30 Days of Nightmares: Postmortem

 
Just yesterday, my friend Dennis Fischer referred me to an article entitled "Have horror movies hit a new golden age?"  It reads, in part,"Over the past several years, horror has pivoted decisively in a new direction, thanks largely to an injection of new energy from Europe (especially the bizarre richness of recent Spanish horror cinema) and the indie-film fringe. In what we might call the “Paranormal Activity” era, slasher films and “torture porn” (a phrase that was never quite fair) have faded away, and the biggest horror hits have been designed as spooky thrill rides, built on innovative technique, narrative suspense and clever surprises, but hardly at all on gore or out-and-out sadism." Sounds hopeful, right?  But author Andrew O'Hehir also adds that "almost nobody's paying attention."

Plenty of websites have devoted the month of October to celebrating horror movies, but most of them are celebrating the familiar classics.  That was my first inclination too, but ultimately I decided to tackle horror films made in the last five years.  Why?  Because I believe that we are in a new golden age of horror.  I don't know that any of the films I reviewed this month will ever be regarded as "classics" of the genre... but I don't think that's a reflection on the quality of the films themselves.  I think it's more of a reflection on the fact that "almost nobody's paying attention" -- because most of the films I saw were smart, innovative and surprisingly well-crafted. 

I admit that I'm as jaded as most horror fans.  Often I feel overwhelmed by the general sense that new releases (dominated by the obvious sequels, remakes, reboots and reimaginations) are hopelessly derivative.  What I learned this month is that there's a big difference between a horror movie that's derivative and a horror movie that starts out on familiar ground.  Almost all of the movies I watched were familiar in the first act.... and I usually appreciated that.  The familiarity reassured me that the filmmakers know and respect the genre.   The best of those filmmakers veered into unfamiliar territory with their second and third acts.  That's what I look for new horror movies... Something that surprises me.  I was not disappointed this Halloween.  In fact, I was consistently more impressed with the films I watched than I ever dreamed I would be. 

Advertising campaigns often do a major disservice to new horror films by playing up the familiar.   It's our job, as horror fans and critics, to point out when a new movie goes beyond the expected.  This month, I wrote about ghosts, zombies, aliens, vampires, trolls, witches, demons, sociopaths, telepaths, devil worshippers and killer kids -- all the old monsters, but many of them with a new look.  The Australian mockumentary LAKE MUNGO is simpler than most ghost movies, but I found it extremely effective -- especially the final twist.  Likewise, LOVELY MOLLY tricked me into thinking it was one thing, and then pulled the rug out from under me.  PONTYPOOL is the best zombie movie I've seen in years... and it's not even a zombie movie.  THIRST made me realize that even vampires can conquer new territory. 

Probably my favorite films in the lot were those mind-bending thrillers that reminded me of THE TWILIGHT ZONE.  If horror fans had a nickel for every time that filmmakers have tried -- and failed -- to capture the mysterious sensibility of THE TWILIGHT ZONE, we'd all be rich... but TRIANGLE, THE CALLER, and even YELLOWBRICKROAD managed to pull it off.  Not perfectly, mind you, but close enough that I was genuinely excited to be a horror fan.  I agree with O'Hehir that we're in the midst of a steady wave of new horror films built on innovative technique, narrative suspense and clever surprises.  Most of these are indie films and foreign films, which have very limited marketing and distribution.  It's our job to find and celebrate these films, so we can have more in the future!  Hollywood is only devoting its resources to sequels, remakes, reboots and reimaginations because that's what horror fans are paying for.   So this Halloween, think outside the box.  If you need a recommendation, here's the full list.

(PS - I'd like to say thanks to those blog readers who recommended films to me.  I still have a few more recommended titles in my Netflix queue, but I promised my wife I'd take a break at 30... so we can get caught up on DEXTER and THE WALKING DEAD...)

HAPPY HALLOWEEN! 

30 Days of Nightmares #30: LOVELY MOLLY (2011)

The Story: A young woman moves into her childhood home, where she is haunted by the memory (or perhaps the ghost?) of her abusive father.

Expectations: 30 days ago, I kicked off this horror movie marathon with writer/director Eduardo Sanchez's alien abduction film ALTERED.  I've been feeling like maybe I was too hard on that film, so I decided to give Sanchez another shot and round out the marathon with his latest film, a ghost story. 

Reaction: This one really threw me for a loop.  I thought I knew exactly what I was watching -- a straightforward haunted house story that strings the viewer along by repeatedly asking us to question the sanity of the main character -- but I wasn't prepared for how intense this film became in the last half hour.  Gretchen Lodge plays the title character, a woman who is obviously a bit frayed around the edges.  Over the course of the film, we learn that she is a former drug addict and that she has a history of sexual abuse.  Her "ghosts" are true American Gothic: demons of the past intruding on present time.  Until now, she has been able to suppress that dark past... but when she moves into her childhood home, she starts coming unglued.

Sanchez, who edited this film as well as writing and directing it, proves that he definitely knows how to craft a scary story.  LOVELY MOLLY is paced so well that we are deep into the heart and mind of the main character before we realize how messed up she really is.  We don't just feel for her, but for those around her -- her husband and her sister, who obviously love her and want to help her but who don't know how to cope with Crazy.  The usual question at the heart of a good ghost story -- "Is it real?" -- becomes practically irrelevant, because it is painfully clear that the haunting is 100% real for Molly, and thus for those who love her.  She acts as if the haunting is real, and the people around her must respond to her actions, regardless of what prompted them.  The story unravels the way real life tragedy unravels -- before we have enough understanding to exert any kind of authority or control over it.  When the climactic scene finally rolled around, it hit me like a sucker punch... because it suggests how terrifyingly powerless we might really be.  I can't say anymore without ruining the moment, so let me just say that this was a great way to end my 30 days of nightmares.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: Aside from that climactic image (which I'm not going to give away), I was particularly disturbed by the emptiness behind Gretchen Lodge's eyes in a scene where she stands naked on the front porch of her house.  She manages to capture the emotional void of true mental illness.  I was also pretty disturbed by her idea of a lover's kiss...

30 Days of Nightmares #29: WAKE WOOD (2011)

The Story: After the violent death of their young daughter, a married couple invokes a pagan ritual to bring her back to life for three days.

Expectations: For many viewers, nothing is more frightening than the thought of losing a child.  That's why films like PUMPKINHEAD (1988) and PET SEMATARY (1989) carry so much weight.  In PET SEMATARY, a father is so distraught that he brings his son back from the dead -- even though he knows that what he brings back will not really be his son, but rather a monster that looks like his son.  I was intrigued by the premise of WAKE WOOD because it seems to set up an even more troubling scenario.  What if you really could bring back your child... but you knew that you had only a short time with them?  Would that be better, because you would get to say goodbye?  Or would it be worse, because you'd be forcing your child to die for a second time?

I was also excited about this film because it represents the revival of Hammer Horror, the British studio that produced some of the best horror films ever.  To name just a few: THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT / THE CREEPING UNKNOWN (1955), QUATERMASS 2 / ENEMY FROM SPACE (1957), THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), HORROR OF DRACULA (1958), THE REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1959), CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961), DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966), QUATERMASS AND THE PIT / FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH (1967), THE DEVIL RIDES OUT (1968)... I could go on and on.  In fact, next year, I think I'm going to celebrate Halloween with "30 Days of Hammer."  Anyway, the studio is back in action, and so far they have a pretty decent track record, which includes the remakes LET ME IN (2010) and THE WOMAN IN BLACK (2012), as well as WAKE WOOD.

Reaction: First off, I have to say that I couldn't get as invested in these characters as I did in the characters from PUMPKINHEAD or PET SEMATARY.  In PUMPKINHEAD, the bond between father and son is conveyed by the amazingly vulnerable performance of Lance Henriksen.  In PET SEMATARY, we spend nearly half of the movie with the Creed family, allowing time for each of the characters to grow on us.  WAKE WOOD cuts right to the chase.  Dead child.  Mourning parents.  And a quiet little English village where the citizens casually and routinely bring their loved ones back from the dead.

Don't get me wrong: There's nothing casual about the way these people bring someone back from the dead... it's a horrendously gruesome process.  But the citizens of Wakewood, led by the loveable Timothy Spall, seem like they could have been pulled from the supporting cast of THE SEVENTH VICTIM (1943) or THE WICKER MAN (1973).... which is to say, they don't seem like monsters.  They're just everyday folk, for whom the resurrection of the dead has become a way of life.

Oddly enough, the grieving parents (the British Patrick Dempsey and Naomi Watts) simply accept this alternate reality, even though they're recently transplants to the village.  There's no significant moral debate about whether or not they should bring their child back from the dead.  They just do it.  For that reason, I had trouble empathizing with them as characters.  That changed, however,  as soon as they had their little girl again.  Seeing them reunited with their daughter was genuinely heartbreaking.  For one thing, it was immediately clear that the child had some slight awareness of what had happened to her and I figured the parents would eventually have to tell her that she was going to die again soon.  (I could already hear echoes of Henriksen's son in PUMPKINHEAD, asking, "What did you do, daddy?").   Suddenly, the moral dilemma changed from "What would you be willing to do to get your child back" to "What would you do to keep her?"

As it turns out, that's not what's at issue in the third act of this film.  Instead WAKE WOOD returns to familiar territory.  Through some kind of loophole in the magic, the un-dead girl isn't quite what she seems.  She's Gage in PET SEMATARY... a tainted soul.  To me, this revelation was a disappointment.  Wouldn't it be more horrific to have to watch your child die a second time, than to watch a lookalike monster die?  For better or worse, WAKE WOOD dispenses with the more horrifying scenario in favor of becoming a straightforward monster movie.  The monster, sympathetic as it is, must be destroyed so that order can be restored. That's much more palatable than a story in which the only monsters are parents who would force their child to die twice... but I was hoping for a bit more daring.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: The sight of these parents desecrating their child's corpse certainly makes an impression...

30 Days of Nightmares #28: THE WOMAN (2011)

 
The Story: A power-obsessed misogynist takes a feral woman captive, and forces his family to help him "civilize" her.

Expectations: This is another film I learned about from Inside Horror.   It didn't sound like a movie I would particularly like -- I'm more interested in speculative and supernatural horror than in slasher movies and savage cinema -- but the series hosts were obviously impressed with the quality of the filmmaking and I'm a fan of writer/director Lucky McKee's first film, MAY (2002), so I decided to give it a shot.  Sometimes I watch movies like INSIDE (2007), THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE (2011) and THE WOMAN just to remind myself that this is a genre about breaking taboos, pushing boundaries, and going too far.  We're supposed to be horrified. 

Reaction: Like DEADGIRL, this is not an easy movie to sit through.  It drops us right into the very disturbing world of a very loathsome character -- a man who physically and emotionally abuses his wife and two children, and who is generally willing (nay, eager) to treat human beings like animals.  What keeps this film from being impossible to watch is the filmmaker's perspective.  I have no doubt that the basic plot of this movie will drive some people away.  Even more people will be driven away by the tone of the film -- it has a very dark sense of humor.  I'd argue, however, that the self-aware humor is what keeps it from becoming completely depressing and demoralizing (like, say, THE GIRL NEXT DOOR).  The film doesn't pull any punches -- it's designed to make us genuinely uncomfortable -- but it is nevertheless smart and the characters are well-drawn.

We are allowed to empathize with the man's long-suffering wife (played by MAY star Angela Bettis), his mysteriously pregnant daughter, and even his sociopath-in-training son.  The family dynamics keep it from being a simple, straightforward story about sadism -- instead, it's about how some some people allow themselves to play the role of victim.  Sharp distinctions are made between the three sympathetic female characters, so that the film to make a larger point about the dangers of becoming too "civilized."  Like many examples of the savage cinema, this film boldly reminds us that we have to fight to survive.  It also proposes that if fighting to survive makes us as monstrous as the victimizers... we should be ready to embrace our primal instincts.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: Far scarier than the violence and the gore (and THE WOMAN is very gory) is a simple scene where the father sits on his daughter's bed, scratching her back and telling her he loves her.  We don't know anything about their relationship at this point, except what's conveyed by her body language.  That's more than enough.

30 Days of Nightmares #27: SINISTER (2012)

 
The Story: A troubled true crime writer moves his wife and children into a house where a family was murdered, hoping he can get a bestselling book out of the unsolved mystery.

Expectations: SINISTER is being sold as the product of horror's current dream team: Blumhouse Productions, the company responsible for the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY series and INSIDIOUS.  The title is obviously a nod to the latter, which was 2010's highest grossing horror film, but I imagined SINISTER fitting in with an even larger group of recent supernatural thrillers.  In my mind, this subgenre has undergone a renaissance over the past few years.  Movies about ghosts and demons are certainly nothing new, but they seem to be more popular than ever... and, what's really surprising, more effective than ever.

There are of course plenty of undistinguished copycats of the PARANORMAL movies, but there is also a new wave of slick young horror filmmakers who really know how to make a nuanced horror film.  I'm thinking in particular of Ti West's THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL (2009) and THE INNKEEPERS (2011), and Daniel Stamm's THE LAST EXORCISM (2010).  Scott Derrickson can also claim a spot in this vanguard of new masters of horror, based on his surprisingly effective THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE (2005).  What convinced me to take a chance on his new film was his recent Inside Horror interview.

In the interview, Derrickson talked about trying to do something different with the "found footage" formula.  SINISTER, he said, is basically a movie about a guy watching movies.  My first thought was, Wouldn't that distance the audience too much from the horror?  Instead of being one step removed from the action, with a movie screen between the viewer and the action, the viewer is two steps/screens removed.  Derrickson anticipated this problem, and reassured the hosts that he had learned from the mistakes of 8MM (1999), a rather ineffective movie about Nicholas Cage watching snuff movies.  The director said that he realized that the problem with 8MM was that it was always cutting back to the reaction of the viewer-within-the-movie.  With SINISTER, he resolved to focus on the found footage for extended periods of time so that viewers could have their own genuine reaction to it.  I was intrigued.

Reaction: It didn't seem to me like Derrickson followed his own advice.  He clearly knows how to build suspense and how to stage a scare scene, but that movie-within-a-movie aspect kept me from ever getting emotionally involved.  For me, the found footage was always too brief... and the film kept cutting back to the viewer-within-the-movie's reaction.  To be fair, Ethan Hawke did a much better job reacting than Nicholas Cage.  Whereas Cage spent an entire movie cringing in horror or gritting his teeth in anger, Hawke conveys an appropriate combination of morbid fascination and fear.  I believe his obsession... but I never quite felt his fear.  For most of the movie's running time, the threat seemed superficial to me.  When he was watching the home movies of murdered families, all I could think was that MANHUNTER (1986) did it better.  In that film, the criminal profiler played by William Peterson seemed to become an active part of the footage he was watching.  There was no barrier between him and the horror.

I must add that I saw this film with three other people.  Two out of three said they were genuinely unsettled by the movie.  Also, there was a woman sitting in front of me who nearly jumped out of her seat on several occasions, and then cowered in her husband/boyfriend's shoulder for a few minutes afterward.  The bottom line: Others apparently found it easier than I did to empathize with Ethan Hawke's character, and they were obviously more affected by the found footage.  What can I say?   I don't want to discourage anyone from seeing this.  I just wish it had worked for me.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: The thing that surprised and disturbed me the most was the revelation of the killer's identity. 

30 Days of Nightmares #26: ABSENTIA (2011)

 
The Story: A pregnant woman named Tricia and her wayward sister Callie find out what really happened to Tricia's husband after he disappeared seven years ago.  As the tag line says, There are fates worse than death.

Expectations: Based on the poster art, I was expecting a savage horror film -- maybe even a slasher movie.

Reaction: This is another example of misleading poster art.  ABSENTIA belongs to the speculative/supernatural horror subgenre.  That means it's less savage, more slow-build.  In fact, nearly everything about this film is minimalist.  The camerawork and editing are remarkably restrained.  The locations and art direction are so simple as to seem almost pointedly sterile.  The music is basically one ambient track repeated over and over.  The characters are fleshed out just enough to serve the story, but they are not particularly compelling.  The overall impression I got was that (a) this is a truly low-budget indie horror film, and (b) it often seems more realistic because of how simple and restrained it is.

That probably sounds like a slight, but here's the thing... When the writer/director knows how to effectively tell a story, minimalism is not a drawback.  With ABSENTIA, Mike Flanagan proves that he knows the genre well enough to selectively utilize only the most essential tools and techniques: silence, darkness, sustained takes, etc.  Suspense is, of course, all about point of view; how a storyteller manipulates the hopes, fears and expectations of his audience.   ABSENTIA doesn't dazzle us with visual bravado, but it nevertheless delivers the goods by tapping into common fears on both a visceral and an intellectual level.  It simply draws us into the emotional experience of losing a loved one to a great unknown... then suggests, to quote Stephen King, that "death is when the monsters get you."  That's horror storytelling at it's most basic, primal level -- a no-frills storytelling style that never goes out of style. 

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: The movie hooked me with the first ghostly appearance of actor Doug Jones, who conveys true shock and desperation when he exclaims, mysteriously, "You can see me?!"

30 Days of Nightmares #25: THE CALLER (2011)

The Story: A young divorcee moves into a new apartment and begins receiving phone calls from the previous occupant -- a woman who died over three decades ago.

Expectations: All I knew about this one going into it was the title.  That's been the case with several of the movies I've watched this month... which is unusual for me.  Most of the time, I need a specific reason to watch a movie.  I have to know and like the previous work of the filmmaker or the actors, or be very intrigued by the marketing campaign or the story synopsis.   Of course, that's no guarantee of success... In fact, I'd say I've had better odds selecting good horror movies at random this month than I usually do with the "safe" method.  The Netflix synopsis for this movie made it sound like a slasher movie -- maybe  a retread of WHEN A STRANGER CALLS (1979). I like WHEN A STRANGER CALLS, but it's old hat. 

Reaction: THE CALLER is not old hat.  Still, it took a while for the filmmaker to draw me in.  At first -- to continue my bad habit of reducing films to a derivative log line -- it seemed like SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY (1991) with ghosts.  The difference was that I liked the lead character, Mary, played by Rachelle Lefevre.  She's tougher than Julia Roberts.   I was also intrigued by the male characters who orbit around her: the self-deprecating engineering professor played by Stephen Moyer (from TRUE BLOOD), the sadistic ex-husband played by Ed Quinn (also from TRUE BLOOD), and the loveable landlord played by character actor Luis Guzman.  These four actors create a believable real world milieu that already has plenty of tension.

Now enter the "ghost."  The conventional ghost story would propose that the spirit of the dead woman, Rose, is lurking in her old apartment and scaring the new tenant.  Maybe it's she needs Mary's help to address an injustice so that her spirit can rest.  Or maybe she needs someone to tell her that she's dead.  This story takes a less conventional approach... Rose isn't a ghost, at least not in the most popular sense of the word.  She "exists" only in the past, but somehow she's able to use her phone to call into the future.  The filmmakers never explain how or why Rose's phone can defy the passage of time (or why Mary has a landline and a rotary phone... do those things even exist anymore?), but if you can accept this premise, you're in for a wild ride.

At one point, Moyer's character explains the whole space-time continuum theory that makes this type of "haunting" possible.  This requires some willing suspension of disbelief from the audience... but it's not too much of a stretch.  I could swear that this same character, who is supposed to be an engineering professor, even justifies his knowledge of space-time by saying that he is a Trekkie.  The line went by so fast, and with no significant reaction from Mary, so I might have been imagining that.  It makes sense though.  Anyone with a basic 21st century knowledge of physics will understand the theoretical concepts at work here.  And anyone with a casual enthusiasm for sci-fi should love the way these concepts are weaved into the already compelling character drama.

On its simplest level, THE CALLER is a story about overcoming the fear of being held hostage -- whether it's by another person or by the scientific laws of life itself.  That's the kind of speculative horror that I can really get invested in.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: There is one particular scene where the implication of past events influencing present reality becomes very personal for Mary.  It involves a pot of boiling water...

30 Days of Nightmares #24: GRAVE ENCOUNTERS (2011)

 
The Story: The makers of a cheesy reality TV ghost-hunting series get trapped in a genuinely haunted asylum.

Expectations: Full disclosure: I worked on a reality TV ghost series.  It wasn't a "real" time, ghost-hunting show, but rather a docu-drama format.  The way I always looked at it, we were making mini horror movies based on first-person accounts.  "Based on," of course, is a tricky phrase.  I've read accounts -- some from people who claim to have been closely involved with the production of the series -- that the stories were entirely fictional and the on-camera interviewees were actors.  For the record, that's not true.  The interviewees were real people, and every single scene was constructed around details they provided to us.  We made storytelling decisions, of course, that heightened the drama within those scenes.  Camerawork, art direction, acting, editing (soundbite selection + general pacing), music and sound design make all the difference between something that's scary and something that isn't.  The hard part was getting all of those elements to work in the same scene.  We had some successes and some failures.

I've never been a fan of the "ghost hunting" shows, because I feel certain that they require more embellishment.  The producers don't get to cherry-pick their stories or their moments.  They pick a location and then they have to hope that something scary happens in the moment, while they're filming.  I know enough about network executives to know that most won't be satisfied with campfire storytelling and moody shots of empty hallways.  What that means is that, if nothing interesting happens, the producers must make it happen.  I've always imagined that ghost-hunting shows are put together the same way that THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT was put together.  The producers send in their on-camera talent and tell them to film everything.  The talent has only a rough idea of what to expect.  Behind the scenes, the producers orchestrate a "haunting" that will prompt spontaneous reactions from those on camera.

Maybe I'm not giving these shows enough credit.  Maybe I'm being just as prejudiced about them as so many people are about the show I worked on.  Whatever the case, I figured that GRAVE ENCOUNTERS -- a completely fictional story masquerading as reality TV -- would use this technique to deliver what the execs really want.

Reaction: In spite of its cool SESSION 9 setting, the first half hour of this movie drove me crazy.  For me, it was even more annoying than the reality shows because the characters here are so insincere.  Their insincerity serves a storytelling purpose of course: It made me wish for the ghosts to come along and kick the shit out of the ghost hunters.  Effectively eerie static shots of dark, empty rooms promised that it was only a matter of time.  (In fact, those static shots with no actors were the scariest scenes in the first part of the movie.  They offered reassurance that the filmmakers are interested in creating some real suspense.)

To their credit, the characters become a bit more likable once weird things start to happen.  They react in a believable way -- which means they talk a lot, and loudly.  Think about it: If silence is what scares you, you want to get rid of it.  I remember Lance Henriksen once said to me that as a child he fought fear by making himself "bigger than the monster."  That's what these characters are trying to do, and it works -- at least it did for me.  In the second act of the movie, my anticipation and anxiety was genuine.  The filmmakers kept me engaged by adding some sci-fi elements to what I thought would be a straightforward ghost story.

The third act elevated the drama big time.  About thirty minutes from the end of the film, there's a scene that begins just like the final scene in THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT.  The BLAIR WITCH scene was played entirely for suspense, without payoff.  PARANORMAL ACTIVITY one-upped it but adding an immediate payoff.  GRAVE ENCOUNTERS goes further.  The entire third act is a payoff: wall-to-wall ghosts doing very nasty things.  Some of the scares work brilliantly -- there are a few genuinely startling images that made the hair stand up on the back of my neck.  Some scenes, however, are so over-the-top silly that they completely shatter the illusion.  And others seem indiscriminately added to the mix as homages (to REPULSION and THE TINGER, among others).

In general, I believe that where ghost stories are concerned, less is more because believability is key.  Not everyone shares that philosophy... A lot of people (some of them network executives) simply say that more is more.  They prefer a slasher movie approach to ghost stories: hit the audience with everything you've got.  That's what GRAVE ENCOUNTERS does in the third act... and you know what?  It sort of works.  It wouldn't have worked in the first act.  It wouldn't have worked in the second act.  It doesn't work consistently in the third act (like I said, some moments are so silly that they operate more like comic relief)... but I have to credit The Vicious Brothers with knowing their craft.  The understand the principle of escalation, and they instinctively knew that -- under the right circumstances at the right time -- they could get away with more than this viewer would have guessed.

I would have argued that once you go over the top, you can't return to suspense, but the third act of this movie illustrates the alternative rollercoaster theory of horror.  It's a pure, dumb thrill ride -- up and down, up and down -- and it's effective precisely because it's so hysterically unrelenting.  

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: That girl-in-the-corner scene is the real turning point, but there are plenty of jump scares, bolstered by unsettling visual effects.  They might not stay with you once the movie's over, but they certainly get the adrenaline flowing in the moment.

30 Days of Nightmares #23: OUTCAST (2010)

 The Story: A mother uses Celtic runes to protect her teenage son from a mythical monster that's somehow connected to his absent father.

Expectations: I didn't know much about this movie except that it had a character in it named Fergel.  That was my takeaway from the vague Netflix synopsis.  The American poster/DVD art doesn't even suggest a subgenre (which is why I've featured the international poster art above).  If I had realized that this was a monster movie and that the title "Outcast" was a play on "casting the runes," I would have watched this one sooner.

Reaction: Everything I know about Celtic runes (which, admittedly, is not much) I learned from M.R. James.  Early 20th century British supernatural fiction is fascinating to me, because it is so hyper-intellectual.  The works of writers like James are steeped in ancient and pagan history, so they don't have to draw their horror from Romantic ideas.  Frankenstein and Dracula have history, but a story like M.R. James's "Casting the Runes" (the basis of Jacques Tourneur's excellent monster movie CURSE OF THE DEMON) harkens back to a time and place when magic was accepted -- and feared -- as a common part of everyday life.  Believe what you will, but for me that historical context makes it easier to believe in a movie monster.

In the same way that TROLL HUNTER goes back to ancient Norse mythology and Scandinavian folklore, instead of embracing modern movie ideas about trolls, OUTCAST goes back to the Celtic origins of an even more familiar mythical monster.  (Mind you, the tones of these two films are completely different.)  I'm not saying that OUTCAST is an unqualified success, but I am saying that the film takes a very familiar formula and transforms it into something with renewed vitality.

One of the key jobs of a horror filmmaker is to make the audience believe in the unknown.  It helps that this myth is grounded in a relatable family drama.  The main character, teenaged Fergel, is torn between an aggressively overprotective mother and a predatory father.  Who couldn't relate to his desire to run away with the cute girl next door?  Things aren't that simple, of course... especially when you're living with an ancient curse.  OUTCAST blends the ancient and the modern, the mythic and the everyday, with an ease worthy of Joss Whedon (though again, the tone is completely different -- maybe LET THE RIGHT ONE IN would be a better comparison).  The end result is proof that horror can easily thrive in the world we know... once we remember that "civilization" is just a thin veneer on human history.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: It's the implications of the family dynamic that hit hardest in this movie.  Mother displays a bit too much physical intimacy with her teenaged son, and dear old dad... well, let's just say that he's got a got a dark side too.

Dark Horse Comics: Drawing on Your Nightmares

This fall, Dark Horse Comics is rolling out a new line of horror books.  That's a big deal for horror fans, because horror comics are actually pretty rare.  Bloodshed is not difficult to find, but I'm talking about a particular breed of horror that is subtler -- more poignant, more perverse, and more intelligent.  Editor-in-chief Scott Allie is at the center of this horror line and he sums it up like this: "Horror stories aren't just about the willing suspension of disbelief - though this may be the genre that requires the most from the reader in that regard.  At least as important is the willing surrender to the mood of a horror story."  Atmosphere is everything, and that's what many of these new comics are aiming at.  Things started really heating up this week, with the premiere of new miniseries from Mike Mignola, Eric Powell and Tim Seeley... 

Believe it or not, Mignola's Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defense has been around for almost twenty years now.  In fact, the creative team behind B.P.R.D. is gearing up for their 100th issue -- to be released on Halloween.  What this proves is that Mignola has created his own successful mythos... one as intricate and compelling as that of any superhero comic.  Perhaps more to the point: He has created a horror mythos as intricate an compelling as that of his idol H.P. Lovecraft, who inspired Mignola's love for period horror.  In a recent interview with Wired magazine, he says, "I really think H.P. Lovecraft changed horror literature radically, and it kind of put the final stake in the traditional vampire, and suddenly all werewolves and things got kind of quaint, and it became much more abstract, and I like some of that stuff a lot, but I also like a simpler world. You get much past the ’20s, ’30s, you know, I just don’t have that much interest in the modern world. I like fog and wagon wheels and guys on horseback."

B.P.R.D.: 1948, which hit the shelves yesterday, is period horror.  It takes place in the aftermath of World War II, and gets right to the core of the B.P.R.D. brand, as Mignola explains in another recent interview with Comic Book Resources: "That idea of people not being in control -- that's the constant theme of B.P.R.D. People are trying to gain control, and you just can't control what's going on so efforts to gain control only make things worse."  What's scarier than the real-world threat of world leaders with their fingers hovering over the nuclear war button?  It's into that milieu that Mignola once again drops his team of heroic outsiders.  Series writer John Arcudi and artist Max Fiumara ably support him here.  Issue #1 has two visual segueways that left me in awe of the storytellers, plus a genuinely poignant cameo with "cute and funny" Hellboy, and a showstopping Lovecraftian monster.... all good evidence that this is still a vital mythos.  (And editor Scott Allie promises that things are going to get even better after the centennial.)

The first issue of Eric Powell and Kyle Hotz's new series, Billy the Kid's Old Timey Oddities and the Orm of Loch Ness, has a completely different tone... but that shouldn't come as any surprise from the man who gave us The Goon.  Hotz's artwork has dark brooding atmosphere to spare, but what really amazes me is how the storytellers balance that with such smart, nuanced humor.  What Powell and co-writer Tracy Marsh are able to do with the implied space between two panels is a testament to the unique storytelling opportunities of the medium.  (Just check out the first two pages, below...)  Their comic asides ("I'm gonna eat me a horse someday!") and Hotz's visual characterizations ("It has two heads!") are brilliant.  That's a big word, but I'm using it anyway.  The Goon (next issue: November 14) is easily one of the best ongoing series around today, and Billy the Kid's Old Timey Oddities prove that Powell still has plenty of ideas left.

Incidentally, if you're interested in seeing The Goon on the big screen, you should pledge your support to David Fincher's Kickstarter project, which aims to combine the talents of Clancy Brown and Paul Giamatti in a CGI adaptation.  Still need convincing?  Check out their "proof of concept" trailer...

 
"The Goon" Movie Proof of Concept Trailer from Goon Kickstarter on Vimeo.
 
The third Dark Horse comic that I picked up this week was the inaugural issue of Ex Sanguine, a new series from writer/artist Tim Seeley and his co-writer Joshua Scott Emmons.  Seeley is probably best known as the creator of the Image horror comic Hack/Slash.  I was especially excited about this one because I love that Dark Horse is taking chances on original horror.  Horror movie fans are always griping that all filmmakers do anymore is churn out sequels and remakes to old franchises.  From a business perspective, it's easy to understand why... A sequel / remake / reboot / reimagination is easier to market.  At the end of the day, it's simply a safer investment.  But the flip side of that coin is that viewers aren't as easily scared by monsters and madmen that we are already familiar with... so a lot of us go home feeling a bit disappointed. 

In a recent interview with Comic Book Resources, Tim Seeley described Ex Sanguine as "Dexter meets True Blood" (but implored readers not to be dissuaded by the "Hollywood pitch").  The truth is that there's some impressionistic storytelling going on here that works as well as the most memorable moments from those series.  Memories and fantasies float in and out of the minds of the characters, giving the whole story a seductive, dreamlike quality.  Based on the last two pages, I have a feeling that this quality will be gradually heightened over the course of the miniseries, so I'm very excited to see where things go from here.  

Honestly, I only have one quibble with Ex Sanguine... and it's based entirely on the too casual use of a famous T.S. Eliot quote.  But Seeley and Emmons are certainly not the first to go there, and we can chalk it up to a personal pet peeve.  I should probably note, however, that the Eliot reference made me realize that good comics work for me the same way that good poetry does.  I usually start by reading quickly, essentially daring the writer/artist to make me stop in my tracks and examine a line or panel more closely.  Once that happens, I have to go back and start from the beginning, and then I experience the whole story in a slightly different light.  That's what happened while I was reading Ex Sanguine, so I have to declare this first issue a success.

Dark Horse has a lot more nightmares on the way.  Another new series that I'm really looking forward to is Paul Tobin and Juan Ferreyra's Colder, due on November 7.  The first cover by Ferreyra (who also recently created a promotional "jam piece" for the fall horror line) is so deliciously twisted that I've been staring at it for weeks and it still gives me the creeps.  A little further out, Mike Mignola returns to the series that made him famous, with Hellboy in Hell (12/5/12), and Steve Niles brings his two biggest franchises, Criminal Macabre and 30 Days of Night, together in Final Night (12/12/12).  The crossover is going to be truly epic, as Niles promises that it will represent the no-catch, no-bullshit ending of one of the two series.  (I already know which side I'm betting on.)  Dark Horse will also be releasing To Hell You Ride (12/12/12), the original miniseries that I co-created with Lance Henriksen and Tom Mandrake.  There's a preview of our first issue in B.P.R.D.: 1948 #1, and Scott Allie gives us a nod in the letter column, saying, "This one is weird, guys.  Perfect for Hellboy fans..."

I know I'm biased, but from what I've seen and heard, I can assure you that ALL of these series are worth pre-ordering.  If you are so inclined, here are the relevant links:

Colder #1

Colder #2

Hellboy in Hell #1

Criminal Macabre: They Fight by Night (prologue)
Final Night #1

To Hell You Ride #1

30 Days of Nightmares #22: YELLOWBRICKROAD (2010)

The Story: A group of investigators follow a local legend into the New Hampshire wilderness, to chart a path that somehow led an entire town to madness and murder.

Expectations: Honestly, I didn't know what to expect.  The synopsis is vague.  The poster art is vague.  But THE WIZARD OF OZ reference was intriguing.  I've always felt that there's a dark side to the Oz stories... not just the wicked witch and the flying monkeys, but the nature of a world without rules.  I feel the same way about ALICE IN WONDERLAND.  As a kid, I was struck by the scene in which Alice sits down and weeps after a dog literally erases her road back home.  There's a profound hopelessness about the way she surrenders to being lost in a dream, the same way Dorothy surrenders (prematurely) to being permanently stranded in Oz.  These scenes remind us that the surreal life is fun for a while, but that madness may be just over the next hill.  It also reminds us that there are some bad dreams we can't wake up from.  That makes these familiar childhood fairy tales very good fodder for nightmares.

Reaction: Aside from an effectively creepy scarecrow reference, there's not a lot of Oz in this movie.  The storytellers seem to have latched onto this connection as an afterthought, realizing (correctly) that they needed some kind of familiar metaphor to support (or at least market) a very unconventional narrative.  The Oz reference, however, creates some problems.  It focuses the viewer on the question of where the investigators are going to end up, and prompts us to look for similarities to a story we already know.  I believe that YELLOWBRICKROAD works best for the viewer who abandons this superficial comparison and lets their imagination wander... because essentially the "yellow brick road" is an extended metaphor about the great unknown.  "You always know the trail's there," one character observes, "Everyone dies, but no one says it."  That's what most horror movies are ultimately about, I suppose, but this one conveys our dreadful fascination with death.

Like the characters, we are intrigued by urban legends and the search for answers to age-old mysteries.  Like them, we are even more intrigued by apparent signs of the supernatural -- in this case, it's old-timey music drifting toward the investigators from the "end of the road."  Beyond this point of interest, viewers will proceed based on their own individual willingness to imagine what's ahead.  What's shown onscreen can never be as frightening as what's stimulated in the subjective mind of the listener/viewer by a storyteller who can conjure the emotional essence of horror. 

Some viewers will, of course, feel that not visualizing the threat is a lazy cop out.  More forgiving viewers will chalk it up to the limitations of low budget filmmaking.  A handful of viewers will be terrified by their own speculations.   For me, the film conjured thoughts of what's known as the "pan effect" -- that panicked feeling you get when you're alone in the middle of nature, and yet you feel like you're not really alone at all  -- as well as ancient Greek cautionary tales about what happens to mortals who asked to see the face of god.  (Hint for those with a limited knowledge of the classics: It doesn't turn out well.)  Is YELLOWBRICKROAD a pagan horror movie?  That's one way to look at it, and an intriguing one, but I wouldn't want to limit anyone's initial engagement with the film by imposing a decisive theory.

Obviously this movie isn't for everyone.  It's a courageously abstract, cerebral, existential horror movie.  For all those reasons, it can be frustrating -- even more frustrating than the middle seasons of the TV series LOST -- but it is also more original and more thought-provoking than most horror films, and for that I have to give it high marks.  When I look to indie horror, I'm often hoping to find something I haven't seen before.  For all of its faults (and I should add a note that any filmmaker who wants to rely so heavily on diegetic sound needs a much better sound mix), this one delivered something new.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: The turning point in the film is a scene where one of the characters abruptly breaks down, like Dorothy pining for home in the Emerald City or Alice weeping in wonderland.  Because it's a horror movie, the breakdown is much bloodier...

30 Days of Nightmares #21: TUCKER & DALE VS. EVIL (2010)

The Story: A group of party-hard college kids decide to take their spring break in hillbilly country, where they cross paths with a couple of loveable bumpkins who inadvertently knock them off one by one. 

Expectations: Parody is tough.  How does a filmmaker mock the conventions of a genre without annoying and alienating the fans who really love it?  In my opinion, the best way is to make a straight-faced character drama that mixes elements of horror with situational humor.  SHAUN OF THE DEAD did it well, and ZOMBIELAND.  The characters were smart and likable, which made the jokes funny and the scares scary.  In spite of its silly title, I had hope for TUCKER & DALE VS. EVIL because it features Alan Tudyk.  Based on his stint in the Joss Whedon TV series FIREFLY, I know that he can be very likable, and very funny.  And even though this film came out before CABIN IN THE WOODS (2012), I suppose I was hoping for some of that Joss Whedon humor... something like "Shaun of the Evil Dead."

Reaction: The setup of this movie reminded me a lot of Eli Roth's CABIN FEVER (2002), the way it self-consciously riffed on a familiar horror movie trope: City folk wander into a backwoods gas station and get creeped out by the laconic, unkempt locals.   Usually in this type of film (see DELIVERANCE, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, THE HILLS HAVE EYES, WRONG TURN, etc.) the hillbillies are somehow complicit in the eventual deaths of the city slickers.... because, as we all know, rednecks are evil.  TUCKER & DALE flips this story on its head -- by making us empathize with the hillbillies.  As it turns out, they're not evil at all.  They're not even dumb.  Just misunderstood.

Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine) are just trying to have a quiet weekend getaway, drinking beer and fishing at a charmingly rustic cabin in the woods.  The filmmaker sets the scene perfectly with a cabin that looks exactly like the one in THE EVIL DEAD, decorated with animal bones right out of TEXAS CHAINSAW.  Dale, clearly not a horror movie fan, observes that "whoever used to live here must have been an archaeologist."  Tucker, noticing a bunch of newspaper clippings pasted to one of the walls, adds, "And a news junkie."  True to horror movie cliches, the newspaper clippings are all about mysterious deaths... but Tucker focuses instead on a fast food coupon with no expiration date.  So far so good.  The filmmakers know the genre and the characters are likeable.

When the college kids show up, the film loses a bit of momentum.  It's a foregone conclusion that these kids are just canon fodder... but still, it would have been nice if they were a bit more interesting.  One character's slasher-movie-style flashback to a rash of murders that occurred twenty years ago in the same place could have been played for some kind of suspense, or at least for laughs.  Instead it's lazy exposition... The scenes with the college kids are just passing the time until the focus is back on Tucker & Dale.  Thankfully, that's where the focus of the film stays 90% of the time, as clever homages to TEXAS CHAINSAW, FRIDAY THE 13TH and even FARGO fly fast and furious.  I dare say that horror fans will appreciate this one.  It's not as smart as CABIN IN THE WOODS, and it's not scary... but, for a film with such a broad sense of humor, it's surprisingly clever.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: A colorful homage to FARGO's famous wood-chipper scene.

30 Days of Nightmares #20: SECONDS APART (2011)

The Story: Telepathic twins conduct experiments in murder to recover their lost childhood emotions.

Expectations: Twins are a natural subject for horror movies, because they tap into our intuitive fear of doubles (doppelgangers, clones, replicants, etc).  I'm not saying that all twins are inherently creepy, but I am saying that there's something unnatural about seeing two people who look exactly alike.  (Maybe it's not intuition.  Maybe it's just the voices of our mothers, reasuring us that we are all unique... I assume twins hear that mantra twice as often when they are children.)   Hollywood, of course, is quick to exploit any gut reaction.  Tom Tryon's THE OTHER (1972), Brian DePalma's SISTERS (1973) and David Cronenberg's DEAD RINGERS (1988) are my favorite examples of the "evil twin" movie.  In these movies, there is always a good twin and a bad twin.  Only one of them can survive.  So what happens when the twins are psychic?  SECONDS APART promises an answer.

Reaction: This film actually has a lot in common with DEAD RINGERS, but that doesn't mean it feels derivative.  Actually, I was impressed by how fresh this movie seemed.  The basic concept isn't original, of course, and there's nothing especially unique or surprising about the way the story unfolds... but the visuals are striking, the editing is sharp, and the dialogue is crisp.  What I really like about this film is the repartee between four main characters: twins Jonah and Seth (played by Edmund and Gary Entin), the love interest who comes between them (Samantha Droke), and the physically and emotionally scarred cop who investigates them (Orlando Jones).  All of these characters have a directness about them that elevates the entire story. 

What occurred to me while watching SECONDS APART was how coy many horror movies are.  Usually, the characters have to go through a fact-finding routine on their way to becoming fully aware of the central conflict.  The audience can see the plot developments coming a mile away (usually because we have the advantage of the filmmaker's omniscient point of view, not to mention indiscreet marketing campaigns), but the characters learn as they go.  We're always one step ahead of them, feeling smarter because we know where they're headed.

In this film, the characters aren't coy.  The twins don't act surprised or indignant when they are accused of murder.  They don't soft-peddle their responses to their school principal or police investigators.  They don't even flinch when a classmate slits her throat in front of them... because they have no apparent conscience.   Likewise, the lead investigator doesn't have to be convinced that the twins are killers.  He doesn't second guess his hunch the way most movie characters would.  He doesn't even wrestle much with the notion that they have supernatural powers.  He cuts to the chase, and promptly engages in a battle of wits.  The love interest -- a potentially tiresome character -- is also compellingly direct.  She's smart.  She says what she means.  She flirts without flirting.  I'm not sure that any of these characters are "realistic," but they were all very interesting to me because of their self-confidence.  With all due respect to the actors for nailing their roles, I must say I'm very curious to see director Antonio Negret tackle another horror movie.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: The twins make their babysitter eat a bowl full of broken glass.

30 Days of Nightmares #19: SILENT HOUSE (2011)

 
The Story: A young woman helps her father renovate a house that has been in their family for years, and begins to learn its dark secrets.

Expectations: The title suggests a haunted house movie.  If I hadn't read the Netflix synopsis -- which suggests that the movie is about the main character's "descent into madness" -- that's probably what I would have expected.  The synopsis also made me aware that, by watching this, I was breaking one of the rules of my 30 days experiment.  I've been trying to stay away from remakes and sequels, but apparently this one is a remake -- of the 2010 Uruguayan film LA CASA MUDA.  You know the drill: Hollywood buys the rights to a foreign horror film that most American audiences don't know about, then hires a hip young filmmaker (in this case, OPEN WATER creators Chris Kentis and Laura Lau) to put their spin on it, and sells it as something completely new.  In this case, the remakers stuck to the gimmickry of the original, which takes place in one shot and in real time.

Just yesterday, I was writing about Hitchcock's use of confined space... Today, I'm reminded of his film ROPE, which also appears to take place in one shot and in real time.  A filmmaker with the guts to tackle that kind of storytelling experiment needs good actors, and I felt confident that Elizabeth Olsen -- who was stunning in MARTHA MAY MARCY MARLENE (2011) -- was up to the task. 

Reaction: This type of film is like a litmus test for horror audiences.  Because it is essentially one long uninterrupted scare scene, it can be a bit overbearing.  Most horror critics say that audiences prefer a rollercoaster ride -- a story that builds suspense, then releases the tension, then starts building again.  Without the built-in release, they argue, audiences will become overwhelmed and instinctively pull themselves out of the movie.  I don't entirely disagree with this philosophy.  I can point to at least one movie, Ti West's HOUSE OF THE DEVIL (2009), that worked the other way for me.  I found myself getting occasionally frustrated by SILENT HOUSE's unrelenting darkness (literal and figurative), but I was also frequently drawn in by the sense that I couldn't escape.  We are literally standing next to Elizabeth Olsen for the entirety of the film.  There are no editing breaks to relieve tension... We have to endure every terrifying second, just as she does.

The bigger problem, for me, was the storyteller's failure to identify and localize the threat.  For the first half of the movie, I kept wondering: What is she running from?  Is it a human threat?  A ghost?  Or is it all in her mind?  Based on the Netflix spoiler, I thought I might be watching an update of Roman Polanski's REPULSION (1965), but without the nuance.  At times, however, the camera would pick up a figure in the background that Olsen's character seemed completely unaware of... Doesn't that imply that there is an objective threat?  At other times, Olsen sees something that is gone minutes or seconds later.  There are no ghostly visual effects, but the filmmakers are clearly using the cinematic language of a ghost story (in addition to using the cinematic language of a slasher movie) to scare their audiences.  This sort of thing can really aggravate me, when a filmmaker fails to stick to a specific subgenre... A horror film without internal logic just isn't scary.

The filmmakers manage to mostly rein in their story in the second half, thanks to a mostly compelling performance by Elizabeth Olsen.  Mystery finally gives way to straightforward horror.  To say any more would ruin the film for those who haven't seen it.... and, while hardly brilliant, SILENT HOUSE is interesting enough to be worth seeing.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: There's a scene in this film that reminds me a lot of my favorite scene in the excellent Korean horror film SHUTTER (2004).  It uses a very simple scare tactic involving a camera flash.... Simple, but (for me at least) very effective.

30 Days of Nightmares #18: DEVIL (2010)

The Story: Five strangers get trapped in an elevator.  One of them is the devil.

Expectations: Low-budget filmmakers tend to gravitate toward stories that take place in confined spaces.  Why?  Usually it's because confined spaces are cheaper.  Sometimes, however, the novelty simply intrigues the filmmaker.  Alfred Hitchcock tested the waters in LIFEBOAT (1944), and Joel Schumacher made it work for him in PHONE BOOTH (2002), working from a story by Larry Cohen (...who originally pitched it to Alfred Hitchcock).  When I first read the synopsis for DEVIL, I assumed that building a story around five people in an elevator was a decision related to budget.  Then I saw the opening credits.

DEVIL is a Universal picture, so not exactly low budget -- as evidenced by the elaborate helicopter shots and the symphonic score at the start of the movie -- and it's based on a story by M. Night Shyamalan.  Once I realized this, I started wondering how I had managed to overlook this movie until now.  I don't remember hearing anything about it when it was released theatrically... which might simply be proof of how oblivious I am to most new movie releases.  Or it might be evidence of how little faith Universal has in M. Night Shyamalan.  I can't help wondering: Did they pointedly give Shyamalan's script to another director (John Erick Dowdle, ust coming off of the relative success of QUARANTINE)?  From a marketing standpoint, that might make some sense -- considering how nasty the backlash against Shyamalan has been in the wake of THE VILLAGE (2004), LADY IN THE WATER (2006), and THE HAPPENING (2008).  He's got more supporters-turned-haters than Obama.

I'll go on the record and say that I remain an M. Night Shyamalan fan.  I had problems with LADY IN THE WATER, but I mostly liked THE VILLAGE and I'm completely baffled by the general contempt for THE HAPPENING.  The only way to explain the level of vitriol is to say that Shyamalan has suffered the fate that a lot of brand-name filmmakers face.  It starts with "Their early stuff was better..." and escalates to "Who do they think they are?"  Shyamalan was praised as the new Hitchcock after THE SIXTH SENSE (1999), and then backed into a corner where all anyone wanted to know was "What's the twist of his new movie going to be?"  Because audiences always go into his films expecting a surprising plot twist, they're rarely surprised.  Everyone thinks they're smarter than M. Night Shyamalan.  But I'd argue (not here, because this is supposed to be a short-form review) that he is still one of the most consistently intriguing brand-name filmmakers working.  Once I saw his name on the credits, I had relatively high hopes for DEVIL.

Reaction: The marketing campaign -- hell, even the title of the film -- boldly and defiantly announces the big "twist."  With that out of the way, the filmmakers can focus on character.  DEVIL is not the type of horror movie you might be expecting based on the title.  It's not THE EXORCIST.  The film has supernatural overtones, but mostly it's a compelling psychological mystery / thriller.  To put it in Hitchockian terms: the supernatural overtones are a MacGuffin... certainly not irrelevant, but not what the movie's really about.  The supernatural context allows the writer to present a psychological thriller as a kind of timeless fable or morality play. 

I suspect viewers will be divided on whether or not this works, but personally I liked the approach.  It reminded me of the scare tactics of Alfred Hitchcock and Larry Cohen -- the way that they ground horror in the most unlikely, everyday settings -- but it also had that sense of compelling otherworldliness that informs Shyamalan's storytelling sensibilities.  In other words, it was familiar enough to draw me in, but different enough to surprise me.

If there's one thing that my month-long horror blogathon is making me aware of, it's that my expectations play a huge role in whether or not I enjoy a film.  Probably that's true for most people, and it's not as simple as saying that we want to get what was sold to us in the marketing campaign.   I bring an awareness of the history of horror movies to anything I see -- I couldn't watch DEVIL without thinking of Hitchcock and Cohen and Shyamalan's previous films -- because what I'm looking for is a film that builds on what I know and love.  I look for evolution in genre storytelling.  I admire filmmakers who know what has come before them, who aren't so arrogant or ignorant that they think they can reinvent the wheel... but who are very good at building new roads.  For me, a movie like DEVIL is a detour in uncanny -- mostly unknown yet hauntingly familiar -- country. 

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: This is PG-13 horror, so most of the scares are psychological.  You don't have to be afraid of devil for the movie to work... you just have be capable of fearing the stranger sitting next to you.

30 Days of Nightmares #17: THE DEAD (2010)

 
The Story: Two men, an American missionary and an African soldier, make their way across the desert wastes of West Africa -- now ravaged by zombies.  Their destination: Hope.

Expectations: Warning -- this is not an objective review (if there is such a thing).  I confess that I went into this film with a decided lack of enthusiasm.  Why?  Because I was feeling very skeptical that there's anything new a filmmaker can do with zombies right now.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that zombie movies are dead.  The great horror monsters can always be reinvented for new generations... but I think filmmakers and audiences alike need a little time and distance from the zombie phenomenon before the next incarnation can come around.  Right now, there are essentially two questions I ask myself before watching a zombie movie: Are we talking Romero zombies or rage zombies?  And will they be played for laughs or scares?   Too often, these distinctions seem like the only real nuances in the dozens of zombie movies that have swarmed the DTV market over the last few years.  I feel like zombie movies used to be horrifying because the characters, faced with the end of the world as they knew it, were often suffering from an overwhelming sense of hopelessness and ennui.  Now, when I watch a zombie movie, I feel like I'm the one suffering from ennui.

Reaction: THE DEAD is a "Romero zombie" movie, played straight.  The story is solid, the acting is strong, the setting and camera work is beautiful, and there's plenty of gore.  And yet.... I couldn't get very excited about the film.  For me, it played like DAWN OF THE DEAD (the original) or THE WALKING DEAD in a different milieu.  It didn't have Romero's biting humor, but it did have a moral philosophy that made it seem timely and relevant.  Like all of Romero's zombie movies, the story is about people's reaction to zombies rather than about the zombies themselves.  The plight of the two main characters is not just about physical survival, but about the survival of hope.  I genuinely liked them... and yet I had a hard time mustering any hope for them.  I felt too overwhelmed by the film's unrelenting tone of malaise. At the end of the night, I felt the same way I did at the end of THE ROAD (2009)... What's the point?  The viewing experience was neither fun nor cathartic.... and I sort of hate saying that, because I honestly admired the filmmaking and I usually like the zombie subgenre for what it is.  

I believe that anyone who doesn't feel burned out on zombies will love THE DEAD.  If you do, I'd love to hear about it.  I'd also like to hear fans of the subgenre weigh in on a few other recent zombie movies that I've got in my Netflix queue queue.  Tell me what's unique about the French zombie movie THE HORDE (2009) or the German zombie movie RAMMBOCK (2010) or the Civil War zombie movie EXIT HUMANITY (2011).  I hate to think that zombie movies are dead to me... even though I know they won't stay dead forever.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: The film's first onscreen zombie feels no pain as he shambles along on a grotesquely fractured leg... but it still hurts to watch.

Weekend of Horror

This is a busy weekend for me.  In addition to my latest TV project (think aliens) being shot in Los Angeles, four other horror-themed projects are also bubbling to the surface....

If you're in New York, you can visit my partners in crime Lance Henriksen and Tom Mandrake at the New York Comic Con.   They'll be promoting our new joint venture -- an original 5-issue comic series called To Hell You Ride, which makes its debut in December.  Here's a sneak preview of the cover art for issue #2, on display at the Dark Horse Comics booth.

Tonight at 10PM Eastern and Pacific, Discovery Channel's new network Destination America (formerly Planet Green), will premiere the fifth season of A Haunting, a series I helped produce seven years ago.   Though the series was cancelled in 2007, it retained such a strong cult following that the Discovery execs recently decided to resurrect it.  Many of the old production team members have returned to the fold for this new run of 10 episodes, so I'm excited to see the results.



At midnight, AMC kicks off its annual Fearfest, 19 straight days of horror movie programming.  This year's primetime lineup is hosted by Kevin Smith, who will also be introducing a series of 13 original horror mockumentaries -- three of which I wrote myself.  I wasn't involved in the shooting or editing of these shorts, so I'll be seeing them for the first time along with everyone else.  Talk about suspense...



On Saturday night at 9pm Eastern, my horror documentary Nightmares in Red White and Blue will finally make its television debut on Chiller TV.  The documentary has been in circulation for a while, but I'm thrilled to think that it is slowly becoming a part of horror fans' annual Hallowen traditions.



Finally, here on my blog, I'm in the middle of my 30 Days of Nightmares blogathon -- watching a new movie every night and writing a new movie review every morning.  I'll keep at it until Halloween... or until somebody puts me in a straightjacket and takes me away.  Whichever happens first.

30 Days of Nightmares #16: TRIANGLE (2009)

 
The Story: Single mom goes on a boat trip with her new beau and his friends.  They sail into the Bermuda Triangle... To give away anything more would be cruel.

Expectations: This is writer/director Christopher Smith's third horror outing, following CREEP (2004) and SEVERENCE (2007).  Actress Melissa George also has some strong horror credibility, having starred in the remake of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (2005) and 30 DAYS OF NIGHT (2007).  The film was distributed by Mel Gibson's Icon Productions, which suggested (at least to my mind) that it was going to be pretty dark. 

Reaction: This film belongs to the mind-bending horror subgenre that originated with The Twilight Zone -- I'm thinking of films like JACOB'S LADDER (1992), THE GAME (1997), THE SIXTH SENSE (1999), DONNIE DARKO (2001), IDENTITY (2003), THE MACHINIST (2004) and SHUTTER ISLAND (2010).  If you generally like this type of film (and I do), you'll probably love TRIANGLE. 

Mind-bending horror requires extremely intricate plotting.  In the beginning, the storyteller must constantly throw out a lot of information that is intriguing but not too distracting... There's a very fine line between keeping a viewer in suspense and frustrating them with a lack of information.  I hate it when a movie doesn't make any kind of sense until the final scene.  That's too late.  The filmmaker has already lost me.  What works is when a mind-bending narrative unravels, piece by piece, as it moves along,  alternately confirming and thwarting my expectations.  That's exactly what TRIANGLE does.  To say more would, again, be cruel to those who haven't seen the film. 

I'll only give one more hint about the story: A few days ago, in my review of WIND CHILL, I noted that the writer tipped his hat (to philosophy majors) by inserting a not-so-casual reference to Nietzsche's theory of eternal recurrence.  Christopher Smith does the same thing here, tipping his hat to English Lit majors with a not-so-casual reference to the myth of Sisyphus.  Oddly enough, no one says anything about the history of the Bermuda Triangle... but maybe that's for the best.  This film is not focused on a phenomenon; it's focused on a specific character.  That's why it works.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: One of the minor characters stumbles onto horrifying evidence of her immanent demise.  The scene that doesn't quite make logical sense -- sometimes if you pull the wrong string in these mind-bending movies, the whole sweater comes apart -- but I don't mind because it's one of the most haunting images I've seen in a long time.

30 Days of Nightmares #15: THE SHRINE (2010)

 
The Story: An eager reporter follows the trail of a missing person to a Polish village with an ancient curse.

Expectations: I didn't know much of anything about this film when I sat down to watch it.  Director Jon Knautz has made a previous horror movie, 2007's JACK BROOKS: MONSTER SLAYER, but I confess I haven't seen it.  The poster art for THE SHRINE has a J-horror look to it, but the Netflix description says it's a serial killer movie.  I figured what the hell...

Reaction: The movie starts with a pre-credit sequence in which Adrien Grenier, the actor who plays Vincent Chase on HBO's Entourage, is tortured and killed.  Depending on your opinion of Entourage, this might not be a bad way to start a movie... though, if you've seen Encoutrage, it could be a bit hard to take Grenier's screams seriously.  For me, it played like a tongue-in-cheek cameo, reminding me of the tacked-on opening of From Dusk Till Dawn 2, where Bruce Campbell and Tiffani Amber-Thiessen are killed by a bunch of digital bats in an elevator.  Proof that stunt casting is often too cute for its own good.  To be fair, it's not Adrien Grenier's fault that I can't watch him in anything without thinking of Vinny Chase.... I digress.

The next hour of THE SHRINE follows a headstrong reporter (you know the type -- this character cliche goes back to the screwball comedies of the 1930s), her timid-but-pretty young assistant (she practically has "canon fodder" tatooed on her forehead) and her reluctant boyfriend as they travel to Poland in search of Vinny Chase.  When they get there, Poland looks a lot like rural Pennsylvania.  The locals are stereotypical backwoods freaks, and the three characters parry and joust with them in predictably boring fashion.  Eventually they wander into a mysterious white fog bank, which has been hovering on the edge of town for at least several months, and find a bleeding demon statue.  Next thing you know, the locals and trying to kill them, as part of some sort of religious ritual involving the witch mask from Mario Bava's BLACK SUNDAY (1960).  The details are fuzzy, because everyone is speaking Polish.  (At this point in the film, my wife opined that the filmmakers probably made a conscious decision to avoid subtitles, assuming that a lack of information would add to the suspense.  Mostly, however, the lack of information was annoying.)

For me, the film was utterly tiresome until a moment when the main character started hallucinating demons.  Language barrier or not, it was instantly clear that she'd been somehow infected by the bleeding statue.  Soon after, she went into full-on Linda Blair mode and the final third of the film became an extended demonic possession / exorcism sequence.  This part of the film is handled so well that I couldn't help wondering why the filmmakers didn't cut to the chase a bit sooner.  Obviously the strengths of everyone involved play better to an in-your-face monster movie than to a slow-building mystery.  (So maybe I should be watching JACK BROOKS: MONSTER SLAYER?)  It's a solid third act... Too bad it couldn't erase my memory of the first two.

Most Nightmare-Worthy Moment: More than fifty years after BLACK SUNDAY, it is still just as hard to watch someone get a spiked mask hammered into their face.  (There are only two spikes in this particular mask... but that doesn't help.)