Home Video Horrors' VHS of the Month; Troll II (1990)

 

Oh my Gooooooooooooood! It's Troll II! It's March and Rotty Rentals is already breaking out the big guns with the forefather of all bad movies with the 1992 home video release of Claudio Fragasso and Rossella Drudi's visionary classic of the Waits family's vacation to the town of Nilbog- the kingdom of goblins. Truly, it's a tale of family devotion, letting go of those you love, and the horrors of vegetarianism that has been past on from generation to generation because of its kingly status amongst the stinkers of the video store. The creation and reception of Troll II can be described as a trip to the batting cages. It's a normal day, accompanied by the sounds of balls clashing against metal bats and the machines firing off. A couple cages down, Claudio Fragasso has brought his own equipment. He has a deep traditional love for baseball, but he's got his own ideas. The ball launches from the machine and he swats it underhand like it's tennis. The ball is hit with so much power that it begins to ricochet off the chain link walls and cement ground sporadically. He begins to draw a crowd as he continues to attempt to bat the ricochetting ball as it flies towards him. And incredibly, he's hitting it and the ball continues to bounce around the cage faster and faster. People start recording and talking pictures of this maniac in the batting cages. Then, the unthinkable happens, he hits the ball directly into the throwing machine. It sparks and sputters before exploding into flames. The spectators begin to cheer, that wasn't supposed to happen but they love it.  They're going to remember that for the rest of their life. And just like that, that fellow Fragasso had a legacy.

There's three undisputed truths to life. One; we are born, two; we die, and three; there are no trolls in Troll II. The Italian production was met with so much skepticism by the American film marketers that they felt that it'd be best to premiere as a sequel to Troll (1986). A film that may or may not have been set in the Harry Potter universe where magical, fairy creatures invade an apartment complex. The original name, and our monsters, is Goblins. Cruel, vegetarian goblins that inhabit the town of Nilbog (Ahhh! It's Goblin spelled backwards!) that transform their victims into plants so they could be devoured meat-free. Which in its self, is kind of an oxymoron. 

The bar is set for what an American family should be with Michael Waits (George Hardy),  his wife, Diana (Margo Prey), and kids teen, Holly (Connie McFarland) and little Joshua (Michael Stephenson). Their grandpa Seth (Robert Ormsby) is still around, not in body but in spirit and a powerful one at that. He knows something is amiss with the family's destination and only with his help can Joshua save his family from meeting a green death and becoming goblin chow. Squad goals are set with the inclusion of Holly's boyfriend Elliot (Jason Wright) and his R.V. buddies (Darren Ewing, Jason Steadman, and Drew McConnell). Though the latter make for a great body count. Orchestrating all this is the druid and goblin leader Creedence Leonore Gielgud (Deborah Reed) with all the charm and charisma of a Mighty Morphin Power Rangers villain. Dark magic and fairy creatures meet wooden acting, unintentionally hilarious moments, golden turd dialogue, and so much insane incentives to keep you glued to your screen. Hospitality being pissed on, boyfriend might be gay, and pop corn as an aphrodisiac are only a couple of stones to this Infinity Gauntlet of sweet, savory stink. 

But what happened? How did it turn out this way? Well, the production of Troll II was largely Italian. Actors recalled a language barrier and unorthodox methods of directing. For a lot of people involved, they either had no idea what they were filming or had just seen their lines for the very first time before stepping in front of the camera. Most of the locals of Nilbog, were, well, locals of the small town in Utah where they filmed. In fact, Don Packard, who played the store owner in a particular scene, was a full blown mental patient. Still fresh in his treatment at a clinic nearby, he took the role not knowing what was going on, even on camera. The actors who had the pleasure of playing a goblin were only hired because of their short stature. One actor was so small that the monster gloves wouldn't fully fit his hand so they had to sew it into the burlap sleeve of the costume. And yes, the costumes were rubber masks and hands with a burlap sack as a robe. That goblin actor can be seen in movie waving his hands around but his fingers remain limp like a gloves. Not many of the actors were experienced, George Hardy responded to the casting call for fun and Michael Stephenson was looking for the big break in his child acting career. 

Despite being one of the worst movies ever made, Troll II enjoys a plentiful cult following that would make both Ed Wood and Tommy Wiseau jealous. To this day, fans continue to congregate at annual screenings of the film in convention centers and rented out movie theaters in a tradition started by Troll II fans in Texas. Every day, new people are drawn in as people shared the film like it was an entry in the Star Wars series. Those who were kids at the time of its video store release are going to show it to their own kids one day. One's first viewing session is often seen as a rite of passage-a fantastic and scared moment that everyone wants to be present for. And much like the characters and plot of Star Wars, movie fans know the lines the characters will say when they first see their faces on screen and the situations that await them. 

But the greatest thing about Troll II, are the people involved. They're good people. In 2009, Michael Stephenson released his documentary, Best Worst Movie where he follows up with the cast in crew from the production 20 years ago. George Hardy runs a successful dental practice in his home state of Alabama (still to this day) and is a bit of a pillar to his community. Even his ex-wife had nothing mean to say about him. He, along with Stephenson and Packard, embrace their role in the film as opposed to running from it. When they walked out on stage during the Troll II convention, the standing ovation from adoring fans said it all. Fragasso, while his horror film never got the screams and gasps he thought it would, appreciates the cult status of the movie. It's making an impact that counts to him even if it is poorly made. Besides, would Troll II get the attention it would if the film was even slightly made better? Most likely not. 

Troll II received its home release by EPIC Home Video from EPIC Productions in 1992.  At the time, it appeared to be owned by Columbia Tristar Pictures. Strange how such a small production was able to be picked up by a large distribution company. This VHS tape is where people saw the movie for the first time. When word got out of how uniquely awful it was, tape heads flocked to the video store for their copy. Once they were done, they'd lend it to a friend and pass it around classmates and coworkers. It also makes several appearances in the hands of Troll II aficionados in the 2009 documentary. In fact, the EPIC Home Video release is the very same copy that Michael Stephenson got on Christmas morning 1992. He was so excited. His big monster movie that would boost his career and fame was finally out on video. Unfortunately, after twenty minutes of running the tape, this dream would be quickly dashed. Today, this tape is enough to make any OG Troll II fan salivate. 

At the end of the day, we have to thank Rossella Drudi's friends who had the gall to go vegetarian. It had annoyed her so much that she conceived an idea for a monster movie. Where instead of blood, guts, and flesh, the monsters hungered for vegetables. Maybe we could go as far as to call it "satire" when it comes to "you are what you eat." Indeed, whoever you are, we have you to thank for inspiring the best worst movie of all time which has a special place in the heart of film history. 

Home Video Horrors' VHS of the Month; Girlfriend from Hell (1989)

The video store served more of a purpose than just your tape dealer and lender. For a lot of independent production companies it was where the general public would be able to see their films that didn't get a mainstream theatrical release. When a direct to video classic was released, then the VHS was the film reel, the tape player would be the projector with your T.V. as the screen, and your home as the theater. However, these movies wouldn't be the big budget A-list features they played at the ritzy theaters. These were B-list, independent productions now known affectionally as "cult films." Movie big wigs tend to see this as pejorative and low class. But if this month's flick, Girlfriend from Hell taught me anything, it's that simplistic ideas and execution can go the distance. 

Home Video Horrors brought the Valentine's Day iconography to life with this direct to video release from 1990 written and directed by Daniel M. Peterson. Maggie (Liane Curtis), despite being the titular character, is no one’s girlfriend.  In fact, she’s passed in every subject in high school except socializing. However, she’s got a supportive (granted, horned up) group of friends ready to help her to come out of her shell with a small house party. At the same time, there’s a Heavenly chase involving the Devil herself (that’s right, it’s a she) and someone known as Chaser (Dana Ashebrook, prior to breaking out in Twin Peaks) that escalates from the cosmos and onto Earth.  The Devil takes possession of Maggie and from there, it’s a comedic horror ride where only those who resist temptation can survive. The succubus feeds on the souls through sex, quite literally sucking the soul from them. 

Almost immediately, we get some Garth Ennis-Preacher vibes with the introduction of Chaser and the Devil in the beginning. Chaser doesn’t dress in the traditional white robe you’d see an angelic being in, carries around a flask (probably because his job as God’s bounty hunter sucks), and all his powers come from technology from the Heavenly world. What’s more the afterlife seems more mundane than mystical. He and the Devil are also a bit too casual on their feud that has been spanning thousands of years. Maggie’s friends-Diane (Lezlie Deane), Carl (Anthony Barrile), David (James Daughton), Freda (Sarah Katie Coughlan), and Ted (Brad Zutaut) are thrown into the fight for their lives when they realize they are partying with Beelzebub. 

Hats off to Liane Curtis for essentially playing two characters-the thumb twiddling Maggie to the hell-raising Devil. When Lunchmeat interviewed her for their seventh issue, she discussed how she would rip fire farts in her dressing room. Whether or not she was doing this to get in character or just to pass the time remains a hilarious mystery. She could stumble over words as Maggie, but when she becomes possessed it’s time to run over nuns with a car, bring people’s meals in restaurants to life, and reduce everyone to a decaying mess of flesh and bone via sex. Her costars also do a fun job of portraying and lampooning stock characters from the 80s teen, horror movie genre that had been done so much over the last ten years. 

Dana Ashebrook compliments the irreverent villain of the She-Devil with an equally irreverent hero role as Chaser. Prior to becoming an angelic bounty hunter, he had made some choices in life that wound him up in Purgatory. He would go one to create the condom and eventually falling for the Devil. At risk of spoiling, I will only say that Maggie isn’t the titular “girlfriend from Hell,” the Devil literally is. That’s right. Beneath all the silliness, Girlfriend from Hell is a story about love, relationship perseverance, and even forgiveness. That’s what makes it such a great movie for Valentine’s Day. 

That, and it’s just plain fun to watch. Girlfriend from Hell came out around that time when America was moving on from the hair metal of the 80s to the grunge rock of the 90s. Maggie’s wardrobe is a homage and parody of the big hair bands from the Regan era. The film’s soundtrack is especially rocking in that sense. The titular song either draws you in or takes you back with the rock guitar chords. 

Girlfriend from Hell received their home video release courtesy of  International Video Entertainment (IVE). The tape also comes with previews for Happy Together with Patrick Dempsey and Helen Slater, Dean Koontz's Watchers II, and a Regan-era drug free America PSA (don't jump into a pool with no water, kids). IVE was founded in 1983 and until being purchased by Lions Gate in 2003, they were one of the largest mini-major film studios. They competed with the likes of Castle Rock Entertainment, Orion Pictures, and even TriStar Pictures. IVE, for a time, was also more widely known as Artisan Entertainment in later years before folding in 2004. The film, prior to its release, premiered at the Houston Film Festival of 1989. 

Today, the intellectual property of Girlfriend from Hell has been adapted into a musical. Not a contemporary one, but a live B-movie of the 80s on stage. It’s been described to be a mix of Faust and Carrie with a blend of Weird Science, Evil Dead, and Earth Girls are Easy. The first production was in 2011 when Sean Matthew Whiteford (Rock of Ages) wrote and kickstarted the musical for a one week run in NYC. Since then, there’s been numerous workshops, cast recordings, and shows. The website for the production has just gone up, in fact. 

That just goes to show how a silly or simple idea, like a girlfriend from hell, can go the distance. While Girlfriend from Hell doesn’t stand the test of time, it works far better as a product of its time. That is what makes it so unique. 

Home Video Horrors’ VHS of the Month: Re-Animator (1985)

Lunchmeat and Home Video Horrors’ 2021 calendar isn’t just a pretty print to put on the wall. It’s a curation of cult horror movies and those video covers that etched themselves into our minds as we made our way up and down the video store isles. Josh Schafer and company went above and beyond with the calendar selling out. As one as those calendar buyers, and recent inheritor of a Panasonic Omnivision and tape collection, I decided to seek out the curated tapes of the calendar and watch them in all their original glory. Some I’ve seen before and others will be a whole new can of blood and guts.

 

To start 2021 out, we have Stuart Gordon’s 1985 zombie flick Re-Animator by Vestron Video, or as I always liked to call it, “what if Frankenstein was your medical school roommate?” Herbert West is his name and he’s cracked the chemical equation for life after death with his formula. However, much like Frankenstein, his creations never possess their civilized human intelligence but are dim wittingly violent. This cult classic is often remembered for the gratuitous gore both in the horror and medical context and bookmarking the acting career of Jeffery Combs. Stuart Gordon and his film crew would also prove themselves to be quite a major player in 80s horror.

 

Let’s not forget that it’s called “HP Lovecraft’s” Re-Animator. Truly, we can’t forget where these stories came from. Cthulhu creator and pulp horror writer HP Lovecraft (1890-1937) wrote the original “Herbert West-Reanimator” in a serialized four-part release for the sensationalist magazine Home Brew in February to July of 1922. He was paid $5 a segment. Editor George Julian Houtain had told him not to make it too morbid and add a punch at the end of every segment. Lovecraft found it to be “inartistic” but complied. The story is told from an unnamed narrator as he and his medical school roommate at Miskatonic University-Herbert West increasingly conduct experiments with Wests’ reanimation serum. Even at one point, becoming medics in WW1 and conducting experiments on the battlefield.

 

Re-Animator is a modern retelling of the original story. Our unnamed narrator is given a name, Dan, (Bruce Abbot) and a girlfriend Megan (Barbara Crampton). Herbert West is true to his novella self, a short spectacled man-collected at first glance but full of dark compulsion to complete his work. Jeffery Combs nails the appearance with his fingers wrapped around his faithful syringe. Combs has always been the kind of actor who doesn’t need to adjust his voice to sound scary. Monotone delivery of logical bone chilling lines is his greatest strength. That’s what landed him as Brainiac in Injustice 2 and the crazed doctor in Would You Rather (2013).

 

The story is still set at Miskatonic University with a Dean Halsey (Robert Sampson). In fact, Megan is his daughter. There’s also an extremely creepy professor, Carl Hill (David Gale) looking to get his hands on West’s precious formula…and Dan’s girlfriend.  It’s times like that where it’s almost like a sitcom. “What happens when you date the dean’s daughter and your roommate is Victor Frankenstein? What crazy adventures are there to get into? Oh no, who killed the cat and turned into a zombie? Shoot! The dean is a zombie! Damn! The headless Dr. Hill is raising an army of the dead to do his evil bidding!”

Our home video release is Vestron Video from 1986. Vestron was started in 1981 by an HBO executive, Austin Owen Furst Jr. and would go defunct in 1992. It’s a play on words “Vesta” (Roman Goddess) and “Tron.” Their animated “V” graphic presented at the beginning of the tape screams 80s. They released both an R rated version for video stores and an unrated one for collectors. I have, as the calendar showcases, the R rated cut. I was able to find it online for 20 bucks. It’s a relatively easy find with the unrated version going for 10 dollars more. Being familiar with this movie and story, the unrated version is most definitely the correct way to view it.

 

Gore is an integral part of the Re-Animator story. Not just for the bodily horror of the living dead but also because it’s a medical thriller. There’s no magic involved as Herbert West makes it clear, life and death as we know it are chemical reactions-equations. With the R rated version such scenes like Dr. Hill demonstrating brain dissection to the class are cut, the zombie kills, and of course the head giving head scene (though I don’t mind not seeing that).

 

Re-Animator would go on to receive two sequels and Stuart Gordon, Jeffery Combs, Barbara Crampton, and Brian Yuzna would make another film based on an HP Lovecraft story “From Beyond.” Again, knocking it out of the part with the bodily horror and special effects.

Breaking Down the Space Horror Formula

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3430353/breaking-space-horror-formula/

I think this editorial came out by the time when Life came out this year. You know, the scary movie about an alien?...The one with Ryan Reynolds...yeah, that one. Apparently, it was criticized for being a rip off of Alien. And I don't blame them, we've seen people isolated on a space ship where an alien terrorizes them. But is what space horror is funneled down to? That same formula? Meagan Navarro poses that question.
Now, one can't just come out of left field discussing space horror. It's a genre that requires watching more then just Alien. There's definitely a sizable library of such movies and  clearly Navarro has seen her fair share of such and is able to draw her own conclusions. It seems that the plagues of Alien rip offs first spawned in the 80s. I think it's fair to say they have decreased since then, but there are still some once in a while.
You know, I don't think I read this for the lead, kicker or even the pictures. There are some pictures though, They really don't do a whole lot other than just give the reader something to look at. They don't really match up with what is being described in the article. The text itself does flow and it makes for an easy read, because it really doesn't have another function other then giving super specific examples. When it comes to a kicker, I only think that the last line satisfies the role. "With the space horror formula as claustrophobic as its setting, it begs the question; is it possible to reinvent space-set horror the way Ridley Scott did in 1979?" I think that it would be better if that were put at the beginning, but that's just me.
Again, easy read to keep the audience engaged and it's always going to provoke someone's interest when you tell them of a movie they haven't seen yet. Maybe Navarro wrote this editorial as a call for the readers to view some of the examples and be the judges themselves rather then taking her word.

30 Years Later: A 1987 Theatrical Retrospective

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3427239/30-years-later-1987-theatrical-retrospective/

It's funny, when I think of the year 1987, nothing really comes to mind. But after reading the editorial, '30 Years Later: A 1987 Theatrical Retrospective' by Meagan Navarro, I come to realize that there was more to this year then meets the eye. And since I'm a sucker for the sometimes dated horror films of the 80s and lists, I gave this piece a shot.
The list on first glance, is nothing special to me though. There were movies I've seen, movies I heard of, movies that I saw another movie in the same series as and some movies that I've never seen before. Nothing truly new to the average horror fan, but I'm always open to hear or read how other people feel about the movies that I may have differing feelings about.
The only research required here is a general knowledge of the movies themselves so it makes for a relatively easy read. It's clear that I didn't do my research before reading this, but fortunately Navarro did. I'm also going to be painfully honest here and say that the only reason I was drawn in or read the article in the first place is because of the pictures. 80s horror has a very unique style, you see. Something that separates it from the all the other decades. They're just more colorful; when blood is shown (which was all practical effects back then) they would always be bright scarlet, red. That or they would just cut away thanks to some censoring issues, but that was common back in the 80s. That can make for the lead. The bad news is that I really don't see an effective ending to this piece other then resorting to asking the reader about their favorite 1987 horror movie. For someone familiar as the writer with 1987, it would be an easy question. But for those who don't, sort of like myself, might not be able to answer it. This made me question who the audience was. Super hardcore horror junkies who record each movie that comes out every here or just your average Joe horror fan looking for a casual read. The reader shouldn't have to be an expert, that is the writer's job.
The flow is nice and easy, lines separating the different entries with a subhead and picture for each one. Clearly, the most flawless way to construct an editorial list. There's a pace set and every movie that is discussed is given equal increments of the reader's time. And of course, it's very hard to get lost or confused while reading it.
As for fallacies, well you're guess is as good as mine.
The reason why this particular editorial had my interest is, I repeat myself, because I like 80s horror. There was something that they were just doing right. I read this list to perhaps find movies that I haven't seen and may one day give them a watch. And I think that was this article's purpose all along. To put out popular and insecure movies from the year 1987 and get people talking about them. In fact, this whole editorial seems almost like an anniversary tribute to 1987.

We Saw Some of 'Annabelle 2', Which Focuses on Mood and Atmosphere

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3427980/sxsw-saw-annabelle-2/

Funny how last week I discussed horror movies that deserved a sequel, but this week I'll be discussing a horror movie that actually doesn't deserve one, but that didn't stop them from making it. 'Annabelle' was a spin off from 'The Conjuring' (which was the bomb by the way), a movie about a haunted doll (the titular character). I bet its because people are still afraid of doll is the reason why it sells so well, but that's not what I want to talk about.
I choose this piece because, why else? The people over at Bloody Disgusting! had the chance to see some of the scenes from the upcoming movie. In the piece they recap the certain scenes on which they were able to see.
It's obvious that for me, the kicker was the title. I remember seeing the first 'Annabelle' in theaters, so naturally I have an interest in seeing the second one. I'm not expecting anything big from it, just curiosity. I could go on a bit about how much I am looking forward to it or whether or not it will be a bad movie or terrible movie, but I want to discuss why this is an editorial.
'Focuses on mood and atmosphere' is clearly what Trace Thurman had in mind as a message for the reader. Like all editorials, there needs to be an opinionated message that the writer is trying to convey. In this piece, I can only see bits and pieces. Only mentioned at the end, "I can tell you, there does seem to be a bigger emphasis on mood and atmosphere in this film." And that's really all Thurman has to say about it. Maybe the excerpts from the scenes themselves were the main center of this editorial. Maybe it was that section that was meant to do all the talking.
It almost seems like the reader has no choice but to take the writer's word for it in this scenario. After all, they're not the ones who have seen the scenes so the only reference they have to it is the descriptions they are given. That kind of kills the purpose. To have an opinion on a movie, don't you have to see it for yourself and not have a friend or someone else describe it for you?
Very, very little to say about this editorial. The only research required on this matter is a bit of knowledge on the film series and that's about it. You don't have to see the scenes that the article describes, the writer has got you covered. The lead comes from the title and the title alone. The audience is clearly horror moviegoers and people who have at least scene the prior movies. The flow or basic layout is an intro, the body of the scenes themselves and then ending with a short conclusion. The fallacy here is that they're trying to put movie scenes to paper and let that be the only porthole to reader's opinions. Again, it almost seems like you have no choice but to take Thurman's word for it. But, you can judge the upcoming movie fairly since the trailer is pasted at the end.

Six Well Overdue Horror Sequels

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3425195/6-well-overdue-horror-sequels/

Bloody Disgusting is booming with activity since the recent happenings in the horror entertainment industry. We got new movies coming here, there and everywhere, but I decided to stick to an editorial about movies that haven't even (and probably) won't happen. I was firstly drawn in by the title, 'Six Well Overdue Horror Sequels!'
At the first line, Luiz H.C. had me with "Complaining about Hollywood's lack of creativity is a worn-out cliche at this point. The overabundance of sequels, prequels, remakes and reboots has been blamed for the downfall of western entertainment, but many critics fail to realize that the movie industry has always been this way." This had a profound effect on me. I then realized that in fact they did have sequels back in the Golden Age of movies in the 30s, 40s and 50s and also reboots from the 50s to the present. With a lead like this, the piece definitely starts out with a bang. The kind of bang that makes you place a hand over your brow to nurse the mind blow that you might be experiencing.
Now, on to the list itself. I find it interesting that Luiz selected six because when you see a 'top list' you'd normally expect something that is divisible by five, like 10, 15 or 20. It's an interesting choice in my opinion. I need to discredit myself here, seeing how I've only seen three of the six movies listed. That is my own fault since it seems that quite a lot of horror junkies have seen these movies, being that this editorial was on the feature page.
I'm also required to discuss the more boring parts of this piece; research and flow. Seeing how this is entirely based on movies, the only research I think is required is firstly watching said movies then at least having a general idea of the cast and crew and the year it came out. That's what I like about these kind of pieces, you don't have to be pouring over books and articles to find what you're looking for. The article is divided (literally, there's lines and sub heads splitting the content apart) beautifully. You'd have to be an idiot to not follow it correctly. I mean, come on, they got pictures for every section.
Most importantly Luiz gets the reader thinking, what would it be like if one of these movies got a sequel? I for one am in favor of a new Re-Animator, but good luck with that because it will never be better then the first. Another Trick R' Treat to watch on Halloween? Yeah, go for it. Another 'Dead' entry from George Romero? Fire away, but maybe try to bring back the spirits of the original three as opposed to the newer entries. The audience for this article particular is probably just the truly hardcore horror fans. There maybe some movies mentioned that perhaps the average movie goer hasn't seen (probably because some of them never even were released in theaters and went right to DVD).
Enjoyable read and the list of movies that deserve sequels is entirely open ended. The list is logical and makes sense. But I have to say that the main strength doesn't come from the list itself, but rather the intro and the kicker. Seriously, that's the best one I read.

Slashing Back! How to Revive the Slasher Genre

http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3422854/slashing-back-revive-slasher-genre/

This is again another topic I've always wanted to discuss other then Oscars and horror movies; the slasher genre. Back in the day, the 70s, 80s and a little bit of the 90s, all it took to please a crowd was a knife in the heart with a killer in a mask who doesn't speak. You got your classic high school victim stereotypes and a final climactic showdown with the pure girl. It was popcorn fun, but overtime it grew old and tired. Yet Hollywood still seems to be pumping them out (less then usual) to cash in on this throwback from the past. 
But the question in Zachary Paul's opinion piece on Bloody Disgusting isn't why, it's how? As in how can the slasher genre make a possible comeback? He offers possible solutions based on what the slasher genre has taught horror fans and movie goers. This seems to be the perfect time to bring this topic up, since new entries in the A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween and Child's Play (personally I'm pumped for this one) are in the works. There was a new Friday the 13th relaunch coming out as well, but for whatever the reason it was canceled. This could've been a solid piece of evidence as to why the slasher genre revival may take a bit longer then expected, but it is never brought up. Maybe because the website had published at least fifty articles prior. 
The piece is nicley organized with sections, which is something that I always look for in these. It's a good way to keep the reader engaged without overwhelming them. The last article I remember reading I couldn't tell where it started and where it ended. We take a look at the past, present, revolution and possible future of the slasher genre. The one that I grasped the most is Paul's possible solution. "I don't claim to have all the answers. I believe the key for future slashers' successes are in the details. Filmmakers must crack the modern audience code in order to elicit maximum scares and minimum eye rolls. Only it can't be done by ignoring the over 40 years of lessons the sub genre has to offer. We can't relay on the meta approach from the 90s. This brand of humor has been done to death with increasingly diminished returns." The audience has more then changed over the years and the genre was forced to change with them, but it didn't. At least, not correctly. And this is something that a lot of horror junkies feel strongly about. 
In the end, Paul's goal is to give his readers something to think about and develop their own opinions about. He has had about 70 comments on the article so people are taking an interest. Perhaps they too want to see their favorite slasher back on the silver screen. 

When Horrific Films Get Categorized as Horror

https://moviepilot.com/posts/2223248


When a movie like 'Human Centipede' or 'Tusk' gets defined as a horror film, there's bound to be some debate. Just because something is hard to watch or over the top shocking; doesn't make it horror. Lisa Fremont at Movie Pilot covers this topic in her opinion piece; When Horrific Films Get Categorized as Horror'.
Right off the bat, Fremont gets respect from me. Because she had the willpower to sit through two of the most revolting movies ever made in one day no less; 'A Serbian Film' and 'Salo', both foreign movies. I've heard of 'A Serbian Film' mostly through ironic appreciation. I've seen 'Salo' once...it's like a visit to the deep web. It's very unpleasant. These movies are the centerpiece of evidence in this piece. And if anyone has seen them, then you know how powerful they are. The directors of these movies are under the assumption that rape, torture, questionable fetishes, and demented sexual fantasies are horror and if they include in their movies then they got a quality horror flick. They are wrong. It's a good way to get your audience to wretch and the neighbors to file a restraining order on you, but it's not the next Frankenstein. Fremont explores these movies and how they have the outline and messages of a horror film, but they just come across as movies whose sole purpose is to shock audiences time and time again. And that's a sad existence. Fremont is aware of what makes a horror movie and is expressive about it throughout.
The piece is really easy to follow from lead to kicker. Fremont gets it because she too is a movie goer. She brought so many new things to light for me like how over the years the horror fans seemed to have devolved into movie goers who only want to see blood, guts, and violence from a movie and it's less about the art of provoking fear and more about who can gag the most. The claim is that the horror genre is misrepresented when movies like the two examples are allowed to share the same shelf space as them. Said claim is at the end of the piece which makes for a great message for the reader to finish with.
This piece flows a little bit like a blog post and for a reader like me that really drew me in. There's no professional boundaries here and Fremont is on the same page as us. She's seen the movies and how disturbing they are. Seeing said movies are worthy of street cred. Seriously, you'll never get over them. Again, not because they're scary, but because they drill into your brain with these unforgettable, horrible moments that are possible in real life. That's enough to get audience interest; seeing the movies so they don't have to.

Invasion of the Script Snatchers

http://horrornews.net/117198/plagiarism-hollywood-films-invasion-screenplay-snatchers-part-1/

I would start out with arguing whether or not this two part piece is even an opinion piece. It's not truly trying to prove anything, but just to throw a few pointers that Horror News Net writer Bill Burke finds in horror cinema. An important word in filmmaker is 'rip-off', which usually implies plagiarism. And that is exactly what this piece covers, starting with its wacky title; Invasion of the Script Snatchers. This entire topic is present throughout the entire piece.
There somethings in this article that maybe common knowledge among horror fans, such as Nosferatu just being a giant legal cover for them to make a Dracula movie when they really weren't allowed to. However, when one moves onto part two of the piece it gets more interesting. When it is brought up that Alien (1979) may actually might have been plagiarized from an A.E. Van Vogt's novel Black Destroyer. When it comes to evidence, it's mainly visual, which is why I found it so easy to read this piece in the first place. Throughout the piece, there are many pictures from movie scenes and posters; demonstrating a visual pattern in similarities. Once you see them, it is a bit hard to deny that the writer may be on to something. There's not a whole lot of variety of sources, none really, it's all visual. But it does kind of provoke a call to action. As if the writer wants you to see the movies and see for yourself.
The kicker itself is in the title. In my opinion, plagiarism (the word alone) is an indicator of drama and that is what people like to read about. In America. it's all about protecting your property and plagiarism is the wanted criminal. So, it is interesting to see the films and sources who somehow got away with it by passing it off as original....then you settle down, give said films a watch and then undermine everything the movie was meant to be. Again like our last one, I don't think it matters how they start and end here because all the good stuff is the middle with the visual evidence. However, it ends nicely by mentioning a Jaws rip off, Jaws being arguably the number one copied off movie. Burke kind of settles back and lets the pictures speak for him and let everything come full circle.
The problem when I read this was that I was putting way too much faith in the pictures guiding me through that sometimes I lost interest in what Burke was righting. When you're discussing something as plagiarism, you're going to want show visuals of it. Anyone could accuse someone of copying by just saying they did. So more often then not, I found myself looking through the pictures then actually reading. I think the only time I got back into the text itself was when I came across a picture that needed an explanation. The Vogt and Alien part in part two had me reading it since the pictures didn't have a whole lot of context.
For a piece with little or no argument to pursue, it is a little difficult for a non horror or movie fan to stay engaged. Sure it's fun to say, "oh, I get it," at the pictures, but that's not enough to keep the reader drawn in, However, Burke writes humorously and in good taste. By the end of reading, you may want to check out one of these rip off films for yourself. Maybe go to a few forums about the subject, or maybe even find some other instances of plagiarism in movies for yourself.

Remember the Oscar Nominated Horror Film?

https://litreactor.com/columns/what-ever-happened-to-the-oscar-nominated-horror-film

For our first opinion piece critiquing, we'll be looking at a topic I've been itching to scratch; the Oscars and the horror genre. Now, those two words are barely used together in the same sentence. And this column by Christopher Shultz gives its two cents on why that is. Specifically, what happened to the Oscar nominated horror film? As it is clearly written as the title. 
Now when researching this topic, one needs to only search up a list of Oscar nominated horror films. Every category applies; best film, best actor, supporting actor, etc. Usually Oscars and horror are reflected back to the 60s with Carrie, The Exorcist, or The Omen. But Shultz goes all the way back to the root, the 1930 version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. But how credible is Shultz? Well, as much as any guy who took a peak at a wiki page. Horror and the Oscars is a subject based more so on common knowledge of film rather then research, so naturally we're not going to get a lot of source citations....well, none actually. To his credit, the article does do a great job of organizing and structuring itself. Taking itself through the history of horror from its beginning in the 30s and its something that anyone familiar in the genre can follow. 
It's a very linear piece, going from point a to point b without stumbling, only bothering to stop the flow should a disclaimer have to be made. It does start of with a question of what happened with the Academy Awards and horror which may draw readers in because that's a very valid question; its something that movie goers or people in general will sometimes stop and ask themselves.
As I said before, the piece does its job in creating a coherent timeline. It let's you know where it starts and where it ends. It asks the question in the beginning, it gives it's opinions in the middle, then asks for yours in the end. There may have been a couple segments where I did feel a tad bit bored, but never wanted to stop reading. This is a topic I have a passion for, you see. But then Shultz drops this gem on the table, "I had a theory that the September 11th attacks was the cause, with the Academy acting as an agent of escapism in a time awash with terror. And it's true, our society has watered down significantly since that awful day in 2001, but at the same time, the Academy has always been an agent of escapism and champion of the feel-good movie's cause, dodging controversy at every turn..." (Shultz). Once you mention September 11th on American soil, there's a sudden change in atmosphere and there's almost no going back. Now, it seems that it may be directly responsible for why horror films don't win Oscars anymore. It's a really bold claim with no research put into it, but for some reason it is the ultimate kicker in this piece and it would've been much better had it been put somewhere in the beginning, but that would also mean the structure of  the chronological years that it is organized be compromised. So, it's bit hard to tell where it would be better off. There's other theories about the manner of course; the Academy favoring the bigger studios or the rules of what applies for a winner may have changed over the years,But the one we really don't want to believe takes the cake. 
With it's linear style and highly opinionated claims with little or no research to back it up, it's unclear how qualified the writer was to be presenting them but it is still a do-able read. The points are interesting, the facts are common knowledge for every horror fan or movie goer to recall, Nothing too powerful, but something to nod your head in thought to. 

Tusk (2014) Review

Tusk is a comedy horror directed by Kevin Smith (the guy behind the Clerks series). For a guy who usually focuses on comedy and comic book related media, it was super interesting to see his dark side. This movie was brought to my attention by my dad, who claims it was one of the most disturbing movies he's ever seen. That's saying something given the history with scary movies he's had. Even my brother backed him, and he's tough as nails. It would take something pretty edgy to weird him out.
The movie focuses on a podcaster who goes to Canada and ends up in an interview with an old man who has a history at sea. This man as it turns out, survived on a deserted island for quite a while with the help of a walrus who saved his life. As his time went on, he eventually was forced to eat the animal, who he had named Mr. Tusk. Now, he seeks to give his friend another chance at life. By which he means surgically turning our protagonist into a walrus.
Now, this is the part where people would nervously laugh or just stand up and leave the movie. The first thing that comes to mind is that Tusk is basically Human Centipede with a walrus instead. Did Kevin Smith really write and direct this?
But its really not. Human Centipede is arguably the most unwatchable torture film ever that tries way too hard and lingers on every detail that would be best left up to audience interpretation. I went into Tusk expecting a movie like that, but left completely underwhelmed.
As strange as the movie is, its actually somewhat decent. It's not too focused on the torture and gory details and saves the shock factor for the walrus man...thing reveal which will effectively burn itself into the viewer's memory. In short, it's basically a man who has his legs removed and arms stitched to his torso. Then his femur bones are sharpened akin to walrus tusks and attached to his face. He is then sewn a walrus suit made from human flesh.
It's not just his physical transformation that is emphasized, but also his mental. This poor man's mind begins to break and he loses grip of his humanity and becomes more like an animal, a walrus. At the same time, his friends from the podcast are looking for him.
Of course, there is some dark comedy thrown in the mix. But depending on who you are, it may not be laughable as it is rather horrifying. For me, it was a little bit of both.
Tusk isn't the best thing ever, nothing I'd write home about. It's understandable that some people find it hard to watch, but that's part of its appeal. It's one of those movies that you have to give a bit of time to appreciate. Also remember, there is much, much worse that the movie industry has to offer then this.
As it turns out, Tusk is also the first part in a trilogy of movies that Kevin Smith has planned. The common theme is Canada, as weird as it sounds. The second movie is in progress, which I don't know a whole lot about. The third movie is apparently titled 'Moose Jaws'. And as Smith puts it, "it's Jaws, but with a Moose."
Say no more, I'm on board.

Horror Icons: Tobe Hooper

Tobe Hooper, every horror fan should know him. He's up there with the greats like John Carpenter and Wes Craven. If you're not familiar with him then you might better remember his 1974 picture, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. If it's bloody and edgy, then Hooper's name is attached to it. Here I'll be running down his movie career, not the whole package just some of his that I've seen and am familiar with.
We'll start with Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Hooper directed completely under a low budget and independently. Before its release, the only monsters we had were demons and the classical likes of Frankenstein and Dracula. Horror was taken to a whole new level when this movie came out as it brought gory bloodshed and sometimes hard to watch scenes. What made it truly scary was the fact that the beginning set up a documentary like setting before diving in. This set up the illusion that the events were true. They weren't really, but it could happen. There's nothing supernatural about a family of maniacs living in the backwoods and killing people after torturing them. The villain, Leatherface, would become one of the future faces of horror with his chainsaw.
The sequel, Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, was released 12 years later in 1986 with Hooper returning to direct. Not really much to say about it except it upped the bloodshed and took an aim for a dark comedy. A really, really dark comedy. It wasn't as good as the original, but still has that Tobe Hooper feel. From there on out, the series would receive a number of other sequels, each one worse then the last. Then an ok reboot, I guess.
Before Texas Chainsaw 2, Tobe Hooper directed The Funhouse in 1981. My dad saw this movie with his parents while it was in theaters when he was a kid...I think he left the auditorium shaking and traumatized. Its really a lesser known movie and is often included in compilations of underrated horror movies. The plot focuses on a two teen couples attempting to spend the night in a carnival's dark ride funhouse. The attraction is run by a strange man with his son who always wears a Frankenstein monster mask when out in public. I won't give away too much, but the face reveal of the killer will burn itself into anyone's mind, regardless of how it ages.
The following year in 82, Hooper would work alongside Steven Spielberg and bring us Poltergeist. This is a supernatural horror story at its finest. It's also fair to mention that it was rated PG, even though there are some scenes that pushes it into the R territory. Spielberg then got the brilliant idea to suggest a rating that ran between PG and R, and we all know what came of that; the PG-13 rating. So, in a way, Tobe Hooper helped create PG-13. Poltergeist would also go on to be nominated for three Oscars, a rare case for a horror movie. We also got a Poltergeist remake earlier this year...yeah, but why though?
The last Hooper film I remember watching was The Mangler from 1995. Yes, based on the Stephen King short story about a possessed laundry pressing machine. This wasn't the first time Hooper did a King story, he directed a TV movie of Salem's Lot back in the 70s. The movie starred Ted Levine (Buffalo Bill from Silent of the Lambs) and Robert Englund (Freddy from the Nightmare on Elm Street series). For such a short story to be adapted into a movie, new material had to be added. The gore and scare factors play well here and it has the Hooper fib to it, but I guess it didn't work out in the long run. Despite it, it actually stays pretty faithful to the short story, about the same as Children of the Corn did. IMDB is way too harsh on this movie, giving it a 3.9. I say its worth about a 5.5. Its no masterpiece, but its worth a watch. As for the two other sequels, throw them in the garbage.
A few honorable mentions are Salem's Lot (1979), Eaten Alive (1976), and Spontaneous Combustion (1990). Tobe Hooper continues directing today, but all his work is a bit under the radar and don't see a theatrical release unless its big budget. I would agree that Texas Chainsaw Massacre is his magnum opus and heavenly contribution. He made his impact on horror and continues to be referred to as one of the masters of the genre.

SOMA Review

When I last discussed Frictional Games, it was during my revisit to Amnesia A Machine For Pigs, the sequel to The Dark Descent (said to Frictional Games' magnum opus). Unknown to me, is that during that time in September, Frictional Games released a new title, SOMA.
I'm late to jump on the band wagon here. It took me sometime around to actually get the game, then another month or so to complete it. SOMA is another survival horror game, masterfully done by Frictional Games. What sets it apart from the other titles is that it sinks a bit into the Science Fiction genre with its extremely immersive setting.
The game puts you in the role of Simon, a Toronto native, who suddenly finds himself in the underwater lab, Pathos II in the far, doomed future. I'm going to keep this spoiler free, because if you were to play the game knowing everything, then the entire experience would be ruined.
The world of Pathos II is super immersive, everything can play a role in advancing forward and the whole plot isn't explained to you up front. There's interactive objects throughout the levels that elaborate the hidden lore. The gameplay borrows several elements from the Amnesia series. There's no methods of fighting back or attacking, all you have is a light and a certain amount of health (usually its two hits and you're dead). You have to entirely use your wits to continue.
Each of the levels are designed as mazes with certain puzzles that must be completed. The jump from an old dark house to a desolate undersea lab creates a much more claustrophobic feel. If the brain teasers aren't enough, then the robotic monsters will drive any player from taking a break.
The monsters of this game are kind of mixes of barnacles and machinery. They're huge dark blobs for the most part, but it starts to get pretty freighting when they take on humanoid shapes.
Seriously, imagine walking down a dark hallway and the screen starts to become disorienting and you could just make out a human shadow at the end, that's this game. And if your stomach hasn't dropped yet, then the creatures actually break out in a full sprint towards you. You can run all you want, but eventually they will catch you.
But they really appear in every other level. The true essence of SOMA is in its level design and immersion. You can use computer terminals throughout Pathos II to solve the puzzles most of the time, the game heavily stresses this. The hidden lore also has a certain charm to it, like uncovering the mystery about what happened to Pathos II. There's also points in the game where you can make your own decisions and take a break from the linear path, don't worry they don't seem to effect the ending.
So in short, SOMA is another great game released by Frictional Games. And from my time with their library, it's better then Amnesia A Machine For Pigs and slightly falls beneath Amnesia The Dark Descent. Primarily because SOMA doesn't really have a good replay value while The Dark Descent does. Once you know everything, it loses its novelty. But give it one play through and its like being apart of a really good movie.

Tales from the Crypt, A Short Revisit

I'm not talking about the TV series that most people are familiar with, I'm talking about the comic book series from the 1950s which the episodes are based off of. Now, the show didn't draw its inspiration from just the Tales from the Crypt books, but also its running mates (lack for better words); The Vault of Horror and Haunt of Fear. Each of these presented their own collection of stories. Each one had their own mascot-like character, the Crypt Keeper was for Tales from the Crypt, the Vault Keeper was for The Vault of Horror, and the Old Witch was for the Haunt of Fear.
Now, aside from the television series, these comics also inspired other horror classics such as Creepshow and its various sequels. I can't talk about the comics without addressing the stir that they caused. The 1950s was the hay day of creating stereotypical images of what a nuclear family should look like and it was believed that these comic books were unhealthy for kids to read as it would leave bad impressions on their minds. Sort of akin to today's myths that video games and movies would provoke kids to commit violent acts. I beg to differ since people such as R.L. Stine, Stephen King, and George Romero bought and read these as kids and look at them today.
Each issue had three stories within them, each one being from the three different story tellers. As the side bar on the title suggest, they all had something to do with that theme. Tales from the Crypt tried to provoke terror, Vault of Horror was horror, and Haunt of Fear was fear. Some of the best stories arguably came from the Vault of Horror.
They can be enjoyed by anyone since they have been reprinted numerous times since the 50s. I, personally have a few issues from the time they were reprinted in the 90s and the whole set of Tales from the Crypt issues within the three volume set of hardcover books.
I've read a fair amount of the stories, and I can honestly not see why there was such a fuss over them. The stories are extremely well thought out and there isn't a whole lot of emphasis on gore (for better or worse). If anything, I can honestly say that they can provoke creative thinking.
Despite the demise of these comics, numerous revivals have been made to keep them alive.

Crimson Peak Review

Over my Fall Break I was able to see Crimson Peak. I have to be honest, I was super hyped for this movie when it first got announced on IMDB. Maybe it was because a big time director like Guillermo Del Toro was attached to it or there were familiar actors like Tom Hiddleston (Loki from the Marvel Cinematic Universe) and Mia Wasikowska (Alice from Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland). But I think it was because it was advertised as a haunted house based plot taking place in the 1800s and early 1900s. I'm a sucker for ghost stories in the older ages, in fact, my favorite horror film from the millennia is The Woman in Black. Movies like these go back to films like Dracula or Frankenstein in a Gothic Victorian era setting. It kind of reminds me of Amnesia The Dark Descent at times. I won't try to spoil it, but I have to go into it a bit to do it justice. So, I guess, sort of spoiler alert.
When the trailers came out, it was no mystery that this was going to be a horror movie. After all it was marketed as such, highlighting the house itself and jump cuts of the ghosts (whose designs scream Del Toro's name). It seemed like just a mundane horror movie that would meet too much expectations and only horror junkies like myself where drawn to it. After seeing the movie, I can now say that I went in and got something completely different.
The movie centers around a girl named Edith Cushing (Wasikowska), a daughter of a businessman in early 1900s America. She's also a rising writer it seems, since its only mentioned as a side note and doesn't play a huge role (so you'd think). An English Baronet, Thomas Sharpe (Hiddleston) arrives in America with his sister (Jessica Chastain) seeking an investment from Edith's father to assist him in his clay mining projects. He and his sister live in a mansion outside of their native town and is located just above a mine of particular red clay.
Edith spends time with Thomas during his visit, despite her father rejecting him and even bribing him to leave and they fall in love. When Edith's father is murdered by an unseen killer, she marries Sharpe and moves in with him.
That's all back story and at this point you might be wondering, well where are the ghosts? Isn't this a ghost story? There may or not be a debate on this, is Crimson Peak a horror movie? Wikipedia has it listed as a gothic romance film. I will never in a million years pay money to see a romance movie and it certainly didn't feel like one. However, the movie appears to be aware of this. Edith is said to be in the process of writing a book, we never get to see what its about but everyone who looks at it calls it a ghost story. To which Edith replies that its not and the ghosts are merely metaphors of the past.
She just described the movie, this blew my mind. Edith first began seeing ghosts as a young girl, in fact, it was that of her own mother warning her of Crimson Peak. So, she isn't surprised in anyway that ghosts are real and there's no tedious build up to there appearance.
So what's the point of the movie? If its not about the ghosts, then what is it about? I think its a mystery, like Amnesia The Dark Descent its someone trying to figure out what the deal is with the house they find themselves in.
We associate ghosts with death and haunting, meaning that they were once living people who passed away and now haunt the house of Crimson Peak. There's quite a few ghosts in that house, all of which are young women and there's even one of a baby. How did they die? Why is Thomas and his sister always acting so weird?
So, gothic romance or horror, Crimson Peak is one of the smartest movies in the genre I've seen in a while. And yes, I believe it falls into the horror category. For all I know, Dracula was a gothic romance and that went on to become an horror icon. As for a Guillermo Del Toro movie, it definitely feels like one with its creature designs and some actors who appeared in his earlier Pacific Rim also pop in and out. If you liked Pan's Labyrinth, then you'll like Crimson Peak.

So...We're Getting a Friday the 13th Videogame

I couldn't believe it myself when I first heard it. Gaming sites all around at least have some small mention of a Friday the 13th game in development for the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. As you would it expect, it is based on the slasher series of the same name. It's hard to imagine that it would be possible to make a game of such. The last time they tired it was back in the 80s for the oldest of game consoles when cartridges were still a thing. The same happened to A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and even Halloween (all of which didn't work out too well since they were just advertising the films that were recently released. The Friday the 13th game, released in 1989 was infamous for being a horrible game.
This time, the people who were involved in the movie seem to be supporting the release of this game. Tom Savini (the special effects director) and Kane Hodder (the actor who played Jason in parts 7-10) are reported to have some involvement.
However, the main hype about this game comes from the fact that Jason will actually be a playable character. In the 1989 game, you played the role of a camp employee rescuing campers while at the same time, avoiding and fighting Jason. It's also announced to be multiplayer with some players taking the role of counselors while one plays as Jason and must kill them all off, just like in the movies.The premise kind of remind me of Evolve released just last year, in which four players take the role of monster hunters while one is the monster. The game ends with the monster killing all the hunters or vice versa. The monster, being against four other people, is given more powerful abilities and more to work with. Jason, being the hard-to-kill machete wielding maniac we all know and love, might take some effort to defeat. When it comes to the methods of killing, we can expect a lot. Since Tom Savini, the master of gore himself will be designing them.
There's not a whole lot to tell about the game since it hasn't been released yet. What we do know is that it is being funded by Kickstarter and is being developed by Gun Media. A final release date has yet to be announced.

The Haunting of Hill House (1959) by Shirely Jackson Review

I'm starting to get a bit lazy with these posts. Instead of reviewing something I've seen or read recently, I'm covering something I read sometime in January. Now, the only other time I've heard of Shirely Jackson was in 7th grade when we read her short story, The Lottery. It came as a bit of shock to me, seeing how she decided to write a horror story sometime in her career. However, who am I to judge a book that is considered to be one of the best ghost stories of the 20th century and a finalist for the National Book Reward?
The Haunting of Hill House is known for incorporating terror rather then horror to ensure a unique reading experience. It's really your classic haunted house story, taking four outsiders and placing them into this house. We have Dr. Montague (paranormal investigator), Eleanor (the main focused character with mommy issues), Luke (the heir to the house), and Theodora (an artist). There are also Mr. and Mrs. Dudley (the caretakers of the house who always leave at nightfall) and later on they are joined my Mrs. Montague and Arthur (a headmaster of some school). All the characters are unique in their personalities and all seemed to be developed well. They're all staying in the house by the request of Dr. Montague to see if the rumors of Hill House really being haunted are true.
Throughout the book, they all encounter something paranormal but Eleanor is the only one who experiences it more with the others not knowing a whole lot. These events are your classic haunted house scenarios; shadowy figures roaming the halls, writing on the walls which no one claims to have done, and things moving on their own. Of course, the house's history is explored. Hill House had a past of deaths and suicides since the time of its construction in the late 1800s. Death related events within a facility usually point to reasons why it is haunted in most instances. Crimson Peak, coming out soon this month and I plan it to see, seems to have drawn a bit of influence from this book it seems.
For me, I don't think my reading experience of this book wasn't what it should've been. I felt that it moved at a slow pace, mostly lingering on the interactions between the characters rather then the hauntings at hand. In fact, I really can't recall a whole lot happening within the first one hundred twenty pages, and the book is only two hundred forty six. What really is the most elaborated on is Eleanor and Theodora's relationship, even more so then supernatural forces inhabiting the house. The book really amps up the terror factor by the end. It's not one of my favorite books, but I'm well aware of the place it holds in the history of horror. I may not have enough evidence to back this up, but could this be the book that started the trend of a group of people venturing into a haunted house? I'm not sure since some of the Vincent Price movies from the fifties explored the same territory. He was in a movie called "House on Haunted Hill" in 1959, the same year Shirely Jackson published The Haunting of Hill House, is there a connection? Probably not.
As for more media adaptions, two movie forms of The Haunting of Hill House were made. There was the 1963, which is the proclaimed "good one", being faithful to the book, and the 1999 one which was met with negative reception despite having big time actors like Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Owen Wilson.
So, The Haunting of Hill House, is it worth a read? Yes, but don't expect it cutting right to the chase. It's best to give it a little bit of time to let it wind up.

Horror Icons: Rob Zombie

While backing up my iTunes library, I remembered that I had missed "Living Dead Girl" by Rob Zombie by the time I got to the 'S' section. I knew the 'L' section was missing something. I had first heard the song when I watched Bride of Chucky, the fourth entry in the Child's Play series, a while back. It played throughout the opening credits. It didn't take long for me to explore more into Rob Zombie's career; music wasn't his only contribution to the horror genre.
Back when Fear Net was still on Comcast's On Demand, I would spend nights reaping the free movies they had. There was one night, I think I was in eighth grade when I watched House of 1000 Corpses (2003), Zombie's first directorial debut. I watched it a couple more times over the years. My opinion of it didn't seem to change in the slightest. It wasn't a bad movie; in a nutshell it was really a mediocre torture porn. It primarily focused on a family of serial killers living in the backwoods torture and kill a group of traveling teenagers. The movie cast included Bill Mosely, Sid Haig, and Sheri Moon Zombie (Rob Zombie's wife) all of whom would later go on to be regulars in his films. For the young age when I first saw it, I was a bit shocked more then scared because of all the sadistic torture scenes. Now, I look back at it with somewhat more of a positive outlook. At least it didn't go to overboard and it was something original. Think about it, not too many horror films in the millennium are original, its usually remakes and sequels.
Speaking of which, a sequel was released two years later; The Devil's Rejects (2005). This one received much more praise then the original, in fact it was far better. It follows three members of the Firefly family as they run from the law. After all they're wanted for over 1000 counts of murder. It falls into more of the crime genre, but I still managed to enjoy it. Bill Mosely and Sid Haig's performances placed them among the famed actors in the horror genre, like Kane Hodder who played Jason Voorhees. There was even a petition to have Mosely nominated for an Oscar because of his performance. It was an instance where the sequel was better then the original.
Rob Zombie would go under my radar until 2007, where he directed a remake of John Carpenter's Halloween, one of the prime slasher films in horror history. Now, I didn't see it until it was out on DVD. The movie itself was really more of a tribute to the original; the Halloween theme plays (far too much if you ask me), scenes from Carpenter's version are remade verbatim, and not a whole lot is changed. The way I saw it, it was really Zombie waving a flag around while yelling, "Hey! Hey! I just got the rights to Halloween!" It did offer more of an exploration of Michael Myer's (the killer) origin through a lengthy opening. John Carpenter's version had Myers more in the role of an entity/demonic presence, that gave the film charm and a theme. Now, Zombie tries to make him more human and relatable, not the best thing to do to the antagonists from a horror film.
Like the original Halloween, Rob Zombie's also got a sequel; Halloween II (2009). I saw this while it was in theaters with my dad since the first one kind of fascinated me. All the other slashers were getting reboots at this time like Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street. Halloween II, I kind of like to ignore it like its the plague. The main focus is again Michael Myer's mission to kill Laurie Strode, but this time it gives much more insight on why. Apparently Myers is acting on his dead mother's will, who he sees throughout the movie, from the afterlife I guess. In the Zombie version, Michael never killed his mother like in the original. Instead she committed suicide while he was in the asylum. Laurie is established as his younger sister (something that actually did happen in the original series) and its sad that the entirety of the Myers family must die. There wasn't a whole lot appeal to this movie, if anything it really wasn't necessary. The original Halloween II was required because the first one ended in a cliff hanger, it was necessary to continue the story. Zombie's is almost the same as the first, its just Michael trying to kill Laurie again. Carpenter's sequel took place in a hospital right after the first one and had a new atmosphere. The newer one never really changed setting. I do remember that not too many people left the theater happy when I went with my dad.
The same year he directed a direct to DVD animated movie for adults, The Haunted World of El Superbeasto. I've only seen bits and pieces, but it is very funny and references horror films throughout. For now, I've kind of jumped off the Rob Zombie bandwagon. I know that in 2013, he directed Lords of Salem (which I haven't seen) and in 2016, a movie called 31 will be released. 31 really does sound interesting. It focuses around the dark carnival theme with demented clowns, that really appeals to me, so I might end up seeing it in theaters when it comes out.

Ten of my Favorite Creepypastas

In my first post I mentioned that we'll be going back to the subject of creepypasta. For those unfamiliar with creepypasta, then its basically horror stories posted on the internet by horror fans alike. The prime hub for it is the creepypasta wiki. The Youtube user, Mr.Creepypasta, does readings of such and posts them for people's listening enjoyment. I have complied a list of ten of my favorite stories. Note that Mr.Creepypasta has made videos of them and they are relatively easy to find.

10. Ben Drowned-One of the most popular creepypastas on the web. Creepypasta works in categories, two of which are lost episodes and videogame (both of which got old really fast and no longer hold the novelty that they used to). Ben Drowned was either one of the first videogame pastas or simply one that was done right. The premise is the blog posts of someone who experienced unnatural evens while playing Majora's Mask (Legend of Zelda) on his Nintendo 64. The posts describe the game functioning in ways it shouldn't, as if it was trying to contact him. However the true culprit is the entity that inhabits the game cartridge. It claims its name is Ben, the very same name of a local kid who had drowned. What makes this story so great is that there are some gameplay videos you would watch as you read through it.

9. The Suicide King-What makes this story so unnerving is the fact that it just might be true. Ever wonder why the king of hearts in a playing card deck seems to be stabbing himself in the head with a dagger? That's because its based off of King Charles VII of France, who was said to have gone insane and took his own life by stabbing himself in the head with a sword.

8. Lack of Empathy- A story told from the point of view of a sociopath. He cares for no one but himself and takes extreme joy in watching people's pitfalls that he caused. When a family moves next door, he sees them as new victims for his amusement. Its interesting to have a narrator who isn't exactly mentally stable. You're able to see the world and other people how he sees them and for the first time, you may or may not be rooting for the bad guy. Which begs the question, is he the protagonist or the antagonist?

7. The Huntsville Camping Trip- The woods is a great setting in the genre of horror. It's a land of isolation, far away from anywhere civilized. Four teens go on an annual camping trip in the woods of Huntsville. All seems like a friendly reunion until one of them comes across a seemingly empty cabin. This pasta exists to unnerve the reader and does an extremely good job of it. There's nothing the reader can do to make sense of what the campers encounter. The ending(I won't spoil it) is up for interpretation.

6. Abandoned by Disney- There's a number of pastas that deal with Disney and its parks. After all, there's so many urban legends and dark secrets that the company holds. Abandoned by Disney details an investigator's venture to Mogli's Palace, a resort that was built in the Bahamas by Disney then left for reasons unknown . As he descents deeper into the ruined hotel property the reasons for its abandonment become clear and more terrifying. There's also a sequel, Room Zero, which achieves the same level of morbid intrigue that the first one does; exploring more of Disneyland's urban legends.

5. The Russian Sleep Experiment-One of the only pastas that isn't told from first person POV. Scientist in Soviet Russia are tasked to keep five political prisoners awake for a month using a gas. For the first five days, all is well. Then things start to go haywire. The test subjects become more ghoul-like, screaming and sprinting around the test chamber. When they aren't heard from for a week or so, the scientists make the decision to open the chamber. What awaits them are truly horrifying results. This is also one of the more well known and popular pastas. It keeps the reader on edge, always wanting to know more and what's going to happen. Its one of those stories which asks the question; could it really happen?

4. Anasi's Goatman Story- Another story with kids in the woods, only now there are at least ten of them. It seems like a fun filled camping trip in the woods in a trailer, but throughout the story there's always this copper/blood smell following them around. This is one of the signs that a being called "the Goatman" is near. It's said to stalk large groups of people and even infiltrate them by disguising itself. Already we have a group of teens in the woods who are full aware that something is stalking them. This gives way for paranoia and an intense feeling of dread. It kind of reminds me of John Carpenter's The Thing; a group of people isolated with an unnatural creature that can hid in plain sight and of course not knowing who to trust.

3. Grad Night at the Haunted Mansion- Yet another Disney-based story. Three high school seniors decide to spend the night in the Haunted Mansion ride in Disneyland during their grad night. Again, there's nothing more scary then the secrets that the Disney company holds. And these three unfortunate graduates end up running to one of the most infamous.

2. 1999- This is a big one, it would take about an hour to read the whole pasta in one sitting. In 1999, the narrator received his own TV for his room as a child. He had access to the channel, Caledon Local 21. This odd channel broadcasted shows of questionable nature, the prime one being "Mr. Bear's Cellar". It was aimed at children and featured a man dressed as bear (like Bear in the Big Blue House) and children (child actors) visiting him in his basement. Overtime, the show became more and more bizarre and frightening. The child actors would always choke up with tears, as if they didn't want to be there at all. While the actor portraying Mr. Bear's intentions became much more sinister. Other shows are also explored on the channel, and they all seem to connect back to "Mr. Bear's Cellar". The police reports of missing children also begin to add up...

1. The Puppetmaster's Regime- I really do love investigations into dark territory and that's exactly what Puppetmaster's Regime is. I can read/listen to it for hours and never get bored of it. The protagonist is investigating a play from the 30s called "The Puppetmaster's Regime". The production was known for mentally scarring those who had seen it and even ended with all the actors being killed on stage. As more is uncovered, the play's dark origin is also explored. We follow the narrator through his investigation; going through old documents about the original premiere, interview with a survivor, and even going to see a revival of the demented musical. There's twists and turns and sometimes things appear that are even hard to imagine. There's tones of mystery and shock and it even ventures into supernatural territory. Its the perfect blend that can really delight any avid horror reader.