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.