It Follows (2014)

It Follows (2014)

Director: David Robert Mitchell

Cast: Maika Monroe, Olivia Luccardi, Keir Gilchrist, Lili Sepe, Daniel Zovatto

It Follows is a little miracle in the world of American horror films because normally today’s American horror films are nausea inducing and not because they are horrifying or morbid, or god forbid gory; no, no, no, today’s American horror films are nausea inducing because they are not what they should be, which is horrifying, scary, or dare I say, frightening. Of course, there are rare exceptions when an American horror film is actually scary and good, but what passes today for the modern American horror film is so bland and fluffy, that I hesitate to call it horror. But of course I speak of theatrically released horror films, which by the way are less and less every day. In today’s horror world if you want to find a truly good horror film, like say The Babadook (2014) or V/H/S/2 (2013), you’ll have better luck finding it on video because the really good ones don’t make it to theaters. Sadly, when horror films do make it to theaters they comply with two norms: either they are ‘soft horror’ depending solely on those damnable jump scares or they are religious horror films, aimed at propagating religious fear and amplifying the faith of the masses. The problem with horror films of that ilk is that they tend to be repetitive and dull, and therefore, not scary. The same situations and themes get played out ad nauseam, and it’s not that you couldn’t do something new with these themes, it’s that Hollywood just won’t go there. They don’t want to make a truly scary film. They want to scare you just enough so you’ll go to church, but not enough to truly disturb you. The result is a series of disappointing horror films that aren’t worth our time. Thankfully, daring filmmakers aren’t dead yet and every once in a while a film is made that revives my hopes for the American horror film, a film like It Follows. Not a perfect film, not the end all be all of horror, but at the very least It Follows is a film that lets us know that better horror films can be produced.

It Follows tells the story of a young girl who goes out on a date with this guy who seems like your typical nice guy, the only thing is that he believes someone is following him all the time, always on the edge. One thing leads to another and he ends up seducing her. After having intercourse with the guy, he warns her that she is now cursed and that a supernatural entity will now follow her until it kills her. It is slow, but it is not dumb and she cannot let it touch her. That’s all you need to know.

So that’s the premise, it’s simple, but damn is it effective. The first thing a true horror connoisseur like myself realizes while watching It Follows is that it’s a throwback to horror films of the 70’s and 80’s, the whole vibe of the film is very old school. The wardrobe, the cars, the houses, they all seem to come out of the 70’s and 80’s. Another thing that’s retro is the soundtrack, which is an obvious homage to John Carpenter’s score for Halloween (1978), which is an obvious influence here. The whole thing with the supernatural force following you around is reminiscent of Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers, you know, those slow moving types that still get to you in the end. It Follows also has a bit of A Nightmare on Elm Streetfranchise in it because it’s all about teenagers and their preoccupations, the kind that glaze over adults consciousness. It’s the kind of film in which adults are completely oblivious to the life and dangers that teenagers are living. In fact, I only saw one parent appear in the film and for only a couple of seconds; basically, the entirety of the film is centered on teens and their world. Teens are dying and its teens helping each other discover the who and the why of the events that are transpiring, forget the grownups and the police!  So it’s a very old school type of film, which is a good thing because the horror films from the 70’s and 80’s are vastly superior than a lot of the horror films being made today.

So is it a slasher or is it a supernatural thriller? Well, it’s true that at times it feels like a Halloween or a Friday the 13^th  film with the relentless killer after you, but then again, there are no gory deaths save for one, so I can’t really categorize this as a slasher. I’d say it’s more of a supernatural horror film that comments on the horrors of sexually transmitted diseases, which if you’re not careful can follow you around like a curse all your life. I say this because the whole film is centered around people who want to have sex, amplified by the fact that the film main characters are all in the prime of their youths, having their first sexual experiences. For example, in the film, in order to get rid of the curse you have to have sex with someone in order to “pass it on”. The person who has the curse has this whole mental struggle, should they or shouldn’t they have sex with someone just to get rid of the curse? In this sense, It Follows is a bold film thematically speaking; it plays with themes that are hardly touched upon by Hollywood. In fact, the only other film that I can remember that is an allegory for sexually transmitted diseases is David Cronenberg’s Rabid (1977), the latter being a real influence on It Follows. Both of these films play with the struggle a person has when they don’t want to pass a sexually transmitted disease to someone, but their sexual libido and basic need for human intimacy is so strong that they end up transmitting the disease anyways. Though in It Follows, the person with “the curse” is seen under a sympathetic light, not like in Cronenberg’s Rabid where society deems these individuals as garbage to be thrown out in a dumpster!  Point It Follows has something to say, it’s not here just for the scares.

Allegories and symbolisms aside, the film is quite creepy with some genuinely horrifying moments and visuals. I loved how the film uses very little jump scares. Instead, it attempts and succeeds in building up those scares in a genuine way. That whole idea of an ominous looking thing coming for you, slowly, yet relentlessly is so effective. I loved the suspense created by this concept which isn’t new of course, but it was well played here, the whole film is built upon that concept and they really went with it. It Follows is not a perfect film but it has more good things going for it than bad. For example, while characters might do stupid things at times that make you scream at the screen, it does manage to get you all worked up and that’s a good thing in a horror film. It Follows works so well, I mean this movie even went as far as making daylight scenes scary, not an easy feat for a horror film to achieve, most just go with night scenes to augment their scares, but in It Follows, even scenes that take place on a beach, in the middle of a sunny day can be scary! Kudos to the director David Robert Mitchell for that and also, for shooting such a good looking horror film, some of the compositions are just beautiful to look at. It Follows proves that low budget horror doesn’t have to be crap and that you don’t need gazillions of dollars to make an effective horror film, definitely looking forward to this directors future work.    

Rating: 4 out of 5

Original vs. Remake: Poltergeist (2015) vs. Poltergeist (1982)

So it’s time for another episode of Original vs. Remake, because Hollywood is obsessed with retelling successful stories from the past in a bland, less intense fashion. I’m beginning to notice a trend on my ‘Original vs. Remake’ articles, the old ones always win! I’m not biased, I always give remakes a chance, because there’s always the odd chance we might get a good one. Unfortunately, 99.9% of the time remakes are shit, or as is the case with this new Poltergeist remake, a lesser version of the original. The original Poltergeist trilogy started with one fantastic film: Poltergeist (1982), a Tobe Hooper film. Tobe Hooper as some of you may know is one of the masters of horror. He was the guy behind the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Salem’s Lot (1979) amongst a slew of other horror films. Hooper’s Poltergeist was a film that captured the imagination and frightened audiences back in 1982, why? Because it was a spectacle, it was made to wow us and frighten us. It wanted to make us squirm in our seats. The filmmakers didn’t just want to tell a spooky story, something they did splendidly well anyways, no, the idea behind the original Poltergeist was to razzle dazzle us as well, give us a magic show. And that they did, the supernatural shenanigans were an awesome spectacle to behold. When ghosts appeared, you knew you were in for something special. That’s one of the elements I loved the most about Poltergeist (1982), the effects. The guys at Industrial Lights and Magic really went the extra mile to do something awesome.

 I mean, back then they’d actually have to build the ghosts from the ground up, which of course gave the visuals a tangibility that is sourly lacking in the new version. Those slimy tentacles that caught little Carol Anne looked freaking real, not so with the computer generated ghosts on this new version. I will admit that the visual effects on the new one are slick looking, but they are simply put not better than the original. Those days of cool effects seem to be gone forever, replaced by computer animation and it’s really sad. That artistry that the Industrial Lights and Magic guys pulled off, it was pure magic and illusion. I long for movies that mix both things, the practical with the computer generated. When a filmmaker uses computer generated images to enhance, not to take over the visual effects…then it’s magic. A recent example of this would be the awesomeness that is Mad Max: Fury Road (2015). Sadly, everything is computer generated today, and it takes away from that feeling old movies had of being a magic show. I sincerely miss that.

Craig T. Nelson fights some ghosts in Poltergeist (1982)

Why is the modern horror film so toned down these days? It’s all about one of the worst inventions ever made, the dreaded PG-13 rating. It’s sad, it truly is. I mean on the first one, the tree that comes alive and tries to eat poor Robbie Freeling looked like some sort of monster, trying to gulp down the little kid, on the remake they toned that whole scene down. The tree tried to eat the kid on the original film! Not so in the remake. Here the tree grabs the kid, that’s it. I guess anything that was too crazy was eliminated; it’s the Modus Operandi of modern Hollywood. The producer, Sam Raimi, knows what horror fans want in a horror film, he’s given us some of the best horror films ever; the Evil Dead films. Yet he is playing ball with Hollywood, producing the kind of films they are asking of him, not the kind of horror films he would make. Hollywood doesn’t seem to care that people like cheesy, people like crazy ideas and concepts, that’s why we go to the movies! We don’t go to the movies to see “reality”, we go to see escapism, at least in these kinds of movies we do. So when a tree is going to come alive and eat a kid, we want exactly that. Not a toned down version of that.  

Honestly it’s starting to feel a whole lot like George Orwell’s 1984 around here. In that novel the government doesn’t allow people to feel intense emotions, everyone’s supposed to be emotionless all the time, all this because intense emotions supposedly lead to war and all that. In reality, it was a technique to control the masses, keep them from revolting against the oppressive government, to keep them from expressing themselves, saying what they want and feel. I think a similar technique is being used in Hollywood films of today. Why is Hollywood so afraid to be intense? Is there something wrong with feeling intensely? I want that spine tingling feeling, I want that jolt, that’s why I go to see horror films; afterwards I go home to reality. But for two hours, I want to escape man! There was a time when the occasional good remake would slip in, but nowadays, wow, all the remakes are just bland renditions of the original. Total Recall (2012)? Bland. Robocop (2014)? Beyond bland and back again. Poltergeist (2015)? Bland again. It’s just sad. Let’s count the ways in which this new Poltergeist film is bland when compared to Tobe Hooper’s original special effects extravaganza.

The Freaky Bowens

First, as is to be expected, there were a few changes, for example, the family in this new film isn’t “The Freaky Freelings! The family whose house disappeared!” Nope, these are the Bowen’s the family who goes through everything the Freelings did; only they aren’t the Freelings. Why the change? Why is the little girl not Carol Anne? Isn’t yelling out “Carol Anne!” a million times one of the most iconic things about the old Poltergeist movies? I mean, seriously, you could have a drinking game every time they say Carol Anne in the old movies! Trust me; you’ll be passed out half way through the movie! But no, on this one we get a little girl called Madison, and she isn’t even blonde. But whatever, those are minor changes right? What really pissed me off where the major changes, like the whole softening up of the horror elements, which I didn’t get because from inception, Poltergeist was always a straight forward horror film, it meant to horrify you. These films weren’t afraid to push the limits; they wanted to scare your pants off. In contrast, this new Poltergeist film feels like its holding back, like it doesn’t want to scare you too much for fear of losing its coveted PG-13 rating. And that’s really what it’s all about these days, retaining the PG-13 rating so you can reach a wider audience and make more millions. Because if it’s rated ‘R’, then the kiddies cant pony up their allowance to see the movie, because theaters won’t sell tickets to an ‘R’ rated film to a minor, right? Stop me if I’m wrong, but this never happened to me, ever. Maybe where I live things are done differently, but I was never stopped from seeing an ‘R’ film by the theater! Does this really matter? It’s so sad that the quality of our horror films is decided by this factor.

So what else did they change? Well, let’s see, anything that was too edgy or horrifying; two elements that any horror movie should have in spades. For example, remember how Steve and Diane Freeling smoked weed in their room and were being all sexy with each other? For this new one, they switched the weed for alcohol, which immediately takes off that imperfect, free spirited feeling that the Freeling family had in the original. They weren’t a perfect family and because of this they felt real. Mom and pop were struggling to survive, but they still knew how to have a little fun, smoking a dooby in their private chambers after the kids were tucked in. There’s a scene in which their eldest daughter flipped the finger on the men who were working on their pool when they started saying nasty things at her. So anyhow, say goodbye to that edginess the Freelings had, this new family is pretty much the picture perfect American family. The father, portrayed by a “gimme my paycheck” Sam Rockwell doesn’t have a job, but you’d never know he’s worried about this because his portrayal of the father figure without a job is very unrealistic. He doesn’t seem to be worried that he’s got no money to feed the kids. Is he supposed to live on his credits cards forever? These problems are presented, but never dealt with in a realistic manner. I know I’d be freaking ripping my hairs out of my head if I had three kids and no job. And how about the chemistry between the parents? It’s nothing like the magic that Jobeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson had in the original film. That relationship I bought. The one in this new one is Non-existent. Sam Rockwell, I’m sorry to say, was not truly invested in this film. In the original, both Jobeth Williams and Craig T. Nelson displayed emotion, I bought them crying out to Carol Anne, here, it’s like they are ashamed to be talking about ghosts and “the other side”. I guess we can chalk that up to modern cynicism.

Then we have the ghosts, which are decidedly a whole lot less horrifying. On the old film, the ghosts showed their ugly faces all the time, I remember that spider like creature that came out of the closet, which sadly doesn’t make an appearance on this one. There’s no slimy, sinewy tunnel to the other side. On this one the ghosts are relegated to being shadowy creatures that we hardly ever get a look at. The old film reveled in showing us the ghosts. When the ghosts showed up, you were going to be wowed. Not so here. The spectacle is gone. They don’t want to scare you too much. The best example I can think to explain the dampening of the horror elements in this film is the pool scene. On the original, the Freelings are building a pool, so they got this muddy hole next to the house. And of course, as anyone who has seen the original knows, the house was built on top of the cemetery, so when it starts to rain and the earth loosens up, we get that awesome scene in which all the corpses start popping out of their caskets, apparently trying to grab Diane Freeling as she screams in horror. On the remake, it was almost funny….we only get one little cgi skeleton that pops out of the ground, for 5 milliseconds. On the original, that scene just went on and on, horrifying us with its real, tangible skeletons. On this one, it’s a freaking joke. That was one of my favorite scenes from the original! Want another example? They even took out that scene where the guys face melts as he looks at himself in front of the mirror! How could they! The bastards!

So anyhow, I’m sorely disappointed with this remake. It’s another fine example of how violence and horror is being toned down on purpose by the powers that be. Hey, Hollywood, check this out. I want horror movies to be scary. When I go see a movie about ghosts, that’s what I want, I want to see the ghosts, I want to see something that’s intense and scary. Bottom line my friends: the original Poltergeist is still the superior of the two films. It has the spectacle element, it had the horror element turned up to the max and it had a family I could believe in, with some real heart and chemistry.  At the end of the day, that’s really what the Poltergeist movies are truly about, family. As for this remake, I wouldn’t say it’s a horrible film. Its well shot, looks pretty and in a surprising twist, actually take us to “the other side” without being overtly cheesy like Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986). It introduces a couple of innovative concepts, like sending a drone with a camera into the other side to check it out, gotta hand it to them,  that was a cool idea. I went into this one wanting to hate it, but it kind of warmed up on me, but there's no denying it was missing that edge. Sorry. 

It’s also a perfectly good movie to get your 10 year old kid started with horror films. Why? Because it’s an extremely light horror film which probably has something to do with the fact that it was directed by Gil Kenan, the director behind the children’s horror film Monster House (2006). Sadly, I don’t think he was the right guy to direct this film; we needed somebody with more of a horror loving heart, a true horror connoisseur. I mean, we went from Tobe Hooper to Gil Kenan? Something’s not right there. Why not give today’s horror masters a chance? Sadly, what Kenan did was take away what I loved about the original, a film that wasn’t afraid to scare us at the while still being a family film, which is an odd mix. Kenan treated this one like it was another kid’s film, which I think was a huge mistake because audiences are expecting something along the lines of the horrifying spectacle that Tobe Hooper and Stephen Spielberg gave us back in ’82. And it’s a bad thing to play with audiences expectations, especially when it comes to a remake. Yes my friends, the original Poltergeist was a strange bird. It was the first family oriented horror film that didn’t forget it was a horror movie and that it was there to scare us. Worst part of this whole ordeal? The original Poltergeist was rated PG, a whole rating beneath PG-13 and as it turns out, it was far scarier. Go figure!

Poltergeist (1982) Rating: 5 out of 5

Poltergeist (2015) Rating: 3 out of 5     

Trick or Treat (1986)

Title: Trick or Treat (1986)

Director: Charles Martin Smith

Cast: Marc Price, Gene Simmons, Ozzy Osbourne

During the 80’s heavy metal was king, and so, a series of heavy metal horror movies emerged. This small group of films are beloved by horror fans and heavy metal fans alike. Basically, if you loved bands like Anthrax, Ozzy Osbourne, Motley Crue and Twisted Sister and loved hearing your stereo system loud enough for your ears to bleed, if you loved those deep bass lines, wearing jean jackets, torn jeans, headbands, band t-shirts, spiked belts and wrist bands, leather pants, and took your cassette player and headphones everywhere you went, chances are you were a heavy metal geek and you probably loved movies like Trick or Treat (1986). The list of heavy metal horror films goes something like this: Rocktober Blood (1984), Hard Rock Zombies (1985), Rock and Roll Nightmare (1987), Black Roses (1988), and Shock ‘Em Dead (1991), which I think ended the whole shebang. But if you ask me, out of all these, the best one is the one I’ll be reviewing today, Trick or Treat, not to be confused with the quintessential Halloween movie with a similar title, Trick R’ Treat (2007).

On this film we meet Eddie Weinbauer, a heavy metal geek of the highest caliber. He worships his favorite heavy metal singer, a guy called Sammi Curr. Eddie is the kind of fan who writes letters to his favorite band, and addresses them like they were his best friends, nay, even brothers! You know, he’s  the kind of fan that takes the music just a little too seriously. Eddie gets laughed at by the bullies at school, gets ignored by the girls and essentially hates high school because of it; but listening to Sammy  Curr makes it all go away. Whenever Eddie listens to Sammy, well, then everything is alright. Unfortunately one day Sammy Curr dies, and its all gloom and doom for Eddie. Still, there’s one guy that gets Eddie’s pain and it’s the local hard rock dj, a guy called  ‘Nuke’, played by none other than KISS front man Gene Simmons, and what’s cooler than having Gene Simmons playing a dj in your heavy metal movie? Nothing, your movie is instantly cooler. So anyhow, Nuke gives Eddie the last unreleased recording made by Sammi Curr! Of course, Eddie quickly runs home to listen to it. Of course he plays the records backwards, because as you all know, there are satanic messages in all heavy metal records. Especially if you play them in reverse! So once Eddie does this, the spirit of Curr talks to him and tells him what to do! It’s not long before everyone who ever made fun or wronged Eddie in some way starts to pay the price.

Basically, what we got here is one of those “the worm turns” movies, where the geeky nerdy guy gets picked on by everyone in school, and then by some supernatural happenstance the hunted becomes the hunter. I’ve seen this formula played out many times in films like Evil Speak (1981), Hunk (1987) and 976-EVIL (1988). In these movies the nerdy guy goes in cahoots with Satan to get sweet revenge on all those who wronged him. This being a movie from the 80’s it makes all the sense in the world because this type of story was very common back then. In these movies the quintessential 80’s bullies always went too far with their pranks and jokes in order to torture the nerdy guy. Why is it that in all of these movies the bullies always act surprised when the people they pick on suddenly snap and strike back? Look at what happened in Columbine. Interesting how this seemingly cheesy, b-movie exemplifies this type of situation perfectly, and in that sense can help us understand the dangers of pushing someone just a little too far, suddenly this silly movie suddenly becomes relevant  in a strange way.  

I like how the film addresses that bullshit idea about ‘satanic’ messages in heavy metal records when you play them backwards. Sure, maybe bands did it, but the only did it to spike up their sales and create controversy, there was nothing satanic about it, they was just messing with people. It was all about the money. But films like Trick or Treat exploited that angle and made the fantasy a reality. It reminded me of The Gate (1987), which also had a similar premise. On that one two best friends open the gate to hell in their backyard by playing a heavy metal record backwards, amongst other things. They also used this idea in Amityville 2: The Possession (1982). On that one, a teenager gets possessed by demons while listening to heavy metal music and then proceeds to murder his whole family! So yeah, this idea was running rampant in the collective consciousness of people back then. Actually, religious zealots probably still believe in this.   

Of course Heavy Metal has always gotten a bad rap. Rock and Roll by nature is rebellious, what heavy metal did was take it to next level. It was angrier, sexier. It’s an amplified version of Rock and Roll, which is why it’s associated with rebellious behavior. The idea that listening to angry music will turn you into a killer is debated as much as the idea that watching violent horror movies will turn you into a violent person. This film explores these themes, but indirectly, I’m sure this is not what the filmmakers where purposely trying to talk about. Let's face it, parents have always been horrified at heavy metal, for example, there's  scene in which Eddie's mom takes a look at her sons heavy metal record collection and is horrified by the covers, then she accidentally sets off the stereo and starts hearing heavy metal. Her face says it all! It’s a hilarious scene, I thought “lady, it’s just music, take a chill pill” or lower the volume, but she instantly goes nuts and seems to forget how to turn down the volume. I think it's funny how heavy metal horrifies some people in the same way that horror movies do, some people just can’t take it. My advice is, you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen!

Promotional material for Trick or Treat with Ozzy vs. Sammi Curr

In terms of effects, this film is just fun. I mean, I love the idea of Sammi Curr somehow materializing himself through the stereo system. The whole thing with the purple electricity that surrounds Sammi Curr was so old school, yet it made for cool visuals. On this one there’s lots of cheesy lightning effects and I just love those, they remind me this movie is from the 80’s. There’s this cool scene where green smoke oozes out of these head phones as some hot teenage chick is listening to heavy metal and the green smoke undresses her, then the mist turns into some cheesy ass monster puppet thing, I love that stuff! Another plus is there are lot’s of inside jokes for heavy metal fans, like for example Ozzy Osbourne playing a televangelist talking about “Rock Pornography”. Ha! Ozzy Osbourne playing a televangelist talking against heavy metal? Hilarious! Also, this movie is perfect for Halloween watching. Aside from the fact that it’s all about demonic things coming out of your speaker system, Eddie lives in a house with these two giant Halloween pumpkins on the front steps, he looks like he lives in Halloween Land. And so I highly recommend watching this one come Halloween night.  

Final words is that after watching this cheesy heavy metal movie for a while, I started to realize that this movie is actually kind of awesome. I mean, the idea that an evil heavy metal god comes back from the afterlife through your speaker system is just so rock and roll, so metal. Of course the protagonists name is Eddie…like Eddie Van Halen or that character from the Iron Maiden album covers? So, as you can see, there’s lots of heavy metal references everywhere. Finally, the ending was awesome, a heavy metal concert in a High School Halloween Party! Sweet! The kids all dig the heavy metal, but suddenly bam! It all turns against them and Curr starts blowing kids away with supernatural electricity coming out of his guitar? I thought it was strange how he lives for rock and roll but then blasts away his audience? That didn’t make much sense to me, but whatever, logic was never in the cards while watching this movie. This is definitely the best of all these heavy metal horror movies! Glad I finally got to watch it. Highly recommend it if you want to go back to the 80’s, heavy metal style! By the way, I didn't know this until I watched this movie, but toilette water is deadly for evil demonic heavy metal singers, thought you might want to know that. This movie is hilarious, had a blast with it.

Rating: 4  out of 5

Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

Title: Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)

Director: James Wan

Cast: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Lin Shaye, Ty Simpkins, Barbara Hershey, Steve Coulter

What do you mean James Wan is no longer doing horror films? What? This guy was born for this! I was shocked to learn that Wan will not be making horror films anymore; according to Wan himself,  Insidious: Chapter 2  will be his last one. Too bad, I mean, the guy got started thanks to the horror genre with the highly successful franchise starter Saw (2004), a film that shocked me the first time I saw it. I remember I immediately saw it again; with a friend of course! I wanted others to experience that jolt to the system that the first Saw film gave me. Same with The Conjuring (2013), a horror film that I quickly recommended to as many people as possible, I mean, that was a great horror movie man! The Conjuringbrought 70s styles scares back! It brought the supernatural horror film back in a good way, not in a goofy way which is what usually happens. Sometimes I go see these supernatural films hoping to see the next The Exorcist (1973), but end up with films like the extremely crappy Lost Souls (2000).The Conjuring has been a huge hit for director James Wan, it’s still in theaters and so far it’s close to reaching the 300 million dollar mark worldwide. So, hot on the heels of The Conjuring, here comes Insidious: Chapter 2. Can James Wan deliver a double whammy of horror excellence? And why is he abandoning the horror genre?

(Above) Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013) (Below) Carnival of Souls (1962)

Insidious: Chapter 2 picks up exactly where the previous film left off, with the Lambert family recovering from the events that took place in the first film in which Josh, the dad of the family, had an out of body experience and actually visited the afterlife in order to find his sons spirit, which was lingering somewhere in "the other side" or "the further" as they call it in these films. Problem is that apparently, when Josh and his son came back, they didn’t come back alone, an evil entity came back with them and now it haunts the Lamberts! It's seems evil spirits just don't want to leave this family alone! What does the entity want with this family and will they ever lead a normal life again?

James Wan is awesome as a horror director, and it’s a real pity he doesn’t want to continue doing horror.  He says he doesn’t want to be pigeon holed into making only one type of film. He mentions that Hollywood loves to put you in a box, and if the box they put you in is the horror box, then that’s all you’ll ever be. But Wan wants to break with that, he wants to do all types of films, not just horror. Which is understandable, I mean, sure, every horror director eventually branches out and decides to venture in other directions, even the most hardcore of horror directors does a film that has nothing to do with horror. I mean, look at George Romero’s Knightriders (1981), Wes Craven’s Music from the Heart (1999) or Stuart Gordon’s The Wonderful Ice Cream Suit (1998). Hey, for further proof just look at Sam Raimi who was at one time one of the most popular horror directors and what is he now? He’s gone mainstream Hollywood for Christ’s sake! Horror films have always been a breeding ground for great directors. Many of today’s best directors started out with a horror film, just look at Oliver Stone’s The Hand (1981) if you don’t believe me. So Wan’s move doesn’t surprise; he is currently shooting Fast and Furious 7 (2014). Of course directing a huge summer movie like Fast and Furious 7 is a tempting thing for Wan. I mean, here’s a guy who started making independent horror films and now he’s been given the opportunity to direct a summer blockbuster, with a budget many times over the micro budgets he was used to working with. Of course he’ll take the opportunity, it’s a smart move economically and career wise, but trust me; he’ll be back! They always come back to horror! Just look at Sam Raimi’s who returned from his horror hiatus to direct Drag Me to Hell (2009). So let’s hope that we haven’t seen the last of James Wan’s incursions into the horror genre.

The thing about Insidious: Chapter 2 is that after seeing Dead Silence (2007), Insidious and The Conjuring (2013), this fourth supernatural horror film from James Wan feels just a tad repetitive. I mean, there are only so many scenes of doors slamming by themselves that I can take before I feel like I’m watching the same film over and over again. With Insidious: Chapter 2, you definitely get the feeling that we’re walking on familiar ground, sadly, it falls on repetition. Wan has a couple of things he finds scary one of them is spooky looking dolls, which is a motif that pops up in all of his horror films, even as far back as Saw. He also finds old ladies scary, he went over this in Dead Silence (2007) which was about this old lady ventriloquist and again, there was a spooky old lady ghost demon thing in Insidious (2010), and yet again in Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013). So all of Wan’s supernatural horror films have a similarity to them, they kind of feel like they exist in the same universe or something. But my first impression with Insidious: Chapter 2  was  that Wan and his writing partner Leigh Whannell are running out of ideas. Apparenty, The Conjuring was the apex of Wan’s explorations in supernatural horror, Insidious Chapter 2 feels like one supernatural horror film too many. He should have taken a stab at some other type of horror film. Don’t forget boys and girls, horror films are not composed of supernatural horror alone.

Another element that makes you feel Wan is walking on tired ground is that Insidious: Chapter 2feels like a mix between The Amityville Horror (1979) and Poltergeist (1982), weird thing is that the same can be said for Wan’s three previous horror films, they all draw from the same two films. Let’s see in Poltergeist characters have to venture to the afterlife to rescue family members…in Poltergeist we got a funny, nice old lady clairvoyant who helps the family. In Poltergeist we have these supernatural investigator types exploring everything…the similarities are there. Then we have the whole “dad turns evil” scenario that was so effectively used in The Amityville Horror and The Shinning (1980), by the way, there’s a couple of nudges to Kubrick’s classic here as well. Some moments also reminded me of Carnival of Souls (1962), especially those scenes with the ghosts and "the further". So what we have here ladies and gents is Wan and Whannell drawing from the same movies they’ve been drawing inspiration from since the first Insidious.   

Still, even though it feels a bit repetitive, I say Insidious Chapter 2 is not a bad horror film at all. It has some genuinely creepy moments in it, some really well thought out scares. I gotta give it to Wan again, he sure knows how to construct a suspense filled moment, he knows how to build that tension. Also, there’s a cool spooky story in there to hold the whole film together. This time around, Wan amps up the comedic relief by way of the two paranormal investigators. The way this film ends, you kind of get the feeling that these two geeky guys are going to branch off into their own series of films, ala Ghostbusters (1984). I wouldn’t mind at all, I’m actually one of the guys that’s dying to see that Ghostbusters film that doesn’t seem to want to ever take off. The comedic relief on Insidious: Chapter 2 might be welcomed by some as a means to release some tension, but for those of us who like our hardcore, dreadfully dreadful horror vibe, well, these comedic elements might feel out of place. Still, I don’t think your enjoyment of this film will be hindered by the mild comedy. Final word: kudos to Wan for making a horror film that creeps up on you with a mere 5 million bucks! This film is making such a profit that it’s not even funny! Oren Peli (the films producer)sure knows the formula for success and he’s using it: make  a quality low budget film (keword: quality) and people will back it. Not only that, since you didn’t spend all that much, you’ll get your investment back! It’s a win-win situation! So anyhow’s my people, Insidious Chapter 2 is a solid piece of supernatural horror. Now if only we could all collectively convince Wan not to “retire from horror!”

Rating:  3 1/2 out of 5  

     

The Lords of Salem (2013)

Title: The Lords of Salem (2013)

Writer/Director: Rob Zombie

Cast: Sherri Moon Zombie, Bruce Davison, Ken Foree, Dee Wallace, Maria Conchita Alonso, Meg Foster

From the very beginning, when I first saw House of a 1000 Corpses (2003), I always thought that Rob Zombie was a horror film director with lots of potential. House of a 1000 Corpses wasn’t a perfect film, but there was something there that screamed "this guy is promising". What gives Zombie the edge that other horror directors don’t have is that he knows horror inside and out; he’s obviously seen thousands of horror films and genuinely loves the genre.  Add to this the fact that he’s directed many of his own music videos and you’ve got a guy with the knowledge and understanding of the horror genre as well as the necessary experience behind the camera to make a decent horror film. He took a stab at making commercially viable horror films with his remake of John Carpenter’s Halloween (2007) and followed that one with his own thing called Halloween II (2009), but according to Rob Zombie himself, making these two films wasn’t exactly the happiest of experiences. Working under the yoke of oppressive movie producers just isn’t Zombie’s style! He needs to let those creative juices run wild and free! And so, thanks to Oren Peli and his Haunted Films label well, Rob Zombie was given carte blanche to do a movie his way, and so here we finally have The Lords of Salem, a true blue Rob Zombie horror film. How was it?

The Lords of Salem revolves around Heidi Hawthorne, a radio DJ whose life begins to take a twist towards the dark side when she receives a mysterious package addressed to her. The package says it comes from “The Lords of Salem” a heavy metal band that she’d interviewed on her radio show. The package is addressed directly to her.  She soon discovers it’s a vinyl record, when she plays it out of sheer curiosity, she goes on a trance, getting these weird visions of witches being burned alive. What's happening to Heidi? Why is she seeing these horrible images? To make things worse, she has a mysterious neighbor who looks at her from the shadows of his apartment down the hall. She tries to be friendly to the new faceless neighbor but the neighbor only slams the door in her face! What gives?

I’ve always said that Rob Zombie is kind of like the Quentin Tarantino of horror films. Same as Tarantino, Rob Zombie watches a bunch of movies, puts them all in a blender and then makes his own thing with them. Take for example House of a 1000 Corpses, which was a homage to Tobe Hooper’s Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) and Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part II (1986). He took elements from both of these movies and mixed them with his own brand of craziness, the result was an experience, uneven at times, but an experience none the less. For The Lords of Salem, Zombie put an even larger amount of films in the grinder! First up, Rob Zombie bows down to one of the greatest directors of our time, Stanley Kubrick. Many shots on the film have that Kubrickian perfection to them; for example Zombie has these long shots of a hallway that echoed those long shots on of the hotel hallways in Kubrick’s The Shinning (1980). I must say that this careful attention to constructing a shot was something new for me in a Rob Zombie film; most of the time Zombie’s camera is kinetic and crazy, moving about in scattershot fashion. On Lords of Salem you can tell that Zombie was going for a slightly more elegant horror film, in this way he paid his respects to Kubrick, which I immediately dug.

Then we have these crazy dream sequences that looked like they came straight out of a Ken Russell film. You ever seen Ken Russell’s Altered States (1980) or Lair of the White Worm (1988)? On these films, Russell’s characters always end up having these crazy dreams that feel like acid trips, with religious iconography being profaned. Images of goats and crucifixes and nuns being raped and all that?  Well, on Lords of Salem you will see these types of tripped out dream sequences, one look at them and you can tell Zombie watched a couple of Ken Russell’s films. I’ve yet to see Ken Russell’s The Devils (1971), but something tells me that The Devilswas a huge influence on The Lords of Salem because that film is also about witches. I also caught similarities with films like Roman Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968), because of this idea of having a paranoid character surrounded by a bunch of devil worshipping neighbors, and yet another film it reminded me of was The Sentinel (1977), a film about a woman who lives in apartment building that ends up being a gateway to hell. And if I go deeper, then I can also tell ya that certain scenes, especially those involving the witches and their satanic rituals reminded me a lot of Haxan: Witchcraft Through the Ages (1922). The scenes with the witches dancing naked in the fire and spitting on babies and the such…right out of Haxan in deed. On one scene they put this mask on a witch, an obvious homage to the opening sequences on Mario Bava’s Black Sabbath(1963). So the influences on this one are like a Smorgasbord of horror. What can I say, Rob Zombie knows who to borrow from.

What surprised me the most about Lords of Salem is that Zombie has constructed a film that relies more on mood and feel than on words, like an Italian horror film, there’s very little dialog, the film tells it’s story more through images.  Every shot of the film is dark, brooding, depressive…Zombie really created a permeating, dreadful atmosphere with this one. The film isn’t loud and in your face like House of a 1000 Corpses, this one takes its time, building up the scares. Cheap jump scares are out of the question on this one. No, with this one Zombie wants’ to get inside your head, it is more about creating a sense of impending doom, loved that about it. This isn’t a film where people are running around screaming and running from a chainsaw, nope, this one is about the slow scares that creep up on you, so in that sense it’s a very different type of Rob Zombie film. And yes, it is style over substance, but that’s a good thing in my book when it comes to certain directors. What I mean is that Rob Zombie is an incredible output of artistic energy, the guy is a bonafide Rock Star, still pumping out cool tunes to this day (listen to Dead City Radio if you don’t believe me!), the guy has done comics, cartoons, films…he’s done independent horror films as well as commercial ones, the guy has even done freaking television commercials! Hell, Lords of Salem even has a novelization! In other words, Zombies all about the art, so I like the fact that this movie is not so much about the words and more about the visuals and the mood. And speaking of visuals, Zombie out did himself; at a certain point the film simply turns to eye candy for me, couldn’t take my eyes off. The colors, leaping off the screen! 

Final word on Lords of Salem is that it isn’t a film for everyone, at times it can result truly shocking, especially when it comes to those scenes involving witch rituals. Normally, films about Satanism come off as goofy to me, but when they are done right, it works. And this one pulled it off brilliantly. Like Alucarda (1977), this film is all about people hailing Satan and requesting his presence and all that, which I’m sure will prove to be just a bit too much for some viewers, especially those of you inclined towards Christianity. You’ve been warned! In this movie, there is no hope, it’s all gloom and doom. At the same time, I have to tell you guys that this is without a doubt in my mind Rob Zombies best film; it’s far superior to anything he’s done before and for that I salute the Zombie. I believe Zombie can go even further, but this one was close to being perfect in my book. So if you ask me, Rob Zombie continues to grow and evolve as a horror director, he keeps surprising me and I’m happy he’s still making horror films. He’s turned into one of this generations greatest horror directors. I’m sure he’ll keep it going, I certainly hope he does, which reminds me, there’s hope for horror yet!

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Conjuring (2013)

Title: The Conjuring (2013)

Director: James Wan

Cast: Lily Taylor, Patrick Wilson, Vera Fermiga, Ron Livingston

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, then you’ll probably know how I’m always bitching and moaning about the current state of American Horror films. It is my opinion that American Horror films are so watered down, so neutered that they just don’t have that same shock value that films from the 70’s or 80s had. Films like The Exorcist (1973) and Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) seem like rarities when compared to the kind of horror films that we’re getting nowadays. Horror films that truly shock and scare seem to come around every once in a blue moon. The truth of the matter is that like any other type of film, a good one is a rare thing. A truly good film on any genre, a classic, only comes around when a true genius is behind the camera; a good director who truly understands how a horror film works, how the mind of the audience can be manipulated, how music plays such an important part in the overall effect of a horror film. Not many directors understand these things and therefore many of the horror films released today are simply not effective. But there is hope at the end of the tunnel, there is a light shinning.

   

I remember a time when horror directors where a strong breed, growing in numbers, cranking out horror film after horror film. This was the time when we’d see Tobe Hooper, Wes Craven, George Romero and John Carpenter all making films at the same time in Hollywood, scaring the nation with their films. You saw their name in a movie poster and you knew the film was being made by a director who understands the horror genre and was attempting to make a film that you wouldn’t feel cheated by, these were directors that truly loved the genre. Todays horror directors are scarce; rarely do we see a director completely devoted to the horror genre. Today, directors who specialize in horror are limited to releasing their films solely on dvd.  This is why we have guys like Ty West, a director who’s showed promise with films like The House of the Devil (2009) and The Innkeepers (2011), but has yet to have a theatrical release. During the 80’s we’d see A Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13^th films every couple of months. Today we got reboots to both of those franchises, yet neither has spawned sequels! What gives? If this was the eighties we’d have two or three of these films already! We’d be on Friday the 13^th reboot part 8 by now! What’s going on with horror today? Is it being slowly strangled to death? It's certainly slowed down its pace in theater screens thats for sure. 

James Wan continues his obsession with spooky dolls in his films

So along comes a film like The Conjuring, directed by James Wan, a director who’s slowly but surely made his name in the horror genre. It’s always interesting to see a director get better and better with each film. I’ve been following the career of James Wan since he first shocked me with the first SAW (2004) film. Yeah, remember that first SAW film? Not the endless, crappy sequels, but that first one that really shocked the pants off of you? That was Wan on his first freaking film, so the guy was showing promise from the very beginning of his career. He's continued making effective horror films like for example Insidious (2011), a horror film that I really liked because it managed to scare us by playing with our minds rather than try and shock us with gore. It played with our expectations of a horror film and it had an awesomely creepy musical score. So here comes James Wan again, with another horror offering. This time it’s a film based on “real life events” which of course in my book translates to “exaggerated to the point of unrecognizable”. The question in my mind was: do we need another film about demonic possession? How in the hell do you make these films scary again? Demonic possession films are a joke to me because they rarely reach the level of intensity needed to truly scare. With so many demonic possession films coming off as laughable and hokey, how was James Wan going to pull off an effective film of this nature, especially when they’ve been done to death?

The Conjuring is based on the real life exploits of ‘The Warrens’ a married couple that has dedicated their entire lives to researching the supernatural. They call themselves ‘Paranormal Investigators’ but if you ask me Ed and Lorraine Warren are simply scam artists that for years have managed to take advantage of superstitious people and their fears. Same goes with the people behind the whole Amityville story. These are stories that serve only one purpose and one purpose alone, to sell books and movies; a goal that they’ve managed to achieve quite well; Ed and Lorraine Warren have about six books to their name alone. The guys behind The Amityville Horror have got a couple of books and movies under their belt as well. But if we get down to it, if we search for the reality behind stories like The Amityville Horror for example, they can all be traced down to real life troubles or to people getting together to tell a big fat tall tale and then getting the world to believe it in order to sell a couple of books and make a few movies along the way. Case in point: The Conjuring has passed the 100 million mark at the box office. Why? Because it’s a good horror film that feeds on people fears; you smack the “based on real life” moniker on any movie and a huge chunk of the population will instantly believe it to be true. They’ll be freaked out even before the lights go down in the theater.  But who cares if these stories are total bullcrap or not, what matters to me is if they entertain me or not. I am happy to state that The Conjuring was an effectively creepy horror film, director James Wan has fully matured into a great horror director, one of the best of his generation.

James Wan on the set of The Conjuring (2013)

What makes The Conjuring a great horror film? It can all be attributed to James Wan and the way he directs a scene. It’s all in the way he stretches out the scares and the suspense. As a horror fan, watching The Conjuring felt great because I felt like finally, here’s a director who truly understands how a horror film works! Wan has got the mechanics behind creeping out an audience down flat, he’s been using  atmosphere and slow boiling scare techniques since Dead Silence (1997) and Insidious (2011) which by the way is a great horror film, highly recommend that one to you guys. It is my opinion that with The Conjuring James Wan has perfected his scaring techniques. He knows all the horror movie clichés and uses many of them, but he also knows them  so well that he knows when to play around them, avoid them when you most expect them and then smack you in the face with them when you least expect it. Wan also uses music extremely well, and by the way, this is an area in which many would be horror directors completely fail in, the music in a horror film should fill you with dread, it should crawl under your skin and creep you out and Wan has complete dominion over this in his horror films.

Now I’m not saying that The Conjuring is the most original horror film, because same as many of Wan’s films, it wears its influences on its sleeves. Of course The Amityville Horror (1979) had a huge influence over this one, in fact, with a few changes here and there one could argue that The Conjuring is simply a remake of The Amityville Horror but told from James Wan’s perspective. Let’s see, we have the family moving into a New York home, the house has a spooky story filled with death behind it, the family is disturbed both physically and psychologically, doors slam, demons knock on doors in the middle of the night, demons knock over crucifixes and family pictures, the similarities between The Conjuring and The Amityville Horror are many, which is why I think Wan was just doing his version of The Amityville Horror; paying his respects to a film he obviously loves. The inclusion of The Warrens and the whole recognition that comes with their name is really the only thing that adds a level of originality to The Conjuring. But whatever, I sometimes call James Wan the Tarantino of horror because it’s quite obvious that the filmmakers behind these films saw a bunch of classic horror films, put them all in a blender and then did their own thing with the resulting mix, same as Tarantino does with most of his movies.

So yeah, hip hip hooray for Wan and The Conjuring. One more good thing I can say about the film is that it has a real 70’s feel to it. I know the film takes place during the 70’s but some of the shots, the music, even the title sequence just screams 70’s horror film! So Mr. Wan, I salute you for that, trying to bring the big 70’s horror picture back into our times. I’m glad someone has finally taken the lead and set the horror train on the right track, directors like James Wan show there is hope yet for American Horror films! I’m amazed that so many of James Wan’s movies have been so successful, I guess the audience just recognizes a good horror movie when they see one. Wan is currently directing the seventh film in the Fast and the Furious franchise, which by the way has grown into one of the biggest franchises in Hollywood right now. It’ll be interesting to see what he does with that one, it will be the biggest film he has ever worked on! The way these Fast and the Furious films have been going, I’m pretty sure that Wan’s success is assured with that one. Let’s hope that this success will translate into Wan making more horror movies.

Rating: 4 out of 5  

James Wan directing Vera Fermiga