Inside (2007)

ALEXANDRE BUSTILLO, JULIEN MAURY

INSIDE

FRANCE, 2007

6.5/10

"There's a strange woman by my door. Please hurry up. I don't know what she wants. She knows my name... she knows everything about me..."

Since I reviewed MARTYRS (2008) yesterday, I thought it might be fun if I reviewed another French film viewed as highly disturbing, INSIDE (2007).

This review is covered with various spoilers, some small, others larger, continue reading at your own discretion. 

When the film came out, I heard it praised by various genre fans as one of the scariest, brutal, most disturbing films in recent years, and so naturally, I had to check it out. The fact that I had nightmares as a child both about someone stabbing people with a pair of scissors and another about someone cutting an unborn fetus out of another person's uterus made me think that this film was perfect for me (the shot above of a pair of scissors stabbed through the protagonist's hand was literally a recurring nightmare I had as a kid). And so I went into this film with huge, huge expectations.

Despite a very weak opening scene (the CGI baby? really?), although I loved the windshield wiper still running against the broken window, the first 30 to 40 minutes were probably my favorite part of the film. The scene with La Femme at Sarah's door, asking her to let her in literally had me cowering in my seat more than any of the brutal violence that followed. The quick shot of her lighting her cigarette made me think for a second that Le Femme was in fact the nurse who smoked and talked to Sarah at the beginning of the film, an absolutely excellent red herring. I do believe that once La Femme was in the house and we got a good look at her, a lot of the tension was lost, but before we see her face, the shots of her just standing in the darkness are incredibly creepy. 

And then, after 30 minutes of exposition, we get what we paid for: to be grossed out and see just how much blood La Femme can manage to shed. Because of this, I'd like to propose a couple of alternate titles for INSIDE. Perhaps, PARTY AT SARAH'S? Or maybe 101 INVENTIVE USES FOR HOUSEHOLD SCISSORS. And there are quite a few uses of these scissors, my favorite obviously being the stabbed-hand shot (it also didn't help that I have an almost identical pair of scissors with are sitting on the table directly adjacent to me as I type this). The bathroom is probably my favorite set in the entire film, as red blood looks amazing against the clean white background of the room. The entire film is incredibly brutal and gory, which is really the only reason you watch this film: to see the gore.

The film is not without fault, though. It features some of the most idiotic policemen captured on film, it's repetitive, and even though it's pretty short, during the last 10 minutes, I was simply waiting for it to end. The zombie policeman (if you've seen the film you know exactly what I'm talking about) was useless, boring, and just downright not scary. The CGI shots (the aforementioned fetus shots, the scene were Sarah burns La Femme's face off) look horrible and inspire eye rolls instead of screams. The twist ending involving La Femme's identity is horrible (like, yeah, Sarah was told that everyone died in the crash, but surely she would have seen photos of the woman who died in the car they crashed into? Surely, Sarah would recognize her instantly?), and Sarah is somewhat unrelatable, as she is written as being detached from her friends and family, but the only thing this succeeds in doing is making Sarah detached from the audience as well. Honestly, the film is very, very good until La Femme cuts the lights, then it just goes downhill. 

I mainly watched this film just because I wanted to see if La Femme ever cut Sarah's stomach open and pulled the baby out. As I mentioned earlier, I had a nightmare about that as a kid, and the thing that made me want to watch this the most was the fact that that might be in there. I'm not going to say whether or not that happens, I just wanted to include that's mainly why I watched the film, because at the end of the day, people watch this film to see some disgusting pieces of blood and gore. And this film delivers on that. There are many, many, many faults in the film, but the gore makes up for it, and isn't that what we're watching for, anyways?

Martyrs (2008)

PASCAL LAUGIER

MARTYRS

FRANCE, 2008

9/10

"Lucie was only a victim. Like all the others. It's so easy to create a victim, young lady, so easy. You lock someone in a dark room. They begin to suffer. You feed that suffering. Methodically, systematically and coldly. And make it last. Your subject goes through a number of states. After a while, their trauma; that small, easily opened crack, makes them see things that don't exist."

Grisly, graphic, and brutal, MARTYRS (2008) has gained quite a lot of publicity as being an incredibly disturbing horror film. This is another film that I watched for the first time last night, even though I've been meaning to watch it for a very, very long time.

Going into MARTYRS, I had quite a few ideas of what I expected this movie to be. I thought that what would make the movie disturbing would be HOSTEL or SAW levels of gore, I thought it would be a mindless flick that shed more blood than needed. I thought it would be various situations created for the use of gore for gore's sake, that there would be no higher purpose to the film. And boy, was I wrong. MARTYRS does have gore, true, but it is not overplayed, and honestly there are films which are much, much gorier. Not to say that it isn't gory, it is, just not as much as you may expect. MARTYRS instead disturbs you by the way it handles the gore, the way it shows the tortures for what they, not glorifying them in any way.

This is why I don't like why I have seen some people on the Internet refer to this as "torture porn". I'm already not a big fan of the term, but MARTYRS is not torture porn. Unlike HOSTEL, it does not glorify the violence, not does it attempt to entertain (more on that later) using the violence. MARTYRS exists to make you feel uncomfortable, to disturb you. Sure, there may be a few people who enjoy the gore in this, but on the whole it exists for upset the viewer more than anything.

As I mentioned earlier, MARTYRS is not meant to entertain. That may sound weird, seeing as don't all movies exist to entertain? This film, however, does not. It exists to make you incredibly uncomfortable and shocked, and it certainly does that. Everything else about this film is top-class. The cinematography and gore effects are both amazing, the soundtrack (though there is very little of it) is incredibly effective and adds to the experience of this film. The acting is fantastic, and the characters are interesting, complex, and believable  As much as I love popcorn films and mindless slashers, this film is on a tier above the rest. It is dark, shocking, and atmospheric. Though it is an incredibly uncomfortable experience, I recommend that everyone watched this film. There is not much that one can say about this film, so I recommend that you watch it for yourself.

Braindead/Dead Alive (1992)

PETER JACKSON

BRAINDEAD/DEAD ALIVE

NEW ZEALAND, 1992

8/10

"Stand back, boy! This calls for divine intervention! I kick ass for the Lord!"

Last night, for the first time, I watched BRAINDEAD (1992), it's been on my watch list for over a year, and I decided to finally view it and then review it for this blog.

Smart, funny, and downright disgusting, Peter Jackson's BRAINDEAD is a masterpiece in the horror-comedy genre (you read that right, the LORD OF THE RINGS director made one of the goriest zombie films of all time). Now, I'm not usually a fan of slapstick comedy, and as much as I love EVIL DEAD (1981) and its sequels, I never found them funny (I know that the original EVIL DEAD was just a plain horror, but the others were slapstick comedies), and so I had pretty low expectations for this film. However, I actually found this film very funny (still not hilarious, which it why it's not a 10/10 or even a 9/10, but I did chuckle at some points). People who watch this film no doubt remember many lines, such as the aforementioned "I kick ass for the Lord!", or "Your mother ate my dog!" "Not all of it", or even "We don't sell sedatives! Tranquilizers, I do have." It is the combination of not only slapstick humor but also generally witty and amusing dialogue that places this movie as my favorite slapstick comedy. 

The film also has one of the best taglines ever: "Some things won't stay down...even after they're dead." It truly lets you know you are in for a gory ride. There are some wonderful events in the film, from a rat monkey to humping zombies to a zombie baby to a priest using the martial arts to a Jack-o-Lantern type of lit up zombie. What more could you ask for in a slapstick film?

The film takes a while to get in to the huge amounts of blood and gore that it is famous for. It introduces its characters, Lionel and Paquita, develops their relationship, and while the zombies begin very quickly, this film isn't a bloodbath until the last 35 minutes. The plot is very minimal and has been used time and time again, but this film isn't supposed to have a killer plot. It sets out to make you laugh and do exceed your wildest expectations with, literally, gallons and gallons and gallons of blood (five gallons per second in the lawnmower scene). I was told the amount of blood in this would exceed my expectations, so I expected blood on the level of EVIL DEAD, but I ended up getting way more than that.

So if you're looking for a fun popcorn movie to watch with your friends that aren't squeamish, this is it. You'll laugh, smile, be a little disgusted, but ultimately come back for more. Highly recommended. 

The Exorcist III (1990)

WILLIAM PETER BLATTY

THE EXORCIST III

USA, 1990

7.5/10

"Incidentally, did you know that you are talking to an artist? I sometimes do special things to my victims: things that are creative. Of course, it takes knowledge, pride in your work... For example, a decapitated head can continue to see for approximately twenty seconds. So when I have one that's gawking, I always hold it up so that it can see its body. It's a little extra I throw in for no added charge. I must admit it makes me chuckle every time. Life is fun. It's a wonderful life, in fact... for some."

In 1973 we got THE EXORCIST (1973), one of the most commercially successful and famous horror movies of all time. 4 years later, we got THE EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC (1977), an unbelievably horrible movie (I watched it once years ago and I can't bring myself to watch it again, even though I probably will eventually because it'll be fun to write a review for). Then, 13 years later, we finally get THE EXORCIST III (1990), an actual worthy sequel. 

Now, this film actually could have been a lot better than it actually is. A big reason I'm rating it 7.5 out of 10 is because I'm taking into account the kind of film Blatty wanted to write. He wanted it to be a more faithful adaptation of his book, LEGION, and even wanted the film to be called LEGION, but the studio made his make the story more exorcism-focused, and to put THE EXORCIST name on it to make it easier to market. I mean, the movie would have been loads better if that exorcism wasn't thrown in at the end, and it felt a lot more like an afterthought than a resolution to the story. 

Seeing as I am a huge SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991) fan, I loved the interactions between Kinderman and the Gemini Killer, as their conversations were slightly similar to those of Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter. Blatty writes these scenes exceptionally, which is to be expected seeing as his novels have received much acclaim, and much of THE EXORCIST III's power relies on the words and symbolism. Blatty's direction is also amazing, especially considering that this was only the second film he's ever directed. Although I believe that THE EXORCIST has slightly better cinematography, this film is still amazing. This is one of the only films I can think of where it's directed, written, and adapted from a novel by the same person. 

THE EXORCIST III is completely underrated. I've never met anyone who's even heard of the film, but even on the Internet I see very little appreciation for the film. Considering the fact that it's a third installment in a horror film series, this film is exceptional (I mean, compare this to any other third installment in any other horror series, it's most likely superior). THE EXORCIST III is an incredibly intelligent horror film, but can still be enjoyed without focusing on the more intelligent aspects. If you're looking for a film with great acting, you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with some beautiful shots, you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with a fantastic plot (except for the dumbed-down crowd pleasing scenes the studio forced Blatty to include), you can find that here. If you're looking for a film with enough symbolism and foreshadowing to keep you engaged in the film to watch it again, you can find that here. If you're looking for, arguably, the most effective jump scare in the entire horror genre, you can most definitely find that here (please refrain from watching said scene before-hand, it works much better in context). 

In conclusion, THE EXORCIST III is an unbelievably underrated horror flick, that, while I still believe the original to be vastly superior, is a wonderfully journey into darkness. It would no doubt be much better if the studio let Blatty have more creative control over the film, but it is still worth a view or two. Highly recommended.

Suspiria (1977)

DARIO ARGENTO

SUSPIRIA

ITALY, 1977

9.5/10

"Who is it? Who's there? Ah, I've been expecting you! The American girl! I knew you'd come. You want to kill me! You want to kill Helena Markos!"

I first watched this film around five years ago, and initially, I was disappointed. Every horror fan has at least heard of SUSPIRIA (1977), and it's often cited as one of the best horror films ever created, or, at least as Italian horror master Dario Argento's masterpiece. And so I watched it with very, very high expectations, and the movie ended with me feeling remarkably underwhelmed (it's worth mentioning that I was watching this in the middle of the day, and PEEPING TOM (1960) is the only horror film that's been able to creep me out while the sun is still in the sky, so that no doubt hindered my enjoyment of the film at first). I thought "This is SUSPIRIA? This is this film I've heard so much about?" And for three years I held a huge prejudice against SUSPIRIA, claiming it was an overrated, over-cited, and over-colored piece of shit. And then, two years ago, I decided to watch it again. And while I still had criticisms, I enjoyed it much, much more. And over the past two years, I have re-watched it many more times, and each time I enjoy it more and more. 

Now, like I said in my review of OPERA (1987), SUSPIRIA has many, many flaws. Even if you think the film is the greatest achievement in horror cinema, you have to admit that. The plot is almost non-existent, some of the dialogue is incredibly childish (though I heard the characters were going to be 12, but the age was changed without changing the dialogue, making it seem childish; whether or not this is true, I don't know), the dubbing is so bad in the scene where Suzy talks to the psychiatrist about witches that it actually distracts from the scene, the blood looks like ketchup, and while the soundtrack is haunting at first, it becomes repetitive, annoying, and intrusive as the film continues. Still, SUSPIRIA is much greater than the sum of its parts. 

As you would expect with an Argento film, the direction of the film is fantastic, and it involves some of the most inventive use of color I have ever seen in my life. The opening scene (see the picture above) is absolutely fantastic, as it manages to effectively scare the audience while having a very nice death sequence, and on top of that, it sets the tone for the entire movie. It's honestly one of the most effective opening scenes in the entire genre. I loved Jessica Harper in PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE (1974), and (pretty unpopular opinion here) I adored her role in the generally disliked movie SHOCK TREATMENT (1981), so naturally I loved her as Suzy Bannion here. The film works very well as a twisted and disturbing adult fairy tale, something that the DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK (2010) remake tried and failed to do. The death scenes (while there aren't as many as in, say, an '80s splatter film) are, mostly, incredibly interesting, inventive, and terrifying. The snoring of Helena was very, very creepy, especially the last of the two times we hear it. The tension in this film builds wonderfully, making the murder sequences, complete with pounding music and non-stop scares, even more amazing. Every single shot of this film is a work of art, the colors and angles all used exceptionally.

In conclusion, SUSPIRIA is one of the best horror movies from the 20th century, and is a must-see for fans of the genre. I do recommend multiple viewings if you disliked it, because I only really started to appreciate how this wasn't really a film, more like a nightmarish, violent fairy tale after re-watching. While I love it, I cannot bring myself to give it anything higher than a 9.5 because it does have flaws and I still don't love it as much as some other people do (maybe in a couple of months I'll rewatch it and change the score to a 10), but it is still highly, highly recommended. 

The Shining (1980)

STANLEY KUBRICK

THE SHINING

USA, 1980

10/10

"I can remember when I was a little boy. My grandmother and I could hold conversations entirely without ever opening our mouths. She called it 'shining.' And for a long time, I thought it was just the two of us that had the shine to us. Just like you probably thought you was the only one. But there are other folks, though mostly they don't know it, or don't believe it."

THE SHINING (1980) is my all-time favorite horror film. Everything about the film, from the performances to the colors to the scenery and more is completely flawless. It is one of those films that you need to see in order to call yourself a horror fan. From the opening shot of Jack's car (complete with a famous error in the fact that you can see the shadow of the helicopter that shot was filmed in) and the unnerving soundtrack, you know you are in for a creepy journey.

The film is over 2 hours long, something very rarely heard of in mainstream horror, but the film never bores its viewer, even with the slightly slow pace. Those accustomed to the in-your-face jump scares of the recent horror films may find this movie dull and slow, yet Kubrick is masterfully building tension that pays off in a brilliant finale (the last 30 minutes of the film being incredibly creepy). When I first watched this movie, I wondered why some scenes were in there, because at the time I thought them to be irrelevant. For example, I initially found the interaction between Jack and Lloyd the Bartender to be boring and too drawn out, but now I see how it serves a very specific purpose in the plot of the movie.

There are many infamous scares featured in this film. Almost everyone has heard of the the twin girls in the hallway early on in the film, or the shot of Jack sticking his head through the broken bathroom door and saying "Here's Johnny!", but the entire film packs nonstop scares, thrills, and tension that become more and more unnerving the more times the film is viewed. This film is a perfect example of how to properly execute a non-ironic descent into darkness and insanity. 

Jack Nicholson gives a wonderful performance as the insane Jack Torrence, while some people criticize his performance as being comedic at some point (I've heard people say that they laughed while he describes his dream of killing Wendy and Danny, though I find no such comedy in that scene), or as not portraying Jack the way Stephen King described him in the original novel (Nicholson makes it seem that Jack was always slightly insane, whereas in the novel, is insanity is fully provoked by the hotel). Some critics make fun of Shelley Duvall as Wendy Torrence (she even was nominated for a Razzie award, an award for worst actress), but I, as well as many other modern day viewers, absolutely adore her performance. Duvall makes me care more about what happens to Wendy more than what happens to any of the other characters. Danny Lloyd gives a surprisingly good portrayal of Danny Torrence, even though is still very young. All in all, THE SHINING's performances are stellar, some of the best you'll find in horror films.

In conclusion, THE SHINING is a rare gem in the genre. I recommend for fans of the novel to treat THE SHINING as a movie separate from the book, because when viewed as an adaptation it's pretty shitty, and all around nothing like the book, but when viewed as a separate work it's one of the best films ever made. It is a truly horrifying film that will stick itself into your head and never let go.

The Omen (2006)

JOHN MOORE

THE OMEN

USA, 2006

2/10

REMAKE OF THE OMEN (1976)

"When the Jews return to Zion, and a comet fills the sky, and the holy Roman Empire rises, then you and I must die. From the eternal sea he rises, creating armies on either shore, turning man against his brother, until man exists no more."

The year was 2005, and some Hollywood executive somewhere thought "Whoa, it's gonna be 6/6/06 next year, quick, let's just quickly throw together a remake of a wonderful film and turn it into a underwhelming, unoriginal, boring, bastardization of a film to make some quick money!"

I'm pretty sure something that almost every horror fan agrees on is that, most of the time, remakes suck. There are obvious exceptions, two of my favorite films are remakes: THE THING (1982) and THE FLY (1986). But, generally, we can all agree that remakes are, most of the time, just boring horse shit released to make money in a genre that movie producers just don't seem to understand any more. And the remake of the classic 1976 film THE OMEN is no exception.

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear about a remake is: why? I thought that when I heard about THE WICKER MAN (2006), or BLACK CHRISTMAS (2006), or HALLOWEEN (2007), or countless others. I mean, all the original films are good enough that they stand on their own, and don't need to be remade. And THE OMEN (1976) is one of those films. But if there's one thing you can count on Hollywood for it's churning out remake after remake just to make money. And I do keep seeing them out of curiosity, so I guess I'm part of the problem here.

The kid who plays Damien here obviously feels he's mastered the "creepy kid stare" because that's what he does the entire film, although he hasn't. A fucking feather is more threatening than Damien in this. And he's nowhere near as creepy as the original Damien was. Liev Schreiber does surprisingly well as Robert Thorn, though not nearly as good as Gregory Peck was in the original.

Something that bothers me much about this remake is that it brings absolutely nothing new to the table. The good remakes I mentioned before, THE THING and THE FLY, are both very different from the original (THE THING is actually a re-adaptation of the story "Who Goes There?" but I'm just calling it a remake for the purposes of this review), and are a re-imagination of the story that is still excellent as its own movie, and still pays homage to the original. If only we still made remakes like this. THE OMEN (2006), however, is different. It's not a shot-for-shot remake (the one thing this movie has going for it) like PSYCHO (1998), but it's pretty close. Many shots are set up in the exact same way as the original, the script brings no new structure, Julia Stiles and Liev Schreiber are much too young to play that characters they were cast for, and even talented members of the cast, like Mia Farrow, deliver boring, lifeless performances. THE OMEN is just an all-around horrible film.

While some may believe I am being too harsh on this film, it's honestly just horrid, and nothing new is brought to the table. Even if you're unfamiliar with the story and have never seen the original, it's still remarkably underwhelming and boring. While the film's climax is slightly entertaining, it's nowhere near as wonderful as that in the 1976 one. Stick to the original here. 

Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)

TONY RANDEL

HELLBOUND: HELLRASIER II

UK, 1988

6.5/10

FOLLOW-UP TO HELLRAISER (1987)

"The mind is a labyrinth, ladies and gentlemen, a puzzle. And while the paths of the brain are plainly visible, its ways deceptively apparent, its destinations are unknown. Its secrets still secret. And, if we are honest, it is the lure of the labyrinth that draws us to our chosen field to unlock those secrets"

Reviews for other films in the franchise found here.

*Some spoilers afoot, all rather minor, but if you wish to go into the film 100% un-spoiled, it is best if you skip this review*

HELLBOUND: HELLRAISER II (1988) picks up right where the original HELLRAISER (1987) left off. Fans of the original can expect more of the same, yet while this film is a worthy follow-up, it is still vastly inferior.

Something that made the original so unique (even different from all of its sequels) was its use of the Cenobites: instead of using them to advance the plot, they use them to emphasize it. While the sequel does this in some regards, the plot of this film could basically be summed up as "Kirsty and some other forgettable characters fight monsters". The first 40 minutes of the film, before the gates to Hell are opened, are the film's strength: keeping the spirit of the original and still feeling strangely frightening, though it is too similar to the plot of the original to stand on its own. I, for one, preferred Claire Higgins's performance as Kirsty's step-mother Julia in this film to her performance in the original, though she was written better in the original. But once the puzzle is solved and Hell is opened, the film loses much of its strength.

Dr. Channard begins the film as a wonderfully creepy villain, but the second he becomes a monster similar to that of the Cenobites, he loses all of his power, and even defeats the Cenobites so easily that any fear you may have held at the beginning of the film is instantly lost. The last ten minutes of the film is a mess as director Randel tries and fails to create any tension or suspense, and the Leviathan being incredibly disappointing, and the final "twist" (though it's honestly more of a "reveal") is forced, unnatural, unoriginal, and boring.

Part of the reason I love the original is because it is so character- driven in a genre filled with characters who just let things happen to them, rather than being the force behind everything in the film (the Cenobites, as I said before, are more of an epilogue/conclusion in the original, rather than the entire plot). While many people argue that the film cannot be enjoyed because almost every character is, in some way, shape, or form, extremely unlikable and complicated, yet this is, in my opinion, what adds to the film's strength. All of the characters are human, which adds a level to the film, as it is much easier to place yourself in the characters's shoes. The sequel, however, lacks that character complexity, with all of the new characters being clichéd, one- dimensional shadows of people, and even some of the recurring characters lose some of their complexity.

Still, for all of the films downfalls, it also contains a lot of strengths. The scene in which Tiffany finds her own personal Hell is probably the creepiest in the entire film, and Frank's Hell is rather intriguing and disturbing. The beginning half of the movie truly delivers, and is up to the standard that the original had, and before Dr. Channard ruins them, the Cenobites are quite threatening, perhaps even more so than in the original. Pinhead delivers some truly great lines ("Your suffering will be legendary, even in Hell!", "But please, feel free, explore. We have eternity to know your flesh.", "It is not hands that summon us. It is desire."). The film delivers some backstory on Pinhead, which is interesting and creepy, adding to the quality of the film. All in all, the film is rather unique, even among the others in the series, and it will be difficult to find a film that is quite like this one. So, despite all of its mistakes and failures, this film still holds a special place in my heart.

Hellraiser (1987)

CLIVE BARKER

HELLRAISER

UK, 1987

8/10

"I thought I'd gone to the limits. I hadn't. The Cenobites gave me an experience beyond limits... pain and pleasure, indivisible."

After writing a novel, THE HELLBOUND HEART, Clive Barker wrote and directed an film adaptation of his novel, the cult classic HELLRAISER (1987). Barker wrote the novel with the intention of turning it into a film, so the transition is quite nice, though there are a few differences.

The film opens with this weird-ass guy Frank buying a mysterious puzzle box, and solving it, bringing in some weird-ass monsters named the Cenobites, who torture him. Eventually, his brother Larry and unfaithful wife Julia move in to the house. When Larry bleeds on the floor, Frank is revived (without skin, which is pretty disgusting yet I couldn't bring myself to look away) in front of Julia, and convinces her to lure horny men into the attic so he can kill them to grow his skin back.

Of course, one of the things this film does masterfully is blur the line between pain and pleasure. I have not read THE HELLBOUND HEART, although I plan to, and I have heard that during one of the torture scenes, Frank is masturbating, and his semen is on the spot in the attic in which he is revived. Of course, this was cut out, as that would probably be difficult to get into a movie today, let alone 1987. If I remember correctly, the scene in which Larry accidentally cuts his hand on a nail is interwoven with a flashback scene of Frank and Julia having sex. As the quote above states, the Cenobites gave pain, and within that, deeper pleasure.

Even if you've never seen HELLRAISER, you've no doubt heard of it, and have most likely formed a connection in your mind to this movie and the Cenobites, namely Pinhead, the most known and infamous of the Cenobites (seen on the poster above). However, this film, unlike the sequels, is not about the Cenobites. Sure, Frank wants Julia to get as many men as possible so he can grow his skin back quickly and escape the Cenobites, but they really only exist to advance the plot and emphasize the pain/pleasure parallel. In fact, HELLRAISER is a very character-driven horror film, more so than others. Almost every consequence comes as a result because of a character's actions, not some unseen supernatural force, whereas the sequels threw this out the window to focus on Pinhead and other Cenobites. I understand that the Cenobites eventually had to take on a larger role because it's much easier to market these films with Pinhead as the center of focus, but I honestly do believe that's why all of the sequels were generally disappointing.

Incredibly gory and disturbing, though some of the effects have not aged as well as others, HELLRAISER is a film that, quite honestly, must be seen by anyone who claims to be a fan of horror. While the franchise quickly went downhill, the original is still worth watching. It is probably one of the most unique films in the entire genre, I have had difficulty finding any film that is similar to it. While it definitely will not appeal to everyone, it is still a great film. It will, as Pinhead says in one of the most iconic lines in horror history, tear your soul apart.

Opera (1987)

DARIO ARGENTO

OPERA/TERROR AT THE OPERA

ITALY, 1987

8/10

"I am nothing like my mother! Nothing like her!"

While the film is rather flawed, I still have a soft spot for Dario Argento's OPERA (1987), also known as TERROR AT THE OPERA. It was the first Italian and Argento film I had ever seen (I think it might even be the first non-US horror film I have ever seen, but that fact I'm less sure of), and so I still love it and forgive its faults. I believe another factor may be the fact that I'm an absolutely massive PHANTOM OF THE OPERA fan (I love the novel, movie adaptations, and musical, I honestly just adore anything Phantom), and this film did remind me of that story. I mean, it has a mysterious murderous man becoming obsessed with a young opera singer, the rest is pretty different but that basic story-line is still the same. The idea of placing needles under a girl's eyes to force her to watch murders occur in front of her was so sick and twisted that it captivated me. I mean, I'm a horror fan, of course I love anything sick and twisted.

The soundtrack for me was hit and miss. I absolutely adored the opera soundtrack, and I thought that to have something like that featured in a horror film was just so new and so fascinating. Yet the heavy metal just felt completely out of place, and I actually feel it dumbed down the murders. I'd love it if the murders occurred while an opera piece is playing, as I think the beautiful music would provide a wonderful contrast with the horrors occurring on scene. I'd like to get off track for a minute and talk about another film I love, BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974). If you've seen the film, you no doubt remember a scene in which (I will not be using names to not spoil anything) a character opens the door to find a group of young children singing Christmas carols, while another character was being violently murdered within the sorority house. This is one of my favorite scenes from the movie, because cutting to the peaceful group of children, singing songs while the snow falls and then to the horrifying act inside captivated me. I feel, if OPERA got rid of the heavy metal score, the film's rating may have increased to 8.5/10.

Like many other Argento films, the storyline isn't amazing (though, as mentioned earlier, the story in this captivated me), the acting is nothing to write home about, and the dubbing is pretty abysmal, but the colors are beautiful, and in this film there are multiple above-average murder sequences (there is an unforgettable shot involving a peephole in the middle of the movie), and even with all its flaws, OPERA still comes together to form a wonderful, enchanting movie. 

I do believe the final twist ending is slightly unnecessary (I am going to refrain from giving too much information here), but the final shot of Betty, speaking about insects is incredibly crucial to the entire film and ties all of Betty's character development together, despite it seeming weird at first glance, so I forgive what really felt like an afterthought of an ending. 

If anyone has not seen OPERA yet, I would highly recommend it. Another reviewer on IMDb commented this, and I'd like to add that Betty is not a normal girl, and her reactions to the murders are not normal, because of what she's witnessed in the past. If you have not seen it, or disliked it initially, I urge to go back and watch the film, keeping this in mind. I did, and I ended up enjoying the film a lot more. Overall, OPERA is a great film with some setbacks, but I have a soft spot for it, and it is a personal favorite. If you have liked Argento's previous work, I highly recommend it. 

Scream (1996)

WES CRAVEN

SCREAM

USA, 1996

7.5/10

"Several more local teens are dead, bringing to an end the harrowing mystery of the masked killings that has terrified this peaceful community like the plot of some scary movie. It all began with the scream of a 911, and ended in a bloodbath that has rocked the town of Woodsboro. All played out here in this peaceful farmhouse, far from the crimes and the sirens of the larger cities that its residents have fled."

In a time where Michael was boring, Freddy had lost his edge, and Jason hadn't had a good film in years, the horror genre was close to dead. And yet in that time, we get SCREAM (1996), a funny, new, and, most importantly, scary movie. For once, a horror film in which the characters had seen all the same movies we had.

The film opens at the house of character Casey, played by the famous Drew Barrymore, who is getting ready to sit down and watch HALLOWEEN (1978), when she receives a mysterious call. The rest of the film is littered with comedic moments and horror references that any slasher fan should have a fun time identifying (keep an eye out for the name of Sidney's boyfriend, the number on Tatum's shirt, etc).

And of course there is the famous line "There are certain RULES that one must abide by in order to successfully survive a horror movie." The film mentions rules which we have all learned by watching earlier slashers. There's the glaringly obvious "don't have sex", don't yell out "who's there?", don't drink, and more. And what SCREAM does is try to break every rule (though it is still rather unpredictable).

Now, of course, I hate what SCREAM did to the genre. It revived the horror genre, and specifically the slasher sub-genre, but almost all of the films inspired by SCREAM were just annoying and cheesy films that were trying too hard to be self-aware. Looking at you, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER (1997); it's hard to believe that I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER was written by the same writer of SCREAM. And, while the second SCREAM movie is still pretty good, the other two films in the franchise are horrible imitations, just as formulaic as the films SCREAM tried to defy.

When I first got in to horror, I watched almost every sub-genre of horror films, and had seen quite a lot of movies at young age (by the time I was 13 I had already seen THE SHINING (1980), THE EXORCIST (1973), THE OMEN (1976), THE FLY (1986) and many, many more), but one sub-genre that I wasn't very experienced in was the slasher. Sure, I had seen HALLOWEEN and the first four FRIDAY THE 13TH films by the time of watching this, but that's as deep as my understanding of the sub-genre went. So I enjoy SCREAM because it helped past-me and many other horror novices discover the slasher genre (this film led me to the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET franchise, PROM NIGHT, THE BURNING, and many others that I never had any interest in watching before). And that is what I truly love about SCREAM: its ability to please horror experts and to educate those who aren't as understanding of the genre.

When some horror fans want to talk about shitty modern movies, their go-to film to poke fun at is often SCREAM. I find this completely ridiculous, because SCREAM is actually a very good film. I'd understand completely if they made fun of SCREAM 3 (2000) or SCREAM 4 (2011), or hell, I could even understand SCREAM 2, but the original SCREAM is actually a very original, witty, tongue-in-cheek film that still somehow manages to scare on top of all of that.

(Minor spoilers about the killer(s), no identity/identities are shared) While some argue that the killer(s)'s reason of recreating horror films (although another reason is that he/she/they are just batshit crazy) is very unlikely, I honestly believe it was the only ending the film could have done. I mean, if it turned out to be some crazy act of revenge, or another standard slasher ending, I think we'd all feel a little cheated. And this is hardly the most ridiculous ending in the franchise (as much as I enjoy SCREAM 2, the ending is pretty ridiculous, and 3 and 4 are both some of the most ridiculous endings I've ever seen, though I'll save that for my future reviews of those films). 

All in all, SCREAM is a very fun, scary, and interesting horror film that actually brought something new to a genre that had been reduced to formulaic slashers for years (if only we could have another truly original film nowadays). There are some brilliant one-liners ("You're starting to sound like some Wes Carpenter flick"), great characters (I'm not Dewey's biggest fan, but besides him I enjoy all of the characters), and a mystery-slasher that actually keeps you constantly guessing until the very end (the first time I watched this film, I never would have guessed the killer(s) in a million years). Highly recommended. 

Halloween (1978)

JOHN CARPENTER

HALLOWEEN

USA, 1978

10/10

"I met him, fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left. No reason, no conscience, no understanding; even the most rudimentary sense of life or death, good or evil, right or wrong. I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil."

While it is in no way the best made film ever made (although you can expect that with a budget of only $325,000), HALLOWEEN (1978) manages to frighten me on a level that no other film has been able to do. Sure, Jason Voorhees is cool with his hockey mask and machetes, and Ghostface was the first slasher villain I really, truly loved, but everyone pales in comparison to the blank stare, the heavy breathing, and the emotionless and terrifying mask of Michael Myers.

John Carpenter, my all-time favorite horror director, directed this film and, as he does with many of his films, had the ability to make the film look much more expensive than it actually is. As I mentioned before, the cinematography is no Oscar-winner, but considering the almost non-existent budget this was filmed with, it's extremely, extremely impressive. 

HALLOWEEN is quite different from other slasher films in the fact that it has both a very long build-up and very little gore. Despite these uncommon factors that, to someone unfamiliar with the film, you might expect would make the film boring, HALLOWEEN is still incredibly, incredibly frightening. Just seeing Michael Myers driving his car behind Laurie sends shivers down my spine.

This film also uses many killer POV shots. The entire opening scene, except for a final shot of child-Michael, is shot from Michael's perspective. The only film that I think did this better is BLACK CHRISTMAS (1974), even though HALLOWEEN is still a far superior film and was much more influential then BLACK CHRISTMAS ever was (even though B.C. is still a personal favorite of mine). This film also features many shots of Michael, his back to the camera, observing the characters he is going to murder later in the movie. This technique was used in many, many FRIDAY THE 13TH movies and many of the HALLOWEEN sequels, though it is never nearly as effective as it is here. 

HALLOWEEN is not the best horror film of all time (I believe THE SHINING (1980) to be the best), but it is definitely, in my opinion, the scariest film ever made. This film is highly recommended to any fans of horror and slashers, and is the beginning to a great franchise (none of the films all that good, though; HALLOWEEN is the best of the bunch), and (along with the FRIDAY THE 13TH movies), kick-started the 1980s slasher craze. This is one of the most influential horror films of all time, and is incredibly, incredibly frightening, entertaining, and interesting. It is a must-see for anyone even remotely interested in horror.

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

ROMAN POLANSKI

ROSEMARY'S BABY

USA, 1968

10/10

"You're trying to get me to be his mother." "Aren't you his mother?"

ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968) may be one of the few technically perfect films ever created. Everything, from the screenwriting to the acting to the direction to the pacing, every little detail, of this film is flawless. It is often described as being in a Satanic Trilogy of sorts with THE EXORCIST (1973) and THE OMEN (1976), though ROSEMARY'S BABY is the far superior over the other two films (though, honestly, I find THE EXORCIST scarier, but as far as film making, there's no debate, this film is top-notch).

This film may be the perfect example of subtle suggestion. Upon initial viewing, one may find oneself believing that the film is moving too slow, but in reality, Polanski is merely hinting upon the greater reality at hand. And what a wonderful, twisted, and terrifying reality it is. Sure, because of all the build-up (over two hours worth of it), one may believe that the finale fails to deliver, but I couldn't disagree more. (Very, very small spoilers are ahead) From the second Rosemary walks in to the apartment of the Castevet's, my eyes were glued to the screen, and I sat on the edge of my seat. As Mia Farrow's lullaby begins playing in the background once more, and the screen finally goes to black, I still sat there, transfixed upon the film that I had just watched, or rather, experienced. I stayed there for five minutes before I finally got up, just in awe of the wonderful work of art that had been presented before me.

A huge factor in horror is how the film holds up to rewatch. Out of my top five horror films (in no particular order, THE SHINING (1980), PSYCHO (1960), THE EXORCIST, HALLOWEEN (1978) and ROSEMARY'S BABY), I find myself returning to ROSEMARY'S BABY much more often than any of the others. And the film is so wonderful at foreshadowing and subtle hints that I love finding pieces of information hinting towards the direction in which the film is going.

The acting in the film is wonderful, Mia Farrow being able to completely convince and demonstrate the pains of her pregnancy, those both natural and supernatural. The Castevets are both wonderful, giving off the feeling of being friendly and supportive, though something darker lurking underneath. Ruth Gordon was awarded an Oscar for her role, and she definitely deserves it.

To fans of psychological and supernatural horror, ROSEMARY'S BABY is highly recommended, being not only one of the best horror films of all time, but one of the best films in all of cinematic history.

Friday the 13th (1980)

SEAN S. CUNNINGHAM

FRIDAY THE 13TH

USA, 1980

8/10

"Did you know a young boy drowned the year before those two others were killed? The counselors weren't paying any attention... They were making love while that young boy drowned. His name was Jason. I was working the day that it happened. Preparing meals... here. I was the cook. Jason should've been watched. Every minute. He was - he wasn't a very good swimmer. We can go now, dear."

The '80s were a time of horror movies attempting to, basically, recreate John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN (1978). Very few films succeeded, and FRIDAY THE 13TH (1980) is one of the only ones to receive its own franchise and to go on to inspire even more films.

Before continuing, let's get one question answered: is FRIDAY THE 13TH a good, frightening movie? And, to put it bluntly, the answer is no. The acting is (in all cases besides Betsy Palmer's) anywhere around "okay" to "laughable". The screenwriting is elementary. If you're watching an edited for TV version, it's almost not worthwhile to watch. The end chase scene between Betsy Palmer and Adrienne King goes on for far too long. But FRIDAY THE 13TH doesn't set out to be a perfect, thought-out masterpiece. It achieves what it wants to do: keep you on the edge of your seat, keep you (somewhat) frightened, and, (spoiler, even though this is common knowledge today) if you are unaware that Pamela Voorhees is the killer, keep you guessing. And for some this movie does achieve what it sets out to do. Some viewers probably will hesitate before turning off the lights to go to sleep. Many viewers will probably jump, particularly at the end scare, which is, along with Palmer's performance and character, this film's strongest and greatest achievement. In the simplest terms, FRIDAY THE 13TH is entertaining and occasionally creepy. Nothing more, nothing less.

And even though this film doesn't manage to scare as much as many other films in its genre, it (and Part 2 as well) belong on the shelf of any horror film fanatic, because HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13TH both gave a lot to the genre. Without them, the '80s slasher-fest never would have occurred (whether or not that is the best or worst thing to happen to the genre depends on who you're talking to). Without these films, the "rules" of horror films would never have been eternally set in stone. 

Basically, this film is by no means the best, but it was a very heavy influence on the genre as a whole, and in order to appreciate modern horror films (mainly slashers, but some other sub-genres draw inspiration from this as well), we must first thank FRIDAY THE 13TH.

The Fog (1980)

JOHN CARPENTER

THE FOG

USA, 1980

7.5/10

"I don't know what happened to Antonio Bay tonight. Something came out of the fog and tried to destroy us. In one moment, it vanished. But if this has been anything but a nightmare, and if we don't wake up to find ourselves safe in our beds, it could come again. To the ships at sea who can hear my voice, look across the water, into the darkness. Look for the fog."

This is not John Carpenter's best film in any sense (HALLOWEEN (1978) and THE THING (1982) taking the cake on that title), but THE FOG (1980) is a still a creepy, atmospheric, supernatural horror film that holds up to this day. Carpenter does once again what he was able to do with HALLOWEEN: take a film with a rather small budget (though THE FOG had a larger budget than HALLOWEEN, it was still rather cheap) and give it the appearance of costing a lot more than it did. While the film made 22 million dollars (which is good considering its budget of 1 million), it is not as impressive as the 47 million HALLOWEEN made. Still, I believe THE FOG to be a wonderful film for what it sets out to be: a small, atmospheric film, relying more on the tone of the film than any impressive special effects. This is why Carpenter is my favorite horror director. Sure, his plots are never life changing, and besides THE THING, his films are never filled with spectacular effects, but he manages to create wonderfully atmospheric films and has proved to be the best when it comes to slowly building tension.

And this film is no exception. From the opening scene on the beach to the final shot, this film kept me on the edge of my seat, although I believe the film really takes off when Father Malone reads from the journal he finds. 

We never clearly see the creatures in the fog, which I believe adds to their threat. Their glowing eyes, hooks, and large, threatening bodies help their mystery. The fog they enter through in, though its glow is incredibly unrealistic and fake-looking, it is still quite eerie and allows for a lot of tension. 

Overall, the character development and plot is missing in this film, but it's still creepy, atmospheric, and a personal favorite. If you forgive its mistakes, you will be in for a nice, fun, creepy film.