Subjective P.O.V. - Are horror movies to blame for real-life murders?

The first frame of the film is an opening tracking shot. It approaches a house and peers through the windows, spying on two teenage lovers in a make-out session on the couch; a jack o’lantern ominously illuminates the setting. They decide to continue their sexual escapades in the upstairs bedroom. This gives the subjective point-of-view the chance to sneak into the house through the back door and into the kitchen. A hand opens a drawer and grabs a big, sharp kitchen knife. The figure watches as the boyfriend departs before it decides to make its move. It ascends the stairs and happens upon a clown mask lying on the floor. A hand comes into frame, grabs the mask and puts it on; the point-of-view now seen through two small eyeholes. The point-of-view then slips into the bedroom of the young, teenage girl. She is brushing her hair, admiring herself in the mirror. She is oblivious to the masked figure creeping up behind her. She senses an uneasy presence. She turns around and looks right into the eyes of point of view with pure terror. “Michael?!” she screams. From there, the point-of-view proceeds slash the young beauty to death. The point-of-view then flees, breathing heavily from the blood-thirsty rush it just experienced. It makes its way out of the house as a car pulls up. The two passengers – a man and a woman – emerge from the car and stop the point-of-view dead in its tracks. The man removes the mask and the shot changes. The shot is now focused on a blood-spattered young boy in a clown costume, brandishing the large knife. The blood of the young female victim is on the hands of her six-year old brother, Michael Myers. His parents stand before him in a baffling state of shock. His eyes are dark and glazed over. He is unresponsive. He is emotionless. He is a terrifying portrayal of a fairly normal looking young boy who responded to his deep, primordial urges to commit evil.
This is the famous opening sequence of John Carpenter’s seminal 1978 slasher classic, Halloween. This sequence is notable for popularizing the point-of-view technique that was utilized in later 1980s horror films such as Friday the 13th and is still considered an effective tool to create an unsettling experience for the audience. This technique has generated major controversy as to the intentions of the filmmakers when they force their audience to adopt the “eyes of the killer” for the sake of artistic style. Many notable film critics, such as Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, placed negative criticism on this technique. There is debate on whether the use of this technique is forcing the audience to become vicarious participants in horrible murders that results in identifying with the murderer in the film and not the victim. The controversy surrounding the use of this formal filmmaking aspect that is a staple in the horror genre has generated much concern as to the negative effects this could have on the generally young and somewhat impressionable audience members who flock to the theaters in droves to see these popular films.
The 1980s saw a major shift in how horror films were both made and distributed. After box-office success of major horror franchises such as Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare on Elm Street as well as several other profitable titles, the horror genre became a lucrative industry where every week a new horror film was on the theater marquee or for sale on home video. The advertising campaigns for these films unleashed collector’s items such as toys, posters, clothes, and video cassettes. Freddy Krueger had his own television series, Michael Myers had his own Atari game, and Jason Voorhees was accepting the MTV Lifetime Achievement Award. Society’s worst nightmares were now a part of the mainstream culture. These taboo films were definitely making an impression. The question is, how much of an impression were they making? There seems to be an enthusiasm amongst both the male and female, aged 15-24 demographic that boosts these films to the number one box-office spot opening weekend. Could these films be feeding the urges of the blood-thirsty reptilian brain that every person has? Could these films, in fact, inspire its “loyal fans” to commit murder so they can experience that same rush on completely different level?
In December of 1982, in Fullerton, California, William Harbitz visited the home of his parents Frances and Eileen. William was concerned that he had not seen or heard from his parents in several days. When he entered the residence, he came across a scene that was more horrifying than film could portray. Amidst a bloody crime scene were the bodies of his parents who had been stabbed to death and robbed. There were no signs of forced entry. The detectives on the case suspected the victims knew their attacker. The prime suspect was Richard Delmer Boyer, who witnesses claim was the last one seen at the crime scene before the murders. William testified that he knew the defendant and that he helped his elderly parents around the house. He had not been seen or heard by the Harbitzes in four months. However, a week before the murders, William stated he received telephone calls from Boyer who claimed he was “struggling to survive financially” (People v. Boyer). Boyer was a confessed drug addict and claimed to be a habitual user of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, LSD, Quaaludes, and PCP. Key witness John Kennedy claimed that on the afternoon of December 7, he and Boyer were injecting cocaine. That night, Kennedy accompanied Boyer to the Harbitz residence where Boyer was to “get money to pay Kennedy back” (People v. Boyer) for the drugs he consumed. Kennedy testified Boyer entered the residence wearing a knife in a sheath. He emerged from the residence approximately 45 minute later. He got into the car and instructed Kennedy to “drive off calmly without distracting attention.” (People v. Boyer). Kennedy noticed that Boyer had been stabbed in the leg and was carrying two wallets. When Kennedy asked what had happened, he claimed that the house belonged to some dope dealers who stabbed in the leg in a heated argument. Later that night, when Boyer’s concerned roommate, Cindy Cornwell, asked him about the stab wound he stated that he was knifed by a loan shark whom he owed money. When Boyer was eventually arrested and brought in for questioning on December 14, he admitted killing the Harbitzes. He claimed he was broke and was looking for William Harbitz to see if he would loan him some money. This led him to the home of William’s parents. When he approached the residence, he was testified Mrs. Harbitz “admitted him cordially” (People v. Boyer). Boyer, supposedly high on drugs at the time, claimed that once he entered the residence he began having visions of a “foggy figure which looked like a killer in either a Friday the 13th or Halloween film” (People v. Boyer) as he conversed with the Harbitzes.
Boyer had claimed to have watched the film, Halloween II, on television recently under the influence of PCP, marijuana and alcohol. This may have triggered the involuntary vision he experienced in the Harbitz home. Boyer then claimed to have blacked out. When he came to, he found both Mr. and Mrs. Harbitz face down in a pool of blood and had no recollection of robbing them. However, in a later taped statement contrary to his previous one, Boyer testified that when the vision appeared he remembered drawing his knife, stating “I get too involved in, in, violent movies. Okay? And I was thinking of something into that nature at the time. I don't know if I was puttin' myself in, in one of the actor's spots or something” (People v. Boyer).
During the trial, defense called upon the expertise of psychopharmacologist Dr. Ronald Siegel, who examined Boyer. He became knowledgeable of Boyer’s heavy drug use during adolescence and many of the drugs that he had ingested in his lifetime could induce spontaneous and involuntary flashback in which he relives a prior drug experience. While Halloween II was played for the jury and Siegel pointed out several similarities between certain scenes and Boyer’s flashbacks, Siegel made the claim that since “[Boyer’s] conduct beginning immediately after the killings showed rational attempts to conceal his guilt” (People v. Boyer) Boyer’s intoxication could not have been that intense and he was fully aware that what his actions were wrong and unlawful.
While the case of People v. Boyer (1989) made headline news and garnered the surname “The Halloween II Murders” by the press, it was nowhere near as controversial then the murder of James Bulger. On February 3, 1992, Denise Bulger went shopping at the Bootle Strand Shopping Center in Liverpool, England with her two-year old son, James. Denise had to run into the butcher’s shop to pick up an order. The shop had a large line so she left James by the door for a few seconds so she would be able to grab her and quickly leave. In those few seconds, James disappeared. Two days later, his mutilated remains were found at a nearby railway. A security camera in the shopping center caught an image of two adolescent boys, between the ages of 8 and 12 exiting the store with James in their possession. One was wearing a very noticeable mustard-yellow jacket. After the image was plastered across newspapers and television screens across England, an anonymous female caller notified local authorities that she knew a woman named Susan Venables who had a son named, Jon, who looked like one of the boys in the video. He had skipped school the day of James’ murder with his friend, Robert Thompson. When the boys were eventually booked as suspects, they uncovered a yellow jacket of Jon’s that matched the one of the boy in the video. Furthermore, the jacket was stained with the same color of blue paint that was found on James’ body. Blood stains were found Robert Thompson’s shoes as well.
The country was shocked to discover that two young children were capable of committing such a heinous crime. What could’ve driven these boys to murder another person? At the trial, the judge Justice Morland stated that “While there has been no actual evidence of this, I suspect that the exposure to violent movies had something to do with [the boys’] actions” (Bracchi). After this statement, the press set out to find what videos the parents of the two boys had recently rented from local video shops. Jon Venables, whose parents were divorced, spent a few days of the week with his father. He was described as a devoted parent, but records showed that he had rented more than 400 videos in the recent years before James’ murder with “[s]cores of them containing ultra violence or pornography” (Bracchi). One of the videos was the popular horror sequel, Child’s Play 3. The original Child’s Play film is about a serial killer nicknamed, Chucky who transfers his soul into a doll. In hopes of becoming human again, Chucky seeks to transfer his soul into the young boy who receives Chucky as a birthday present. One sequence in the second sequel to the original film involves a young boy who is kidnapped by Chucky and taken away to eventually be murdered and possessed by the crazed doll. This connection led the film to be infamously tied to the James Bulger murder case and eventually banned in the UK. Did this film inspire Jon Venables and Robert Thompson to kidnap and murder young James?
Venables’ father “denied his son ever watched [the film]” (Bracchi). The debate on whether or not Venables and Thompson were influenced by the film, Child’s Play 3 is highly argumentative. While the film does display acts of cinematic violence that appears just as horrific as an actual murder, wouldn’t the so-called “influence” of this film teach the two boys that, like in the film, the villain is usually defeated and that evil never prevails? Though it could be argued that a film that displays graphic violence and adult themes could possibly have quite the impression on the two young boys, there are several factors to consider that could lead to the urge for the two boys to commit a murder. There was one common factor between Venables and Thompson: they both were the product of an unstable family life. Robert Thompson’s father was a reported abusive alcoholic who mercilessly beat his wife, Ann, and six other children. When his father left Ann for another woman, she hid her despair with alcohol as well. With an unfit mother, the seven children – all boys – were forced to care for themselves and would commit acts of violence on each other. The “violence [amongst the brothers] percolated down to Robert” (Bracchi), who was the second youngest of the bunch which resulted in him being the subject to most of the abuse committed by aggressive older brothers. While Robert had promise in school, his behavioral problems got in the way, making the “lives of [his] near-neighbors a misery” (Bracchi) by lighting fires and throwing rocks. Jon Venables also came from a broken home. His parents divorced when he was three and his mother was also an abusive alcoholic. Jon also had aggressive behavioral problems in which discipline from his mother resulted in more violence. At school, teachers noted that Jon “threw tantrums and exhibited increasingly disturbing behavior” (Bracchi). Many studies and theories have concluded that most offenders, especially ones who have committed murder “had been rejected by their parents, and most psychopathic children had experienced emotional deprivation, neglect, or discontinuous affectional relationships. These studies suggest that both severe social and biological sources may contribute to the development of psychopathy and violent aggression” (McCord, Raine and Sanmartin).
Is it possible to draw a connection of ten-year-old Venables and Thompson with six year old Michael Myers from the original Halloween? Young Michael was not influenced to commit murder by violent video games or horror films. He appeared to be a fairly normal young boy in a typical slice of Norman Rockwell, but behind closed doors he could have had an abusive father, an alcoholic mother, or been subject to intense verbal and physical bullying at the hands of his older sister. Perhaps the same could be said for the drug-addicted Richard Boyer since studies have also shown that the same emotional and physical abuse from a person’s social environment has resulted in substance abuse among many. One can go as far to say that all of these offenders were perhaps born evil. What one can learn from a horror film is the undeniable existence of evil in society, and if anything, the only influence a horror film can have on someone to commit a violent crime is that of an individual with an already-unhinged mind as a result of the violence and hate that is already present in the world.

Works Cited


1. Bracchi, Paul. "The police were sure James Bulger's ten-year-old killers were simply wicked. But should their parents have been in the dock?" 13 March 2010. MailOnline. 10 May 2010 .

2. McCord, J., A Raine and J Sanmartin. "Psychosocial contributions to pyschopathy and violence." Violence and Psychopathy (2001): 141-169.

3. People v. Boyer. No. 48 C3d 247. California Supreme Court. 13 March 1989.

Halloween II (2009) Review

Most sequels, especially in the horror genre, usually pale in comparison to their predecessor. No matter what, each new installment in your typical horror franchise is usually lacking since most sequels are made by greedy Hollywood producers with box office numbers floating around in their head rather than a passion to deliver a well made film.

As is the case with the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street series, the original 1978 John Carpenter classic Halloween has spawned seven sequels. In 2007, rock musician turned screenwriter/film director Rob Zombie remade the original Halloween in hopes of reviving the franchise which has been plagued with a series of lackluster sequels (in my opinion, with the exception of Halloween: Resurrection, each film in series has its charm yet none compare to the original film). Rob Zombie's "re-imagining" of the original Michael Myers tale proved to be a revamped version of the original, adding a twisted look into Michael Myers' childhood, his life in the mental institution after murdering his older sister, and his eventual escape to relive his grisly crime in his hometown of Haddonfield, Illinois.




The film, starring Malcolm McDowell, Tyler Mane, Sheri Moon Zombie (Rob's wife), Brad Dourif, Danielle Harris (fans may know her best as Michael's niece Jamie Lloyd from Halloween 4 & 5), and newcomer Scout-Taylor Compton, who plays Michael's baby sister Laurie Strode previously played by the now-famous Jamie Lee Curtis, received mix critical reviews upon its release. While some called it a great companion piece to the original just as David Cronenberg's The Fly was to its 1958 predecessor, others called it "trashy" and over-all "a mess of a film." After repeated viewings, the film has since grown on me and I consider it one of the better entries in the franchise (still you cannot beat John Carpenter's masterpiece).

Since the film was a huge success (it broke box-office records a Labor Day weekend opening), a sequel was inevitable. Over the course of a year, many writers and directors were considered for the project since Rob Zombie wasn't too interested in making a sequel. Though as time passed, with no one at the helm of the film, Rob Zombie made up his mind and gained interest in continuing his vision on the story.

Rob Zombie on set of HALLOWEEN 2007.


Zombie has already proven himself as a competent horror director. His second film, House of 1000 Corpses follow-up The Devil's Rejects became a huge cult favorite which lead him to write and direct his highly successful Halloween remake. With a clean slate, Rob took this opportunity to deliver an all new Halloween movie experience. How did it pan out?




*SPOILERS AHEAD*

The film opens against black with this definition:

WHITE HORSE - linked to instinct, purity and the drive of the physical body to release powerful and emotional forces, like rage with ensuing chaos and destruction.

-- excerpt from The Subconscious Psychosis of Dreams


Then it cuts to Deborah Myers, Michael Myers' mother, visiting him in the sanitarium as a young boy. It's Christmas time and she brings a him a statue of a white horse. Michael proceeds to tell his mother that it reminds him of a dream he had where she was dressed in all white and was walking with a white horse, preparing to take Michael away with her. So far, we are given an interesting look at Michael's yearning to escape the asylum and return home. The film suddenly shifts to 15 years later where we pick up where the last film left off. It's Halloween night. After having shot Michael in the face, a bloodied Laurie Strode wanders aimlessly in shock through the streets of Haddonfield. Sheriff Brackett (played to perfection by Brad Dourif. I actually favor him more than Brackett in the original films) finds her and takes her to Haddonfield General Hospital to be treated for her wounds. In a nice nod to the original 1981 Halloween II, the first fifteen minutes or so takes place in the deserted hospital where Michael carves through a few members of the hospital staff in pursuit of Laurie.

As Laurie is ambushed and almost brained with an axe, in typical slasher film fashion, we cut to the present (3 more days 'til Halloween, Silver Shamrock!)where we discover that the hospital attack was all a dream. We discover that Laurie is now a disturbed youth in revolt, struggling to cope with her past trauma. She lives with Sheriff Brackett and his daughter, Laurie's former best friend/Halloween I survivor, Annie - all of whom are trying to leave the memory of Michael Myers behind them. The home life of this returning trio is quite charming and a highlight of the film. Brackett is very loving yet overprotective of his only daughter and Laurie. His situation actually creates empathy for the character as he takes it upon himself to deal with Annie - now a homebody who cooks and cleans for everyone - and Laurie who has taken upon a facade as a wild and rambunctious punk who is a really a very damaged person.

It seems like Laurie is having disturbing nightmares and visions (including one where young Michael and Mama Myers fawn over as she is sprawled along a long table where a group of people with pumpkins for heads are having a Halloween feast - very weird shit but at the same time, very cool).

On a positive note, the dreams and vision are beautifully shot and wildly imaginative while a few don't make any sense. If Laurie had no idea that she is a member of the Myers clan, then why is she having visions of Deborah and Young Michael? And how was she able to recreate the death of Ronnie White (Deborah's boyfriend from the previous film) in her dream, using Annie as a substitute, when she most likely knew none of the details of his murder?

Laurie also has two new best friends, Mya and Harley. Now, I would have really given two shits about these characters if they had more than 10 minutes of screen time. With the exception of Laurie, Annie, and Brackett, almost all of the characters in this film serve no purpose at all and are extremely underdeveloped --- even Dr. Loomis who is supposed to be the hero of the film. I don't mind the major character shift of Dr. Loomis. It's actually quite a breath of fresh air to have Loomis be this money hungry, fame seeking celebrity who gains profit off the misery of others by writing a controversial book about Michael's bloody rampage last Halloween - the polar opposite of Donald Pleasence's Captain Ahab-esque portrayal of the character from the original films. The most satisfying thing would be for Loomis to slowly realize what he did was wrong and he will be able to redeem himself by saving the day. It adds layers to the character. This never happens. Loomis spends most of the movie in a fancy hotel, depressed about the bad press and negative reviews he is receiving. It's only at the last minute when Loomis sees a news report of Michael taking Laurie hostage where he decides to take action --- and he is immediately killed when he intervenes! Really, if Loomis wasn't in this film, it really wouldn't be any different. They should have just left him dead in the first film (if you didn't see the first film, Michael nearly flattened his head towards the end) rather then retcon him into the second. He would have at least been remembered as a hero.

Anyway, Michael has apparently been hauled up in the a shack in the middle of the woods recovering from the bullet wound where he gets visits from the ghostly wraith of his own mother, Deborah, and himself as a child. Deborah tells Michael that Halloween is approaching and he must find "Angel" so they can all "be a family again." What is really cool about this scene is that we discover that young Michael speaks for adult Michael when his mother speaks to him; though I do have some complaints about this new element to the story which I will address later.

After this scene, we get some unnecessary filler scenes which really do not need to be in the film. The first one I'm going to talk about, I can excuse, because it lent a little bit to the characterization of Michael Myers. He is caught trespassing and stealing from some rednecks who decided to ambush him. Michael, of course, slaughters them all and *eek* guts and eats their dog which is actually a nod to the original 1978 film where Loomis and Brackett find the dead dog in the abandoned Myers house to which Loomis explains "he got hungry." However, there is another scene in which Michael attacks the strip club where his mother was once employed. He smashes a bartenders head in with his foot, breaks the club owner's arm and bashes his head into a wall, and repeatedly smashes a stripper's face into a mirror. This scene really didn't have nothing to do with the plot and the overall theme of the film. What exactly did this have to do with Michael's "mission"? Did Michael slaughter the club owner out of vengeance because he made Michael's mother flash her titties to a bunch of horny drunks for a fistful of singles? Does this really mean Michael kills people because he was traumatized by the fact his mother danced around naked for a living? Really, this nothing more than a showcase of grisly special effects and overt violence brought onto disposable characters. The time spent on these scenes could have been further developing the main characters.

Then, Halloween arrives. Loomis' book is out in stores. Michael has arrived in Haddonfield with Deborah and young Michael at his side, cheering him on. Laurie finds out from Loomis' book that she is Angel Myers, Michael Myers' sister. She freaks out, runs away from Brackett's, and goes in party with Mya and Harley at the Haddonfield Phantom Jam - an elaborate set piece that really didn't contribute much to the advancement of the story which was quite a shame because it did set the right mood for the holiday. All that happens is Michael shows up, and kills Harley and some guy she is fucking in the back of a van parked outside. Then he leaves! What?! Why didn't he make his move on Laurie when she was at that same party? Why randomly kill Harley?

Anyway, Michael walks all the way back to the Brackett house (how did he know where it was and how did he know Laurie lived there?) and *cries* kills Annie. A few minutes later, Laurie and Mya arrive and discover Annie almost-dead in the bathroom. I would like to point out really how powerful this scene was. Annie's death is off-screen though we do hear screaming and slashing behind closed doors, leaving it up to our imagination of how brutal it was - especially when we discover Annie, naked and slashed up, lying in the middle of blood soaked bathroom. Mya is killed downstairs when calling 911. Laurie cradles Annie in her arms as she dies, and when she finally passes on, the performances of Scout-Taylor Compton and Danielle Harris are genuine and amazing. The music, shots, and acting in this particular scene hit all the right marks to evoke an emotional reaction out of the audience (at least for me). It also didn't hurt having the presence of Danielle Harris who was already a fan favorite for playing Jamie in Halloween 4 & 5. It's no surprise that she is able to act in such an intense seen since she has been battling masked killers and triumphing through carnage since the age of 10.

Danielle Harris made a splatter as little Jamie Lloyd in HALLOWEEN 4 back in 1988.

Who wants to make a bet that Annie will be back for H3?

Then Michael bursts through the door and chases Laurie through the rural landscape. Meanwhile, in perhaps the saddest and, in my opinion, the most well-acted scene in a horror film, is Brackett's discovery and reaction to his daughter's death. Brad Dourif is an amazing actor and his scenes are played so perfectly that his performance enough to recommend this film to the general movie buff whether they like horror films or not.

Anyways, Laurie flags down a car and is picked up. Though before they are able to make their escape, Michael kills the driver and flips the car over with his bare hands (No kidding. It was actually pretty cool albeit a little unrealistic). Then, Michael carries the unconscious Laurie to a shack where they have a nice little family reunion. Laurie now is able to see Deborah and young Michael just as Michael does. Young Michael holds Laurie down to where Deborah forces Laurie to say "I love you, mommy." This is where Loomis comes in to try and save the day only to be slashed to death. Brackett ends up shooting Michael with a sniper rifle. Michael falls from the impact of the bullets and is impaled by old farming equipment. Laurie goes over to Michael, crying "I love you brother." Then she snaps and stabs him repeatedly with his own knife. She then walks out of the shed, wearing Michael's mask (The theater burst into laughter at this part. She looked like a Bobblehead Myers) much to the dismay of Brackett and the other police officers.

The film ends with Laurie in a white room with Deborah and the white horse walking towards her (with a creepy rendition of "Laurie's Theme" from the original 1978 film playing). Laurie looks into the camera and an evil little grin spreads across her face (perhaps an homage to the end of Psycho).
Then the end credits roll inter-cut with stills from the previous film accompanied by the infamous "Halloween theme" (the first and only times the theme is played by the way. A ballsy move for any director of a Halloween sequel).

*END SPOILERS*

I will start off by stating the PROS of the film:

- Michael's new look was fresh yet still retained some of that Boogeyman like quality. I didn't notice that half of the mask was missing, much, showing Michael's face - it reminded me of something out of Phantom of the Opera.

- The cinematography. This film had a mood and tone that perfectly matched the fall landscape of mid-western town with a domineering gloom over it. The mist, the moonlight, the jack o-lanterns, and trick or treaters all lent themselves to the setting of the film and definitely made it feel like it actually took place on Halloween and was indeed much better than the look of the last three films. Kudos to director of photography Brandon Trost.

- The acting of the main players. Compton, Harris, and Dourif played the roles to perfection. They were all underused and underdeveloped in the previous film that it was a relief to see that they had a good amount of screen time. McDowell was good with what he had. He really does know how to play an egotistical scumbag very well. Tyler Mane as Michael Myers was indeed a much different take on the character yet Mane still managed to give a terrifying performance.

- The idea (not the execution) of Deborah Myers and young Michael reaching out to Michael from behind the grave. It actually shows a good link between the film and the actually mythology of Halloween which is said to be the night where the boundary between the living and the deceased dissolved and the dead are free to roam the earth and wreak havoc on the living.

- The cameos from genre veterans such as Margot "Lois Lane" Kidder - who also starred in '70s horror classics earlier in her career such as Brian DePalma's Sisters, Black Christmas and The Amityville Horror, Caroline Williams (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, The Stepfather 2), and Betsy Rue (My Bloody Valentine remake).

Now, the bad stuff - THE CONS:

- *The execution of the visions of Deborah Myers and young Michael. I thought Sheri Moon Zombie did a really great job in the last film as Michael's tormented mother (except for the white trash stripper side), but her acting in this film was simply not good. Daeg Faerch's (who played young Michael in the last film) replacement, Chase Vanek. Faerch as young Michael Myers was chilling. He was perfectly cast in the previous film. This new kid was very bland and his performance seemed forced. Was he reading his lines off a cue card?

Daeg Faerch, who played young Michael Myers in the previous film, delivered an amazing performance as a child-killer.

- The character development was lacking once again like the previous film. There were probably about ten characters in the film that were killed off without even knowing their names. The Harley character seemed to be there just to be that slutty girl cliché in all slasher films who we all know is going to be knocked off faster than when she was introduced. Mya had potential to be a very important character to the film - almost like a support system for Laurie since she seemed to be her only "normal" friend. But she was as useless as Harley.

- There was absolutely no suspense in this film. I was not scared at all. Even the cheap "jump scenes" didn't get a reaction out of me.


OVERALL:

An interesting take on the Michael Myers story but a disappointing film going experience. There are some tender, well-acted moments that definitely make the film a little deeper than most horror films but most times these are overshadowed by a lack of a narrative structure, some really bad acting, too many clichés and plot holes, unnecessary death scenes, and an anticlimactic ending. The promise of the premise was that this film would be an intense psychological horror film that would focus on the mental breakdown of our main character and her battle with evil that will ultimately reveal her fate. Really this just as a typical slasher film, no better or worse than the most mediocre Halloween sequel with poorly executed ideas, zero character development, and more emphasis on violence and gore. If you're a Rob Zombie fan or an open-minded Halloween fan, go see it, but you'd probably get the same reaction from this film as you would from watching a Friday the 13th sequel.

On a scale of 1 to 10 (worst to best), I'll give it a 5.

NEWS FLASH: Even though Halloween II came in third place behind The Final Destination and Inglorious Basterds only making a mere $16 million during the Labor Day Weekend, it still made $2 million more than it's budget which guarantees a sequel. According to numerous entertainment magazines and websites, the Weinstein Company who own the rights to the Halloween films are currently in development with a Halloween 3D (probably since The Final Destination beat Halloween II out of ticket sales with the appeal of the 3D gimmick).

CLICK HERE TO READ ABOUT THE NEWEST FILM!

Horror Movies 2009

It seems like we have alot of horror films coming out this year that are highly anticipated, and should I say, controverstial. Whether it is a remake of a classic horror film (Friday the 13th 2009 being the most discussed, debated, praised, and hated horror remake next to Halloween 2007), or a new cycle (Spider-Man's Sam Raimi returning to horror after almost 20 years with Drag Me To Hell).

We have a a variety of films coming up this year - from PG13 to 3D to remake (and sequel to remake) - and they all are getting mixed reactions (and some huge backlash) and some aren't even completed!

So far, we have seen My Bloody Valentine in 3D, a remake of a cult 1981 slasher film. The film, in my opinion, was the best remake of a horror film ever made (actually I thought The Thing and The Blob are the greatest remakes ever made). I wouldn't certainly say it's better than the original - they both have their strengths and weaknesses. But it's everything a remake should be - it shouldn't try to outdo the original, but either expand on the concept or provide a new twist on the story then be as entertaining as possible when executing the idea.

Then there was the Friday the 13th remake, which I was really looking forward too. The makers promised that the film was going to be a revamped version of the story, molded after the first four films. It was going to gory, scary, entertaining, and fun. The perfect remake. It simply wasn't. It really just recycled the cliches of the series (and slasher films in general), and added nothing new or entertained us with what we were eagerly expecting.

Now, here are the films I'm eager to see.

Drag Me To Hell: Sam Raimi is probably the icon when it comes to the quintessential horror/comedy. Evil Dead and its sequels (Dead by Dawn and Army of Darkness) are films that are simply just funny, scary, and entertaining to watch. Sam Raimi took a break from horror films after Army of Darkness in 1993 to pursue other projects. His closest thing to a horror film was the thriller The Gift in 2000. Then he entered the mainstream with the hit Spider-Man series. Now, aided by a strong lead (Alison Lohman), a hint of political commentary, and a mix of Raimi's trademark horror and humor, Drag Me To Hell promises to be the best new, original horror film that fans have been waiting for. And don't be thrown off by its PG-13 rating. That doesn't mean it's going to be a bad horror film. Poltergeist, one of the best, wasn't rated R.


Halloween II (AKA H2): I'm not going to call this a remake of the first Halloween sequel made all the way back in 1981. This is a completely new story, continuing the events of Rob Zombie's remake of the 1978 classic. While Zombie's film was essentially the same story as John Carpenter's film (with added backstory) the endings were totally different allowing for their respective sequels to go into different directions. While the first sequel was simply the first film set in a hospital, this sequel seems to take a psyschological approach to the slasher formula. This film deals with the mental and physical deterioration of Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton), after escaping death at the hands of her psychotic brother, Michael Myers. Meanwhile, Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) continues to hunt down the unstoppable killer. While Zombie's remake was a spin on Carpenter's iconic film, it was a REMAKE meaning that the fans of the original were expecting (and got) a film that has major set pieces from the original inserted into the new film. While, this film has a clean slate and can create something that can be a little more original and fresh while delivering the goods.

NOTE: I had a previous post (called H2: Halloween 2) voicing my own concern and backlash on the direction the new film was going in which is a completely different approach to the story and mostly the character of Michael Myers. But after reading intervies with the cast, crew, and mostly Rob Zombie I completely changed my expectations of the film. Why not see something new and fresh with Michael Myers? We've seen him so many times as this faceless, indestructible killer going around and stabbing people. While this film promises the visceral thrill of an intense horror film, it also promises to be one with a little more thought and attention to detail put into it. Rob Zombie is probably my favorite modern horror director. I never thought any of his films were anywhere near terrible, even though I didn't like his first film. But he seems to grow as a filmmaker and does seem to be a devoted fan of the genre. His approach to how he goes into his films is how every horror director should : a knowledge and love for the genre while adding your own style and twist on the conventions of the genre.


Sorority Row: While nowhere near being an absolute favorite of mine, I did enjoy the original film, entitled The House on Sorority Row. It was just a fun, creepy little slasher film. Along with 1980's Prom Night, this is one of the first REVENGE slasher films where the death of a character sets off this horrible killing spree so justice for the tragedy is served. This was once again popularized by 1997's I Know What You Did Last Summer. Since the original film is not very well known, everyone is claiming this is rip-off I Know... After viewing the trailer for this new film (which I thought was pretty awesome) this looks like a film that won't try to be better than the film... just a fun, thrilling companion piece and, may I say, a stylish approach to the 1980s slasher.


The Final Destination (AKA Final Destination 4: Death Trip 3D): Nothing new here... The Final Destination films are pretty entertaining to watch so putting the new one in 3D is definitely a huge draw to see the film.

The trailer was better than the film itself!

The title is pretty self-explanatory. Movie trailers and television spots are a marketing campaign to grab a hold of the audiences' attention and have them pay to see the latest film to hit theaters. Horror film trailers are tightly constructed and they have to make the film look scary, thrilling, and entertaining. However, in some cases (especially with today's films), the trailers to some horror films are for more appealing than the film itself. The trailer seemed to be an overview of a lackluster film's highlights. Here are some instances where I found the trailer to be captivating but the film to be a turkey.

Friday the 13th (2009) - This film was probably the biggest disappointment of all time as far as hype goes for an upcoming horror release. The Friday the 13th series is an extremely popular franchise. I myself am an extremely huge fan of the films. I was super stoked when I first viewed this trailer, believing it would be the ultimate Friday the 13th film, concentrating on the good elements of the series to make an amazing throwback to the golden age of horror films. Was I wrong or what?! This film was a dull, unimaginative slasher flick, no better than the most lackluster entry in the franchise. I seriously got bored after the first 20 minutes of the film. It brought nothing new to the table and really just recycled elements from the first four films of the franchise thus turning the whole film into a big cliched mess.


Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989) - Since we're on Friday the 13th films, here's another disappointing marketing campaign that promised but didn't deliver. What Friday the 13th fan would not be drawn to the concept of Jason terrorizing the Big Apple? However, 3/4 of the film took place on a cruise ship headed towards NYC. Then the rest of the film deals with Jason chasing two teens in the sewers of Manhattan. There is only one good scene in the film where Jason is walking around Time Square... and everyone is ignoring him! Otherwise, this film sucks.


When A Stranger Calls (2006) - I, myself, was not that impressed with the original 1979 film with the exception of that extremely tense first act. The remake promised to be an extension on the first act and be just as tense. If it failed to do that, it looked like it could have just been a creepy slasher flick. It was neither. It was drawn out sequences of obscene phone calls and shots of the empty house that attempted to generate suspense but couldn't manage to do that.


Hatchet (2006) - I'm sorry Adam Green. You seem to be a huge fan of the horror genre and you are extremely nice. But your film was a turkey. It's not like it was necessarily bad. In fact, it was extremely well made. But this film was a prime example of failing to deliver. The word-of-mouth on this film was that it was probably the greatest horror film of the last twenty years and it was extremely scary and entertaining. Like a new age Friday the 13th Jason-esque slasher film. In some cases, it almost seemed like it was going to be a loose remake of Friday the 13th, Part II. It had cameo appearances from horror legends such as Robert "Freddy Krueger" Englund, Tony "Candyman" Todd, and the killer was played by Kane "Jason Voorhess" Hodder. This should have been a great horror film. It wasn't. Painfully mediocre at best.


The Fog (2005) - What was I thinking? I got so hyped up for this film after seeing this trailer. The 1980 original is one of my favorite films and this trailer promised a film that would capture the spirit of it's predecessor, expanding on the backstory and, overall, giving us a moody and atmospheric ghost story. This film is probably one of the worst horror films ever made.


He Knows You're Alone (1980) - I actually enjoyed this film, especially the excellent beginning. But it could have been better. And that neat little scene where the hand comes crashing through the mirror is not even in the movie! It turns out it was just a marketing gimmick.


Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) - Riding on the box-office sucess of Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers the prior year, the filmmakers of this fifth installment in the franchise rushed this film into production, hoping to capturelightning in a bottle yet again. While Michael's return was quite thrilling, this film seemed to be the epic battle between good and evil where the victims will strike back and end Michael's reign of terror once and for all. Well, they didn't do so hot. They resorted to the usual stalk-and-slash accompanied by scenes of annoying characters who were just knife fodder and a confusing supernatural sub-plot, and Michael ended up returning in three other sequels.

Horror Throne #1: Anthony Perkins

NOTE: SPOILERS AHEAD

"We all go a little mad sometimes". - Norman Bates, Psycho (1960)

In 1960, Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Robert Bloch's pulp thriller novel, Psycho shocked audiences around the world. Taking horror out of the Gothic castles and forbidden planets, the story about a young motel owner who covers up the murders of his psychotic mother struck a nerve with movie goers and sky rocketed the careers of director Alfred Hitchcock and star Janet Leigh. But no one was affected by the film's success more than Anthony Perkins, the actor who will forever be known as the tortured Norman Bates.

Anthony Perkins was born on April 4, 1932. His father, stage and film actor James Ripley Osgood Perkins died when Perkins was five and his childhood was shadowed by an unstable relationship with his mother. Perkins' film debut was in 1953 in the film The Actress. Then three years later, Perkins stuck gold with his Golden Globe and Academy Award nominated role in the film Friendly Persuasion, making him Hollywood's hottest young star. He went on to star alongside Audrey Hepburn and Jane Fonda in subsequent films and hit the stage on Broadway. His performance in the play Look Homeward Angel caught the eye of screenwriter Joseph Stefano, who was adapting Robert Bloch's Psycho for the big screen. He began to mold his vision of Norman Bates after the talented Perkins, believing he was perfect for the role.

While Norman Bates in the novelization of Psycho was an overweight, middle-aged alcoholic with no redeeming qualities, Perkins' portrayal of Norman was a whole new character - young and goodlooking, seemingly innocent and trustworthy - making the revelation at the end of the film much more shocking.

While Norman seemed to be an unwilling accomplice to Mother's crimes, it just so happens that Mother has been dead for years. And her memory lives on in Norman, creating two different personalities, dueling it out in Norman's psyche.


The film was both a blessing and a curse to Perkins' career. Perkins became the victim of typecast. While appearing in hit films throughout the '60s and '70s such as Catch-22 and Murder on the Orient Express, Perkins career managed to stay afloat by returning to the role that made him famous. Under the masterful director of Richard Franklin (Road Games) and an excellent performance by its main player, Psycho II opened in the summer of 1983 and became the sleeper hit of the season. While the original film simply portrayed Norman as an unhinged mind, the sequel gave Perkins room to test his acting chops and turn Norman into a tragic hero, one who is constantly at war with himself.

This seemed to mirror Perkins' personal life, in which the actor lead a double life. One as a normal family man with a successful career and the other as a closet homosexual who was at war with his own identity.

Perkins' creative abilities continued to expand. Not only did her deliver an even more masterful performance as Norman Bates in 1986's Psycho III, but he used his talents to direct the film as well, delivering the ultimate character study on Norman Bates and now forever tying Perkins to the legacy of his on-screen persona.

Between the third film and the final chapter in the series - 1990's Psycho IV: The Beginning - Perkins tragically contracted the AIDS virus, putting his personal life in the spotlight. Just as the ending of Psycho IV brought closure to the character of Norman Bates, on September 12, 1992 passed away but not without confronting his own fears and learning to accept himself. In the end, Anthony Perkins left behind a legacy - much like Norman Bates - of great tragedy and triumph.

Best Horror Movie Posters

These are just my opinion of what I think are the Best Horror Movie Posters. Feel free to add your thoughts.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974): How could you not be intrigued by this poster? A pretty horrific image with a twisted tagline: Who will survive and what will be left of them? Plus the gimmick of claiming that the events portrayed on the film actually happened.


Black Christmas (1974): A symbol of holiday cheer contains a creepy image of a murder victim, with a look of horror on her face - the last expression on her face before she met her fate at the hands of a mysterious killer. This poster pretty much defines the simplistic yet creepy atmosphere of the film.


Jaws (1975): Though the shark in the film wasn't exactly that big, it did tell the audience that the monster in this film is nothing you've ever seen before.


Halloween (1978): Like the theme music and the mask, the poster art for this film is iconic. The simple yet creative design of the knife interspersed with the pumpkin represents exactly what the film is: you don't need much to be effective.


Dawn of the Dead (1978): The tagline for this is probably the most popular line from a horror film. For some reason, this simple poster art is just awesome.


Friday the 13th (1980): You just know something bad is going to happen to the naive youngsters in this poster as they are dominated by the silhouette of a prowler, wielding a bloody knife. Like the film's influence on the slasher genre throughout the 1980s, this poster definitely had influence on the poster art for many slasher films to follow.


The Evil Dead (1981): The disturbing image of an innocent young woman being pulled down into the depths of Hell by some sort of demon reflects the the brutal ferocity of the film itself, promising not to disappoint potential viewers.

Crypticon Seattle Horror Convention June 5-7 2009

Since Seattle's first horror convention was a huge success last year, Crypticon will again be having a convention this year. This year's guests will include Lloyd "Troma" Kaufman, Adrienne Barbeau (The Fog), Tom Atkins (Night of the Creeps), Nancy Loomis (Halloween), Charles Cyphers (Halloween), Ken Foree (Dawn of the Dead), Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes), Howard "Bub" Sherman (Day of the Dead), and a Phantasm reunion - with director Don Coscarelli, Reggie Bannister, Bill Thornbury, and Kathy Lester - and more!.

It will be held at the Seattle Center on June 5-7.

For more details, go to:
http://www.crypticonseattle.com/