Vampyr (1932)

CARL THEODOR DREYER

VAMPYR

GERMANY, 1932

10/10

"She must not die."

The first time I heard of director Dreyer's amazing, nightmarish masterpiece, VAMPYR (1932), was that it was very similar to the surrealist tone of one of my favorite films ever made, David Lynch's ERASERHEAD (1977). This piqued my interest, and this film found itself near the top of my watchlist. But I was still wary to watch this film. I heard about the strange, grainy video, the washed out dialogue, how this film was as surreal as surreal gets, and then some. But two nights ago, I decided that it was finally time to watch this film.

My initial reaction was the same reaction I had when I watched ERASERHEAD for the first time: "I have no fucking idea what's happening, but I think I like it." The plot is paper thin as we follow our protagonist, Allan Grey, as he uncovers the secrets of a small town he has come across. But the most interesting thing about Allan Grey is that he is completely fucking useless, he's completely one-dimensional, and we don't really know anything about him. While this would greatly annoy me in almost every other movie, in VAMPYR, it works, mainly because VAMPYR does not follow anything even resembling conventional movie-making techniques. 

The entire movie has a very surreal, dream-like quality to it (partly because of the aforementioned grainy and washed out footage as well as the delicate, soft dialogue). We are witness to a strange, unfamiliar world where we see images that are bizarre and intriguing, yet haunting and creepy (like the amazing shadow scene in the first half of the film). Dreyer's amazing, gliding camera work makes even those most stationary sets (such as the mansion where much of the film takes place) come to life and breathe before us. The film itself has much difficulty distinguishing reality from dream, and it does this better than almost every other film that attempts this feat.

This film is no doubt not for everyone. It is an incredibly unique film, and is very bizarre, even for fans of surreal cinema. Even ERASERHEAD, in my opinion, made a bit more sense than this. Viewers will no doubt be annoyed by how passive Allan Grey is. Even the few times he does help, he is often accompanied by another person who causes him to act. As I mentioned before, this works remarkably well in this film due to the fact that it is more of a dream. We are Allan Grey, passively witnessing events but very rarely acting.

A lot of the film, while not conventionally frightening, is very unsettling and its images stay with the viewer long after the screen turns to black. When I first watched this film, I was set on figuring out the significance of all the imagery and metaphors featured in the film. Because I was so set on analyzing this film the way I've analyzed films like ERASERHEAD, I don't think I was able to enjoy it properly right away. The next day, however, I sat back and watched the film again, not attempting any dissection, and let its imagery present itself to me, and discovered a much creepier and more haunting film than I had before. Sure, by the fourth or fifth viewing of this film, I will no doubt have a more concrete view of what I believe the film to represent, but for now, and I urge first time viewers to do this as well, it is good enough to be enjoyed on its own.

Some of the acting in this film is a little shaky, though this is mainly because Dreyer preferred to work with amateurs who had no real film experience, it doesn't distract from the film and actually works pretty well in this context. The direction is absolutely beautiful, and the light and shadows are some of the best I've seen in a black and white film. The entire film is covered in a haunting and, frankly, terrifying atmosphere, and this is the film's true appeal along with absolutely fantastic film-making, as the plot itself is nothing particularly revolutionary. While it was ignored by critics and audiences alike in the '30s, it has since found a very dedicated audience and a must-see for all horror fans and is, quite simply, a masterwork of horror cinema.

The Fly (1986)

DAVID CRONENBERG

THE FLY

USA, 1986

9/10

REMAKE OF THE FLY (1958)

"A fly... got into the... transmitter pod with me that first time, when I was alone. The computer... got confused - there weren't supposed to be two separate genetic patterns - and it decided to... uhh... splice us together. It mated us, me and the fly. We hadn't even been properly introduced."

Some other science fiction-horror films made in this same time period are just large spectacles to display disgusting and impressive special effects. Lots of times, they are generally weak on character development and good plots. Now, sure, David Cronenberg's THE FLY (1986) does have a lot of pretty gross special effects and the plot is pretty simplistic, but the characters in this films are so well developed and fleshed out that I can't help but feel that this film is generally much better than many others of its kind. It follows scientist Seth Brundle, who thinks he figured out a way to transport objects, and decides to show a woman in the media, Veronica Quaife, his projects. THE FLY is not only a great horror film, but it is also an amazing drama and love story on top of that.

Even though it is dramatic and romantic, do not be fooled: THE FLY is not a weak-hearted, light-spirited, happy love story of a movie. The film shows, in excruciating detail, Seth Brundle's transformation from a human being into a gigantic Brundlefly. Yet still, Jeff Goldblum (the actor playing Brundle) is able to break past the many layers of disgusting make-up and let the humanity beneath still break free. His performance in this film is truly great, and probably one of his best.

Cronenberg was no doubt very intelligent in his showing of Brundle's transformation. We first see the good aspects of the fusion, such as the extra strength or the increased stamina in bed. Even though we, as the viewer, know that everything will fall apart and any benefits which Brundle might have had will be nowhere near comparable to what happens to him later, we still have a small glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, things may turn out well. And then, slowly but surely, things take a turn for the worse. Much worse. 

And then there's the special effects, namely, the make-up, for which this film won an Academy Award. It starts out subtle: strange hairs on his back, changes in his face, and then it because much more graphic and brutal. The final half of the film features many layers of make-up, which no doubt took forever to get in and out of. While I'm not sure if I'd qualify it as gore because his transformation doesn't have much blood (the finale I would definitely qualify as gore, though), gore-hounds will probably be pleased just because the make-up in this is so good, disgusting, and brutal.

As I mentioned in my review of THE OMEN (2006), one of the most important things I need to see in a remake is something new. Besides the basic premise of a man being fused with a fly, this film is pretty different to THE FLY (1958). This film is, in my opinion, the superior film. It is smarter, scarier, sexier, and all around a better film, something that is very rare in horror movie remakes. All in all, THE FLY is a great film that should be seen by anyone who hasn't viewed it yet.

Black Sunday (1960)

MARIO BAVA

BLACK SUNDAY/THE MASK OF SATAN

ITALY, 1960

8/10

"You will never escape my vengeance, or of Satan's! My revenge will seek you out, and with the blood of your sons, and of their sons, and their sons, I will continue to live forever! They will restore me to life you now rob from me!"

BLACK SUNDAY (1960) opens with the execution of a witch. A mask with nails sticking out of it is placed on the witch's face, and then, using the biggest sledgehammer/mallet/whatever I've ever seen, the mask is struck and the nails are driven into the witch's face. Pretty gruesome stuff for 1960. However, it rains, so the witch cannot be burned, which turns out to be a huge mistake.

  

It stars Barbara Stelle in the role of both the witch Ava and the young heroine, Katia. How she can go from gentle to horrible in just the blink of an eye shows that she is indeed a very talented actress, and proves that she deserved to be among the '60s and '70s horror icons. All of the other actors do a very good job, but no one's performance stood out to me the way Barbara Stelle's did. 

The famous Italian horror director Mario Bava creates a very stunning film that is packed with dark imagery and each shot is full of creepy atmosphere. Even in the beginning scenes, when nothing was really happening yet, I could still feel a huge amount of suspense. There is a gothic feel to the entire feel, which helps it immensely. For Bava's real debut as a director (he did shorts and uncredited directing work before this), BLACK SUNDAY is absolutely amazing. No doubt one of the reasons BLACK SUNDAY is so magnificent (because while the acting and script are very good, they are nothing truly amazing) is because of Bava's skill as both a director and a cinematographer.

The film has many influences from early Universal and Hammer films. I'm not sure if it's true or not, but I read that fact that THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), a Universal film, and HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) met much success in Italy led to the production of BLACK SUNDAY. Because of this, I feel that this film has the old-fashioned atmosphere of a Universal film, but also features some of the violence of a Hammer film. It is also based on a story by Gogol, which I have not read. The set pieces in this film are absolutely beautiful, especially for a low-budget film. Each shot in the film is beautiful, helped by the Gothic feel and the black and white photography. 

The soundtrack in this film really stood out to me as being quite fantastic. It was creepy, strange, and romantic all at once, and it fit into this movie perfectly. It's very easy for a soundtrack to be intrusive or get in the way of the story (as much as I love SUSPIRIA (1977), the soundtrack is way too attention drawing and distracts from the rest of the move). This film's soundtrack, however, draws just enough attention to itself for the viewer to realize how good it is, but not so much that it stops the viewer from paying attention to the film, and that's really what all soundtracks should do.

All in all, this is a very creepy Italian horror film, and it's pretty short (87 minutes), so you can watch it without it taking too much time. Mario Bava directs the film masterfully, and Barbara Stelle gives an amazing performace. A great watch for fans of Gothic or Italian horror.

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

JAMES WHALE

THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN

USA, 1935

10/10

"You think I'm mad. Perhaps I am. But listen, Henry Frankenstein. While you were digging in your graves, piecing together dead tissues, I, my dear pupil, went for my material to the source of life. I grew my creatures, like cultures, grew them as nature does, from seed."

After the success of FRANKENSTEIN (1931), James Whale agreed to do a sequel as long as he had complete creative control. What resulted was THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), one of the best horror films and one of the best sequels of all time. While the original was more of a straight-out horror film, BRIDE adds some self-parody comic relief into the mix, which, while it would seem out of place in the dark tone of the original, works wonderfully here.

The film opens with Mary Shelley, author of the original novel, telling that the story is not over, as she begins to tell the tale of the bride. While this story-telling device is very over-used nowadays, I do think it works very well here, especially since the same actress who plays Mary Shelley comes back into the movie at the end, this time in the role of the Bride. Also, Mary's storytelling never gets in the way of the story. It is introduced in the opening scene, and then pushed aside to make room for the fantastic film that follows, unlike how many films today that use that device constantly remind the audience of the fact that it's all a story.

The character of the Monster sees much character development in this film. Whereas in the original, he was a grunting, powerful figure, leaving a trail of destruction behind in his wake, in this film, he attempts to find a place where he belongs. We see him bond with a blind hermit who plays the violin and teaches him some words ("Bread. Good. Fire not good. Fire bad."). While Boris Karloff was against the idea of making the Monster talk (even though he does in the original novel), it does make the character seem largely sympathetic, and isn't that one of the points of the Frankenstein stories?

Lots of people say that BRIDE is better than the original FRANKENSTEIN, and I honestly would have to agree. A sequel is hard to do, especially when it isn't a planned sequel, or when the original is as amazing as FRANKENSTEIN was, but Whale proves that it is possible to make a sequel that's even better than the original. The set pieces in this film, largely influenced by German expressionism, are amazing, and the Creation scene off the Bride manages to be even more spectacular than the amazing Creation scene of the Monster in FRANKENSTEIN. BRIDE seems much more epic to me, whereas FRANKENSTEIN was very much a more tightly plotted film. Both methods work very, very well for each film, I just personally prefer BRIDE. 

A problem with this film is that all of the characters have become so iconic and familiar, and every shot has become so deep rooted in our popular culture that, by the time we see both films, many things are familiar. Even though the Bride is only unveiled towards the end of the film, we have all seen her and we all know what she looks like and how she reacts upon seeing the Monster. We've all see it before, we've all heard it before. But that still doesn't mean that this film isn't intriguing and interesting, because it is. 

As I said before, this film is injected with comedy, something that fans of the dark and grim original may find alienating, but I promise that if you sit back without any ideas about what you want the film to be and you let it present itself to you for what it is, you will discover that it is a very good, very enjoyable film, and an absolutely must-see for classic horror fans and, quite honestly, should be viewed by everyone at some point in their lives.

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

GEORGE MIHALKA

MY BLOODY VALENTINE

CANADA, 1981

7.5/10

"From the heart comes a warning, filled with bloody good cheer, remember what happened as the 14th draws near!"

The 1980s, what a time for horror the 1980s were. Following the huge success of HALLOWEEN (1978) and FRIDAY THE 13TH (1980), many slashers based on certain days were created. We got NEW YEAR'S EVIL (1980), PROM NIGHT (1980), SLIENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT (1984), and many others. And probably one of the best of those films, and, in my opinion, one of the best non-franchise horror films of the '80s was MY BLOODY VALENTINE (1981).

The plot is pretty simple. Two security guards at the mine hurry away to get to a Valentine's day party in time, forgetting to check the methane levels. There's an explosion, and the miners are stuck in the cave, only one surviving: Harry Warden, who had to eat the flesh of the other miners to survive. After a year at a mental hospital, he breaks free and kills the two security guards responsible, and warns the town never to celebrate Valentine's Day again. 20 years later, the town decides to hold another Valentine's dance, and sure enough, the killing starts again.

This film is famous because the MPAA forced it to cut out a lot of its gore (and the gore in this is very impressive for a kinda low-budget flick), but nowadays it can be viewed in all of its gory glory on the uncut DVD. True, the added footage is a little grainy, but seeing as it has been on the side for 30-ish years, it's rather good. Many kills are interesting and creative, with many rather effective jump scares.

There are a lot of characters, some of them are not memorable and are paper-thin. There are a lot of cliches, like the jokester, and an older bartender who warns the young characters (not teenagers, just young) is very similar to Ralp from FRIDAY THE 13TH. The four or five more main characters are a bit more complex and interesting. They are still not great characters, but they are believable and real enough that I care what happens to them. Since there are a lot of characters, there are also a lot of actors, and a lot of the acting is nothing remarkable. However, a lot of the lead roles do very well, and we don't watch slashers to see Oscar-worthy acting, we watching slashers to see a bunch of people get cut up creatively.

The director does a very good job creating the atmosphere. The opening scene is very surreal and dreamlike, yet a horrific act still occurs, which perfectly sets the tone for the rest of the movie. In the beginning, we see Valentine Bluffs, a town covered in pink and red hearts and banners declaring the upcoming Valentine's dance, yet we still feel a sense of foreboding. Later in the movie, the scene involving the descending suits is very suspenseful. When some of the characters descend into the mine for the climax of the movie (filmed in an actual Nova Scotian mine), it is very claustrophobic and creepy. I think it compares best to the recent british horror, THE DESCENT (2005). The scene where four of the characters climb the ladder was very tense and created a very large sense of anxiety. The shot of the killer knocking out the lights in the mine with his pickaxe is very creepy.

Everything about the killer is scary, really. I mean, I find gas masks pretty fucking creepy, and they make the whole "heavy breathing" cliche even more distinct and creepy. The costume really hides the killer's identity, whether it's Harry Warden or any of the other characters killing people is pretty hard to tell. I don't really like the twist at the end just because it wasn't executed very well, but the last line of the film is still really, really creepy.

In conclusion, this is one of, in my opinion, the better 1980s slasher films. Though the plot is lackluster and the actors/characters leave much to be desired, it's still a very effective, atmospheric horror flick. Try to watch the gorier uncut version, but the original cut is still pretty effective.