watched an egregiously large number of horror movies in the past year. More than I should admit, really, and I know this compulsion isn't going anywhere. As a dorky English major who wants to be a horror writer, I find myself analyzing everything I watch, and I thought I'd write some of it down. It'll be a mix of classic, not-so-classic and new movies, with some books and other media thrown in.

Also, HERE BE SPOILERS! Watch out!