Let this statement absorb into your mildly retarded to intelligent mind(s):  Shaun of the Dead is a perfect movie.  From second zero until end credits, Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg created a masterpiece.  Name me a scene in that film that they could have cut out… yup, shut up.

Centering a film around zombies in the last ten years is a simple way to start a movie, which has become the center of much critiquing and BITCHING from fans and fuckers alike.  Yeah, I will admit that screenwriters, producers, and directors need to adjust their attention a little in the genre of horror, but how easy is it to get an idea, name, or message out into the mass populace through the invention of zombies?  Easy as a girl named Breezy (ask me later).

“Rom-zom-com” was a genre coined by Shaun of the Dead.  It’s fucking silly, but I allow it.  A romantic-zombie-comedy is something we all wish we thought of first, but alas, we didn’t.  Closest pick that could be lumped into this genre is Zombie Honeymoon, but that flick is a bummer to say the least (rent it though).

George A. Romero is a man that horror buffs tip their hats to because whether you like it or no, he brought zombie films into the mainstream and did it well.  Some of his films look a little dated – for the obvious reasons – with all the undead cinema flooding the market now, but Shaun of the Dead took the schematic of rotting men and women lumbering about and feeding on human flesh infused humor, heart, and headshots.  In my opinion Romero has been rolling down a slippery slope of guts and flesh since Land of the Dead, but after watching Diary of the Dead I got a feeling the man needs to put the camera down and start penning some screenplays or producing projects that are up his gore soaked alley.  His new picture Survival of the Dead has the potential of bringing him out of this mass grave of shitty zombie movies, which he has directed himself into, but sometimes you just gotta pass the torch and move on.  Let’s get back on topic though, shall we?

Edgar Wright is one of those writers/directors who knows what he loves and it isn’t afraid to create something that is merely an homage to those things with a little something else added to it.  His sitcom Spaced even has a subtitle track on the DVDs entitled “Homage-o-Meter” that simply references anything within the realm of film, music, literature, and a bunch of random shit because that’s what compromises majority of the show.  Genius?  A little less, but leaning more towards prophetic.

The sappy – but good kinda sappy – that is strategically placed amongst the fart jokes and disemboweling in Shaun plucks on the heart strings so well because there usually isn’t a need for it within the genre.  Your typical horror fan that forks out $6.50 for Saw 23 (currently in pre-production) doesn’t need emotional substance within the film as long as the violence grows exponentially with each severed Achilles tendon.  Yet, when Bill Nighy – playing the stepfather – “death bed” confesses how hard it’s been raising Simon Pegg, I know I started welling up the first time I saw it.  And don’t get me started about the Mexican standoff involving Shaun’s mother.  Reservoir Dogs, you have now been trumped.

We’ve all seen plenty of slashers and the such where you can pretty much wave a finger at majority of the players and figure who’ll be letting out a sigh of relief right before the end credits roll and who’ll be dirt-napping ASAP.  Now if you can actually write a decent character then flesh them out as the camera rolls on them – whether they get the axe or not – we’re at least feeling for them as they attempt to survive through three acts.  But if you watch any trailers for movies within the last 10 years, Hollywood loves to show us EVERY FUCKING THING THAT’LL HAPPEN WITHIN 93 MINUTES condensed to a two and a half minute stream of clips, especially every dumb breeder that’s gonna fall on a dick or knife in I Know What You Did Last Summer With Your Dirty Mouf .  I remember watching the Episode I trailer in ninth grade and being so pissed off because it was obvious that Qui-Gon eats it.  Once again, thank you Mr. Lucas for perverting nearly everything that was holy during my childhood.  Sorry… I get kinda angry most of the time when I go off on tangents.

Every character in Shaun fits into at least one stereotype or more, which works as long as you give them a soul.  The token black guy wouldn’t be such a disposable character in cinema, but when does the “black friend in the group” ever get more than five lines that aren’t silly or just jive.  Stereotypes and cliches in movies work – especially in genre films – because it can create a familiarity with the audience that is comforting, but the fun and talent comes when the write and/or director abuses that comfort and throws you into oncoming traffic.  Sometimes you’re taken from your idea of what is safe and sure in your life or simply lead down a path you didn’t see coming.  I wouldn’t say that Shaun is abound with twist, turns, and surprises, but when you take the idea of the “bumbling idiot” (Pegg) and give him a family, friends, wit, and then hordes of zombies to bash his way through, you start to give two shits about him.  Stir in that drama I was talking about from before and what do you get?  A damn fine character.  Now let’s throw a bucket of blood over the whole mess and you we got ourselves a right good film.  Now me personally, I just need a rack of $7.99 failure ribs from Safeway and some Simply Apple Juice, then I’m in fat kid Heaven.  Moving on.

Shaun of the Dead may not be on the highest of cinematic plains, but for a film that panders to gore-hounds, drunks/stoners, those who still think farts are funny (real Americans), and people who hate bad kissers, it’s a work of art.  It’s a movie that reminds me of why I still love all the sentimental bullshit John Hughes put out or why constantly quoting the Cohen Borthers three bowling alley burnouts never gets tired.  It brings me back to why I shielded my  five year-old eyes from Carpenter’s shape-shifting alien in the Arctic or how Landis made someones dead bestfriend the funniest aspect of London.  Simply put, it’s a movie that makes me love movies.

First off: HAPPY HALLOWEEN!!!

Ahem.

I have a really hard time picking my favorite thing about Halloween. As a kid, it was definitely the candy. Oh man, was it the candy. I lived in suburbia, so every Halloween was like winning the sugar lottery—especially the houses that wouldn’t have anyone home that would leave all the candy in big bowls outside with signs that said “Take One.” Pshht. Take one, my be-costumed ass.

In high school, it was the excuse to dress provocatively without my parents being able to say anything. But then Mean Girls came along and pointed that out and made it awkward, and it lost its fun when I moved out anyway.

In the early (pre-21) years of college, it was seeing how many New York City clubs I could sneak into before they closed or I passed out. Again, now that I’m actually of age, this has kind of lost its appeal.

But now? I’m honestly going to have to say, it’s the scary movies. I am a scary movie FANATIC, and I have compiled a “Best Of” list, just for you! Also, Halloween fancy drink recipe included—stay tuned.

BEST OF: SCARY MOVIE EDITION

Best Overall Scary Movie: The Exorcist
Please. This shit is INFAMOUS. Yeah, it was definitely more relevant/shocking/etc when it came out, but in my humble opinion, it hasn’t been topped since.
Runner-up: The Shining. I saw the Simpsons Treehouse of Horror spoof before I saw the movie, so that kinda ruined it for me.

Best Suspense Movie: The Sixth Sense
There are certainly people who haven’t seen it, but is there really anyone who doesn’t know about the ending? That, my friends, is the hallmark of a good suspense movie. Also, I go to school with Haley Joel Osment, and around this time of year freshmen start whispering “I see dead people” uncontrollably when they see him, like they have a disorder or something. Which is pretty awesome, and used to tick him off a lot.
Runner-up: Taken. It’s not really supposed to be scary, but it’s violent and action-packed and suspenseful. And Liam Neeson is a badass. Seriously, see the movie.

Best Vampire Flick: Interview With the Vampire
This is really just my personal bias against all that damned glittery vampire nonsense. Plus! Man-candy.
Runner-up: Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Can’t argue with a classic.

Best Halloween-Appropriate Movie Musical: Rocky Horror Picture Show
Doubles as an awesome source of inspiration for last-minute costume ideas. Let’s do the Time Warp again!
Runner-up: Little Shop of Horrors

Best Zombie Movie: 28 Days Later
Don’t bother with the sequel.
Runner-up: Shaun of the Dead. An awesome Dawn of the Dead spoof, featuring Kate Ashfield, who is a personal hero of mine.

Best Movie I’m Ashamed to Say Scared Me: The Blair Witch Project
This may have something to do with the fact that I watched it the night before I went camping for the first time ever in rural Texas.
Runner-up: I Know What You Did Last Summer. Give me a break, I was like, ten.

Best Slasher Movie: Halloween
Duh. If you ignore all the sequels and prequels and such, it’s actually not bad. Dated, but not bad.
Runner-up: Friday the 13th. I get bored because I know what’s going to happen, so it’s not the best. But I feel like it was a major step in defining the genre, so I threw it on anyway.

Best Unintentionally Scary Movie: Bring it On 5
That’s right, there are FIVE of them. Shudder.

Best Premise: Saw
But seriously, stop making them already. Please.
Runner-up: Stigmata. Even though this category only deals with premise, it still loses points for execution.

Best Movie That Normally Would Have Made This List But Did Not Because Roman Polanski is a Douche: Rosemary’s Baby

Best “Cultured” Scary Movie: Let the Right One In
This is actually a really sweet and kind of romantic vampire story, but it is in Swedish, so it’s not for the drunk and/or distracted. For the pretentious film critic in each of us!

And now for my Halloween gift to you:

DRINK RECIPE: Green Goblin Cocktail

Mix together in a cocktail shaker full of ice:

1 oz. Hpnotiq
1 oz. cognac (Hennessy is ideal, but really anything that’s a pale golden color works)
1 oz. Midori melon liqueur
1 oz. of pineapple juice

Shake together, and strain into a martini glass. This can also be made in a rocks glass with more pineapple juice—it is pretty strong as is.

Have a wonderful and safe Halloween!!!

I am unashamed to say that I was anxiously anticipating the release of this movie for about 3 months.  I was introduced to the trailer on Apple and could not stop laughing.  It looked perfect: stupid, overly gorey, lots of screams, stupid girls – everything you could possibly want from a terrible slasher movie (and trust me, I love terrible slasher movies).

I mean, let’s look at the ingredients here:

1) Half naked B-List celebrities with fake tits screaming

Clearly, they were chosen for their...ahem...acting abilities

I mean, really.  The cast consists of a girl from the Real World (yes, I had to google it because I knew she was vaguely familiar from somewhere):

Remember me? I was sort of marginally famous once!

And Audrina Patridge from The Hills, who thankfully for all of us, just has to play her usual role of being dead:

This is her showing emotion...scary, huh?

2) Awesomely absurd death scenes

There's a reason mama told you drinking is bad

Honestly, if a drunk sorority girl dies from having a bottle shoved down her throat, I really don’t think I need much more persuasion to see this movie.

3) Carrie Fisher…with a shotgun

I have a bad feeling about this...

Don’t lie…your inner fanboy/fangirl is drooling right now.

4) Oh, and it’s about a freaking sorority getting murdered for screwing up a bizarro sex prank.  It’s just set up for awesome badness.

Sadly, I was somewhat disappointed.  How?? you may ask, given all the amazing ingredients and the fact that I was totally primed for a terrible and amusing horror experience.  Well, because some people thought this film could actually have been good…and they were right.  The writing in Sorority Row is surprisingly intelligent for a lot of it.  The writers knew how satirical they could make this, squeezed in some awesome one liners, and came up with some appropriate and interesting ways to kill people.  Besides the ending (more on that fiasco soon), most of the writing really pleased me; my only other big disappointment was that no reference to Star Wars was made.  Come on, the film’s just dying for a “I have a bad feeling about this”!

But I digress.  The problem with the intelligence of the writing is twofold.  First of all being that no one else in the movie knew that the writers were intelligent.  Most of the actresses are acting their hearts out (really, REALLY poorly).  They actually think they’re doing a serious horror film.  They have NO IDEA how ridiculous it all is.  So the jokes fall flat; in fact, they backfire.  Instead of being witty and sharp, they just seem kind of sad and pathetic.  Because of that, it almost seems like it would have been better if the writing had been as bad as the acting; then at least the audience can be cruelly amused at the badness instead of kind of annoyed that some of the good lines are just being lost.  That and the writing didn’t seem to mesh with any other aspect of the film, which is problematic in and of itself.

However, my bigger problem with the writing is that it felt like the writers gave up in the last 15-20 minutes of the film.  Ok, so Sorority Row is a slasher.  As we know from Scream, there are certain rules that any good slasher must follow.  If you don’t follow those rules, you really should have a good reason (like it’s actually an intelligent movie that has something creative at the end).  Sorority Row decided to do something different but in a really really DUMB way.  I’m sorry, there’s no other way to put it.  It was just stupid.  Out of all the possible options they could have gone with, even a supernatural “OMG she, like, totally came back from the dead” option which didn’t fit in with the film but still would have been better, they went for the “let’s come out of left field and have the character be a killer with a really weak motive, nothing interesting about him, and about the least scary human being alive” ending.  On top of that, he was fairly ridiculously easy to kill, and he didn’t even come back to life so he had to be killed a second time or so that we’re unsure if he’s alive or dead at the end (SERIOUSLY – just watch Scream – Randy even says “Careful.  This is the moment where the supposedly dead killer comes back to life, for one last scare”.  It’s all there – you don’t even have to READ to get the rules).  I have never been so disappointed at the end of a slasher.  Even when the killer is the super predictable option, it’s more satisfying then this was because it’s usually laughable predictable.  This was so bad it wasn’t even funny.

OH, and THEN (yes, folks, it got worse), the last scene of the movie MAKES NO SENSE.  We see a character who was killed earlier in the film and find out he wasn’t really dead…ok, fine, so he has some issues that he might want to resolve with some of the people involved in the story.  But he’s A) not enough of a character that we give two shits, B) not well enough explained (I didn’t get that it was him at first), and C) totally overshadowed by this strange thing where the sister of the girl who got killed in the first place is apparently all up in the business of the sorority that KILLED HER SISTER.  What…the hell?  No explanation given on that either.  I mean, I get that they’re trying to set it up for Sorority Girls 2: More Titties So Give Us More Money but is this supposed to be creepy or just incredibly confusing?  Or is it just scary because when I walked out of the film I was so clueless as to what just happened that I think I knew what the type of sorority girl depicted in this film feels like on a regular basis?  It was just…bad…

And it was all so disappointing for that reason.  I went in expecting deliciously bad horror, the kind that you walk out of knowing it was complete and utter crap, but for some reason you loved it.  Instead I got a film that had some promise but completely and utterly sucked in the end.  Not cool…not cool at all.  I mean, I would say see it if you like bad slashers.  It really does have some priceless lines in it where I laughed out loud.  And again…Carrie Fisher…SHOTGUN…it’s really as awesome as it sounds.  But…don’t expect too much or you really will get let down.

El cine de terror teen está en coma irreversible, pidiendo a gritos renovarse o morir. Desde la triunfal trilogía de “Scream“, podría contar con los dedos de una mano (y me sobran) las películas que han igualado a ésta en lo que respecta a calidad. Desafortunadamente, “Negra navidad” no es la excepción que confirma la regla.

Basada en una rareza dirigida por Bob Clark (“Porky’s”) allá por los setenta, nos encontramos con uno de esos remakes que no tienen absolutamente nada en común con su homónimo, salvo el título y que ambos se desarrollan en navidad, lo cual se agradece siempre y cuando el resultado no sea un bodrio de semejante magnitud.

El reparto lo integran caras televisivas como las de Michelle Trachtenberg (la dulce hermanita de “Buffy, la cazavampiros”), Oliver Hudson (visto en “Dawson crece”) y Mary Elizabeth Winstead, quien repite a las órdenes de Glen Morgan, guionista de la divertida saga de “Destino final“.

Lo primero que sorprende de esta “Negra navidad” es su total ausencia de humor, algo inconcebible dada su premisa. Billy es un joven que crece atormentado por los constantes maltratos de su madre y a la sombra de su hermana, hasta que la noche de navidad decide zampárselas en forma de galletas, al calor del hogar.

Años más tarde, durante el aniversario de la muerte de su familia (casualidades de la vida), Billy huye de la celda de máxima seguridad donde está encerrado, sirviéndose de un bastoncillo de caramelo como arma homicida, y vuelve a casa por navidad cual indigesto turrón.

Al mismo tiempo, su casa se ha convertido en un improvisado picadero para la hermandad femenina que allí se congrega. Todo esto se nos cuenta de manera atropellada, por medio de flashbacks, que llaman al desconcierto y no hacen sino más que entorpecer la narración en su intento por disuadir al espectador de la tramposa identidad del asesino.

Morgan pone todo su empeño en distanciarse de la cinta original y lo consigue, para bien y para mal, tratando de justificar el odio de Billy hacia Santa Claus y eliminando así de un plumazo el elemento suspense. Para cuando empieza la acción, uno ya está cansado de contemplar este catálogo de muertes absurdas, que incluye estalactitas asesinas y árboles que atraviesan torsos humanos.

“Negra navidad” es un film que va de más a menos, cuyo interés es equiparable al del mensaje del Rey en nochebuena. Por si fuera poco, parece ser que la película ha sido censurada hasta la saciedad en nuestro país, así que ya ni eso queda. Si Hollywood sigue nutriéndose de revisitar clásicos como éste o “Prom night”, más nos vale que sus guionistas sigan en huelga indefinida por mucho tiempo.

15ª Participación para el concurso del DVD de Payasos Asesinos (Killer Klowns from Outer Space), reseña escrita por Manu Riquelme.

Título original: Friday the 13th, Part VII: The New Blood
Año: 1988
Dirección: John Carl Buechler
Guión: Manuel Fidello, Daryl Haney
Reparto: Kane Hodder, Lar Park-Lincoln, Susan Jennifer Sullivan

Llegado el año 1988, la franquicia de Viernes 13 estaba en pleno apogeo, pues cada nueva entrega era todo un éxito de taquilla, aunque a la crítica cultureta le hervía la sangre cada vez que se estrenaba un nuevo filme de la saga de Jason. No obstante, algún lumbreras de la Paramount, consideró que había que aportar algún elemento novedoso a la saga, para que no consistiese siempre en lo mismo (como si ello importase realmente), con el mismo villano de siempre, cargándose a los adolescentes estereotipados de siempre. En lo que nadie reparó era que eso propiciaba el encanto a la saga, las muertes, cada vez más retorcidas, sangrientas y con armas inverosímiles. Pues bien, el hijito enchufado del dueño de Paramount (un suponer), pensó en incluir algo nunca visto antes en otra entrega del viernes maldito. Antes ya habían utilizado el 3-D; el asesino fue la madre, después el hijo y más tarde un tarado policía; Jason pasó de emplear un saco de harina como máscara a una de portero de hockey; se le había revivido con un rayo… Por tanto, se empezaron a comer la cabeza, los grandes ejecutivos del estudio, para encontrar algún elemento que llevase a millones de espectadores a las salas. ¿Cuál fue el resultado? Pensaron que lo mejor era unir Viernes 13 con Carrie, de manera que metieron con calzador, rompiendo con el espíritu de la saga, a un nuevo personaje, que estuviera a la altura del señor Voorhees: una adolescente con poderes telequinésicos, que puede mover las cosas con el poder de su mente. Una tontería como un piano, que jamás llega a funcionar en pantalla, aunque logra algunos momentos muy conseguidos en la película, pues Jason encuentra alguien que le planta cara y consigue frenarle. Mas obviamente, sólo lo consigue al final, pues antes, el del machete hace de las suyas, durante una hora de metraje, acuchillando a diestro y siniestro.

Para lograr semejante disparate, el director contratado fue John Carl Buechler, procedente del departamento de maquillaje y efectos especiales de la factoría de Charles Band y familia, y director de “clásicos” como la tercera parte de Ghoulies  o Torok, el Troll. Ello demostraba que a la Paramount empezaban a importarle un pimiento Jason y sus víctimas, o que pensaban que siempre tendría éxito un filme de la saga, a pesar de su penoso planteamiento. Y es que las recaudaciones de estos filmes, nunca bajaban de los 20 millones de dólares en cines estadounidenses, por lo que había que explotar la gallina de los huevos de oro como fuese; así, cada año se estrenaba una nueva peli, como ahora sucede con Saw, donde cada entrega no llegará a ser un bombazo, pero sí se llevará pelas a casa. Además, la producción de estas películas era muy barata, pues sólo eran necesarios unos cuantos jovencitos guapetones que se despelotaran, unos guionistas medio borrachos, efectos especiales sangrientos y resultones, y un departamento de maquillaje que pudiese inventar todo tipo de heridas y muertes. Por ejemplo, esta séptima parte, sólo costó 4 millones de dólares, ganando los 20 millones de los que hablaba antes. Cualquiera se queja así. La octava parte, que intentó innovar nuevamente, recaudó menos que en ocasiones anteriores, por lo que en la novena, se le da un giro de 180º grados al personaje y a la historia, aunque se confirmó así su decadencia. Por estas fechas, la Paramount, responsable del personaje, vendió los derechos de la saga a la New Line Cinema, a tope también en esas fechas, gracias a Pesadilla en Elm Street. Su objetivo era enfrentar, ya por entonces, a los dos grandes iconos (de ahí el plano final de la novena parte de Jason), cosa que no se logró hasta muchos años después.

Y como no quiero enrollarme con los datos históricos mucho más, retomo el asunto del director escogido para el filme: John Carl Buechler, cuyo nombre ya parece de broma. Esta elección pareció estar tomada a cachondeo, tras una noche de farra entre los ejecutivos del estudio de cine, ya que Buechler nunca se había tomado demasiado en serio su carrera (venía de dirigir la mítica Troll), lo cual se demuestra al visionar la película aquí reseñada. Esta es la secuela que más vira hacia la autoparodia del personaje y las situaciones, y no puede ser vista con seriedad, como sí ocurría con secuelas precedentes.
Para empezar, las muertes son ridículas y risibles, no son terroríficas ni salpican sangre a la pantalla, pues todas parecen bromas pesadas. Por ejemplo, el chaval al que le revienta un ojo con una trompetilla. Por otra parte, el asesino siempre llega por detrás, sin que los personajes se percaten de su presencia, tras minutos y minutos siguiendo sus pasos; y así pasa con todas las muertes, no hay ninguna en la que Jason salga de un armario o aparezca frente a ellos, ¡ninguna!, todas por la espalda. Parece ser que ahora Jason teme a los jóvenes de hormonas desatadas o ya no es tan inventivo como antaño para aniquilar. Eso sí, la mejor muerte es la de la tienda de campaña, homenajeada después en Jason X.
Encima, Jason, en un momento concreto, empieza a sacar armas extrañísimas, sin saber de qué lugar, como si estuviéramos ante una parodia tipo Scary Movie, como el momento en el bosque, en el que saca de la nada, una motosierra gigante, y momentos antes le habíamos visto con un hacha. Una estupidez, que parece burlarse de viernes anteriores.

Como siempre, los personajes son bastante estúpidos, pero aquí llegan a límites insospechados. No empatizas con ninguno, ni siquiera con la protagonista con poderes, que es la que resucita por error a Jason, al pensar en su padre, a quien mató cuando era una niña. Y el argumento para llevar a la chica a ese campamento maldito es muy pero que muy tonto: intentar curarla y que dé rienda suelta a sus poderes, justo en el lugar donde falleció su padre. Para ello, es acompañada por un médico, el malo de la función, y un familiar suyo (no recuerdo si era su madre, su tía o su bisabuela, ni me importa). Como es de prever, ambos morirán humillantemente, mientras la chica se salva con el guapetón de turno.

Esta es la típica peli que sólo se puede disfrutar en compañía de amigos y birras, para reírse de muchas situaciones del filme. Prescindible, aunque admirada por unos cuantos.
Pero también cuenta con puntos a su favor: el genial e innovador maquillaje de Jason, que como siempre, nos desvela su rostro hacia el final, similar aquí a un zombie en descomposición (hay que recordar que estuvo un tiempo muerto), y el enfrentamiento entre él y la joven telequinésica, que recuerda al de Freddy vs Jason. Ah, y es la primera ocasión en la que el gran Kane Hodder interpretó a Jason, otorgándole los amaneramientos y gestos que todos asociamos al personaje, gracias a su corpulencia y a ese característico movimiento de hombros, antes de atacar a su próxima víctima…

By Mario

10ª Participación para el concurso, de la mano de…… Mario!

Título original: Sleepaway Camp
Año: 1983
Dirección y guión: Robert Hiltzik
Reparto: Elissa Rose, Jonathan Tiersten, Karen Fields

Que conste que no estamos ante el típico y tópico slasher, surgido como imitación de la saga Viernes 13, en los años ochenta, aunque todo el mundo diga lo contrario. El grupo de personas que piensan así, está compuesto por los críticos de cine de turno, que rechazan cualquier filme de terror antes de empezar, sobre todo si se trata de alguno en el que un asesino despedaza de maneras ingeniosas a los adolescentes que se han portado mal o han practicado sexo. Por cierto, muchas asociaciones de padres, actualmente, deberían luchar por la reposición de este tipo de cine, para enseñar a sus hijos qué les puede pasar si no se comportan como es debido.

Pues bien, aunque Campamento sangriento (o Campamento de verano, según la versión de que se disponga) contenga todos los ingredientes básicos del subgénero, le da una vuelta de tuerca en diversos aspectos, que no convierten la cinta en algo muy sesudo, pero sí más interesante que otros productos de la época, que sólo imitan la fórmula de Viernes 13, sin aportar nada nuevo ni arriesgarse. Vale, que los asesinatos se suceden uno tras otro sin que nadie haga nada, los diálogos son poco menos que estúpidos, el final está más que cantado y muchas situaciones son inverosímiles, pero qué importa, si al final te lo has pasado pipa.

La novedad del filme no es su ambientación, todo sea dicho, pues se desarrolla en un campamento veraniego, cosa poco original. Tampoco innova con el inicio sorprendente, recurso característico de estas películas, para situar al espectador y que siempre tiene su significado para la conclusión. En este caso, presenciamos un desafortunado accidente en el río que está frente al campamento de marras, en el que una lancha motora impacta contra un hombre, que nada junto a sus hijos (y no digo más, porque significaría desvelar demasiado para el espectador que no conozca la peli). Y enseguida, un cartel de 8 años después, y bla bla bla.

La película sorprende al presentar un campamento en el que conviven, no sólo tontos adolescentes que sólo piensan en meterla en caliente, sino también adultos encargados del lugar, chicos más jóvenes y niños. Vamos, como un campamento de verdad, ya era hora. Además, les vemos practicar actividades clásicas de estos emplazamientos: natación, deportes, juegos varios, fiestas… No sólo están ahí como carnaza para el asesino.
Por otro lado, las muertes tardan en hacer acto de presencia, y no sólo se basan en cuchilladas al tun tun, sino que son más bien rebuscadas (un panal de abejas dentro de un baño, agua hirviendo sobre uno de los cocineros…). Es algo que aporta algo de veracidad, pues no todos los asesinos tienen por qué saber manejar a la perfección un hacha o un cuchillo jamonero. Ante estos crímenes, el dueño del campamento hace oídos sordos e intenta callar al resto del equipo, para que los padres no retiren a sus hijos del centro. Algo que es muy probable que ocurriera en la realidad.

El otro elemento innovador del filme es aquel por el que hoy no podría hacerse una peli igual, y es que no es muy políticamente correcto, que digamos: uno de los cocineros, todo un pederasta, intenta aprovecharse de la protagonista; se insinúa una relación entre el dueño, muy mayor, y una jovencita monitora; el padre que muere al principio era gay; asesinan a niños pequeños (aunque no vemos el asesinato)… Por eso se aleja de otros títulos de la época, con muchas muertes, pero con espíritu Disney en el fondo.

Aquí no hay ningún héroe, y el que se nos presenta, también podría ser el villano de la función. Y el final es de lo más rebuscado, pero nos ofrece un plano bastante recordable.
No os perdáis los paquetes que lucen algunos monitores, nada disimulados, o las camisetas protogay que lucen los adolescentes.
Por cierto, que la saga continuó con más películas, derivando más hacia la comedia que hacia el terror, pero el asesino continúa siendo el mismo y se rompe el suspense del quién será.  Actualmente, está en producción la sexta entrega.

By Mario

9ª Participación para el concurso, de la mano de…… Mario!

I can’t remember the exact point that I fell in love with slasher movies but I think it was when I was around nine, and we had travelled to the country to visit friends of the family. There, in the hills, my parents went out for the evening and left me alone with my older brother and the kid he hung out with. They had rented out two movies that night. I forget which the first was, but the second was a new release entitled Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives. Immediately, the cover caught my attention… a creepy looking gravestone with the movie’s title written across it.

I was so terrified, partially because I was miles away from home but also I was shocked by the cruel nature of the film. One young boy had a knife thrust into his skull, a girl had her head twisted off and another was so badly mutilated that her blood was sprayed all across the room. Yet, as disgusted as I may have been I was also mesmerised by the movie’s fast pace, its no-holds-barred attitude and black humour that ran throughout. Then, my parents arrived home just in time to catch the end credits, when my father informed me that the funky song playing was by some guy called Alice Cooper. I was hooked…

Jason Lives wasn’t the first slasher that I had seen. Months before I had watched A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge, and had spent most of the ninety minute running time with my hands over my eyes. I still can’t look at those yellow school buses without checking to see who the driver was. Nine year olds are very impressionable, and these films (along with Hellbound: Hellraiser II and The Blob which I would see a year or two later) knocked me for six! As disgusted and scared as I was, I wanted to see more. I didn’t care about the mythology of the films, or how poor most of the acting was, I just wanted to see sexed-up teens being slaughtered by some psycho in a mask. And the gorier the better!

One of my favourite memories from my youth was going into the local video shop every day after school. This was around 1990 and there was this tiny shop in the village near my home, not much bigger than my bedroom. I’d make a beeline straight for the back room, where on one wall there would be all the action movies (Cobra, Red Heat, Bloodsport) and across from that would be a wall full of the most outrageous video covers I had ever seen.

I spent every day in this shop, sometimes for up to an hour, just reading the back covers and looking at the cool pictures on the front. Even though they all carried an 18 certificate, I was buying them as young as thirteen or forteen, putting on my best deep man’s voice and standing on my tip-toes so the man at the counter thought I was taller. I became obsessed with Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger. I wasn’t twisted, though, I knew they were just elaborate special effects and not real-life violence, and I would watch each of them over and over again until I knew them off-by-heart.

I watched all kinds of slashers – April Fool’s Day, The Hitcher, Halloween – and I even started writing horror stories at school. I remember when I was ten we were told we had to write a short story about a viral outbreak in a high school, which was immediately put under quarantine. Being a fan of splatter, my story featured scenes (and drawings) of kids melting from the disease, with one of them falling face-first into a sink, his head exploding like a rotten tomato. I became fixated with FX, particularly the work of Tom Savini (who had worked on some of my favourite films, including Friday the 13th and Day of the Dead) and the filmss of John Carpenter (to this day my favourite director), and also the stalk-and-slash formula. I didn’t care how many times I saw a kid wander off alone into the forest, only to be hacked to pieces or smacked against a tree whilst trapped in a sleeping bag, each time was something fresh and exciting. I know this seems hackneyed and cliched now, but back in the ’80’s this was the shit!

By the end of the decade, the slasher movie was slowly grinding to a halt. The three main slasher franchises (Halloween, Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street) all ended the ’80’s on a bum note, and the sleazy and ultra-violent movies that I had taken for granted suddenly disappeared. Instead, there was a wave of films that had taken the slasher premise and relocated it to the suburbs, with masked maniacs replaced by jilted lovers and psycho babysitters. They called these films ‘psychological thrillers,’ but there was nothing thrilling about them. I knew when I saw The Silence of the Lambs for the first time that this was just a slasher clone, disguised as something more sophisticated, too ashamed to show its roots. By the time Jason and Freddy reappeared a few years later, everyone had lost their interest.

Horror movies had become sick of being dumb and now tried to aim for more intelligent crowds, and it wasn’t until Scream emerged sometime later that the slasher movie would return. But the damage had been done, the ’80’s had passed and I was no longer that little boy who would spend hours every day in the local video shop. The independent stores had been replaced by franchises like Blockbusters, and slasher movies now were full of big-name actors from sitcoms and soaps. But every now and then I open my wardrobe, take out one of those old classics and take a stroll down the blood-soaked memory lane.

Pesadilla Final - La Muerte de Freddy (dir: Rachel Talaly, 1991)

Título original: Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare
Año: 1991
Dirección y guión: Rachel Talalay
Reparto: Robert Englund, Lisa Zane, Yaphet Kotto, Tom Arnold, Johnyy Depp

Recuerdo que cuando estrenaron esta película en el cine de mi pueblo, viendo el póster, donde aparecía un Freddy que extendía su mano hasta parecer traspasar el papel con su garra de cuchillas, me acojonaba hasta límites insospechados. Mi corazón quería ver la película con todas sus consecuencias, pero mi cabeza me decía que huyera, pues sólo el póster me iba a producir más pesadillas que a los habitantes de Springwood.
Además, el visionado del largometraje iba acompañado de unas gafas 3-D, lo que convertiría el pase en una horrible experiencia que podría marcar mi carácter para siempre, pues el amigo del jersey de rayas no tendría límites y podría caminar entre las butacas, entre los espectadores de la sala.

Yo sólo contaba seis tiernos añitos, pero en esa época ya comenzaba a estar interesado por el cine de terror y sus personajes, gracias a programas como Alucine de La 2, justo después del partido de Liga de los sábados. No conocía ninguna de las películas anteriores de la saga, pero mi mente ya sabía quién era ese tipo de las cuchillas y cómo se las gastaba. De todas maneras, mi madre me acabó llevando a ver la peli junto a unos amigos, a pesar de que intentó disuadirme (no penséis que mi madre es tan cruel y macabra), y yo no paraba de temblar e imaginarme cómo sería la película, minutos antes de su inicio. Pero me llené de valentía y me coloqué las gafas tridimensionales.

La pantalla se llenó de luz y Krueger empezó a hacer de las suyas. Y toda la sala estalló en mil carcajadas y en murmullos de ¿pero esto qué es? Recuerdo que, pese a mi juventud y a la impresión que me provocaba cada aparición del monstruo, pronto dejé de tener miedo y me comencé a aburrir bastante.

El filme cuenta la historia de un chaval amnésico, que cree ser el hijo de Freddy, pues no le asesina nunca en sus sueños (realmente idiota una de las primeras escenas, en la que el chico cae rodando por una ladera durante un minuto, sin parar), pero que en realidad está siendo manipulado por Fred para llevarle hasta su verdadera hija, que ayuda a un grupo de jóvenes con problemas.

Tras la penosa muerte del que parecía el protagonista, tras caer desde el cielo hasta una cama de pinchos, los chicos problemáticos viajan hasta Springwood, de donde no pueden escapar. Allí ya no quedan niños, pues todos fueron asesinados por Krueger, y sus padres se han vuelto locos, pensando que siguen ahí. Uno de esos padres es Tom Arnold, que nadie sabe muy bien qué pintaba por allí.

Cuando los chicos deciden pasar la noche en la vieja casa de Krueger, es cuando empieza lo interesante: un cúmulo de despropósitos y muertes que parecen sketches de Cruz y Raya. Por ejemplo, un adolescente que es introducido por Freddy en un videojuego, otro que fallece tras la explosión de su audífono, Johnny Depp en la tele en un anuncio contra la droga, la aparición de una mujer que introduce un bastoncillo para los oídos en la oreja de uno de ellos y lo saca por la otra…

Aquí Freddy se ha convertido en una parodia de sí mismo, algo que se percibía en anteriores entregas de Pesadilla en Elm Street, pero que aquí llega a resultar penoso y doloroso para las retinas del espectador. Nada provoca miedo y las secuencias que pretenden ser más surrealistas y oníricas, como al llegar al pueblo de Springwood, son aburridas y faltas de calidad. Parecen dirigidas por un David Lynch borracho y puesto de farlopa hasta las cejas. Las muertes, a pesar de ser originales, no te lo hacen pasar mal, como ocurría en otras películas del personaje. Y todo por culpa de la New Line Cinema, que quiso rizar el rizo con esta última entrega, y de su directora, que había participado en el departamento de producción de las anteriores pesadillas.

Por otro lado, se puede prescindir perfectamente de las gafas, ya que sólo hay dos o tres momentos en el filme, donde diversos objetos salen de la pantalla, y tampoco es que maravillen, ni mucho menos. Y el final es lo peor de lo peor, pues a Freddy se le concede una entidad demoníaca, tras un pacto hecho en el Infierno, siendo protegido por tres espermatozoides de fuego (si veis la película, me entenderéis), que posibilitan que vuelva a la vida siempre. Por ello, la protagonista ha de adentrarse en los sueños de Freddy, armada con ¡unas gafas 3D!, para acabar definitivamente con él y con la franquicia, que aquí llega a una degeneración extrema.

Sin duda, la peor película de Pesadilla en Elm Street, cuyas mejores bazas son su título y, como no, la interpretación de Robert Englund, siempre genial en su papel, aunque aquí parezca un Jim Carrey sin gracia. Pero como todos sabemos, fue seguida de más entregas y ahora esperamos el remake de la primera parte, que seguro superará a esta última pesadilla, inferior incluso a la nefasta segunda parte.

By Mario.

Aquí tenemos la 5ª participación en el concurso, de la mano del prolífico Mario. Gracias y suerte!

Halloween - El origen (dir: Rob Zombie, 2007)

Y para todos aquellos que os pensábais que lo del concurso y el sorteo era una inocentada, aquí tenemos las 1ª participación. Estamos muy contentos de publicarla, puesto que hace tan sólo 24hrs que colgamos la convocatória. Enhorabuena Manu!

Un “what if” es el nombre que en cómic recibe una historia cuyos protagonistas suelen estar descontextualizados, algo que vulgarmente se conoce como paja mental y que permite a las editoriales hacer coexistir en universos paralelos a personajes tan dispares como Tarzán y Batman.

A caballo entre la precuela y el remake, “Halloween: el origen” viene a ser lo mismo. Muchos fueron los puristas que, no sin razón, pusieron el grito en el cielo desde que se anunció el rodaje de esta polémica cinta. “Halloween” de John Carpenter, sentó las bases del género slasher, consagrando a una pipiola Jamie Lee Curtis como indiscutible scream queen por excelencia y perpetuando sagas de la calaña de “Viernes 13” o la propia “Halloween“. Es por ello que la idea de un remake parecía innecesaria a estas alturas y la elección de Rob Zombie tampoco se antojaba la más acertada.

¿O sí?

Hay remakes y remakes. Hay remakes tales como el de “Psicosis” o “La profecía“, que se limitan a fotocopiar plano por plano sus originales, y otros como los de “La matanza de Texas” y “Amanecer de los muertos“, que redefinen el concepto de remake. Zombie nos da una de cal y otra de arena. Contra todo pronóstico, la parte de la precuela le hace justicia a Michael Myers sin desvirtuarle mucho más que “Halloween: resurrección” u otras tantas secuelas de la devaluada saga. El autor de “Los renegados del diablo” se toma licencias tan notorias como vestir al joven Mickey con una camiseta de los Kiss o convertir a su madre (su esposa Sheri Moon Zombie) en bailarina de striptease, y nos presenta a un Myers sometido a los abusos del bullying y de una familia desestructurada. Así pues, se pierde buena parte de la inteligente omisión de datos de Carpenter, que llevaba un buen día a Michael a empuñar un cuchillo y matar a su hermana sin razón aparente, más allá de la irracionalidad de su persona. El asesino de la máscara blanca no es la única víctima de esta humanización y, pese a ser buen actor, Malcom McDowell tampoco está a la altura de las circunstancias a la hora de resucitar al entrañable Dr. Loomis del difunto Donald Pleasence. Por su parte, Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) ha dejado de ser una rata de biblioteca para codearse con Kristina Klebe, quien tiene un par de razones para tomar el relevo de PJ Soles, y con la que fuera sobrina de Myers en dos entregas de la serie, Danielle Harris. En ese sentido, el film cuenta con un apetitoso elenco de secundarios de la talla de Brad Dourif (la voz de Chucky) o Dee Wallace (la madre de E.T), aunque la presencia de muchos de ellos se reduce a poco más que un cameo, como en el caso de Udo Kier (el José Luis Moreno del terror basura), Sid Haig (visto en anteriores trabajos de Zombie) y Danny “Machete” Trejo, cuyo personaje es un tanto prescindible.

El gran problema de este nuevo Halloween no radica en su origen, sino en el remake. Basándonos, por ejemplo, en la secuencia de la fuga del psiquiátrico en ambas versiones, la setentera nos ofrece una visión más sobrecogedora a través de los internos que avanzan entre la niebla y en la moderna, sin embargo, el gigantesco Tyler Mane rompiendo las cadenas es digno de un videoclip del tema “Superbeast” de Rob Zombie. Llegados a este punto, se suceden las escenas a su manera, esto es, con más sangre, más muertos, más desnudos gratuitos y un ritmo bastante menos pausado que al que nos tiene acostumbrados Carpenter. Zombie se dedica a reproducir elementos de aquí y allá, subsanando pequeñas incongruencias del guión original, como el hecho de que Myers tuviera el carnet de conducir, y también justifica su fetichismo por la mítica máscara del Capitán Kirk.

Por otro lado, el tramo final está alargado incomprensiblemente (dos horas quizá son excesivas) en detrimento de la insensibilidad de Myers. En cualquier caso, “Halloween: el origen” irritará a unos y entusiasmará a otros, pero a buen seguro que no dejará indiferente a ningún fan. Algo es algo.

By Manu.

Ask anyone who comes to mind when they think of horror films and odds are the list will include guys like Jason, Michael Myers and Leatherface. While we’re being bombarded with resurrections of popular 80s slasher flicks featuring monstrous giants with a mean streak, a new breed of killer has cropped up, the unlikely female. Enormity and a chainsaw are a thing of the past. Nowadays the maniac behind a bloodbath could be a pretty face with a hidden agenda.

It’s kind of like Elijah Wood’s theory in <I>The Faculty</I>, “If you were going to take over the world, would you blow up the White House ‘Independence Day’ style, or sneak in through the back door?” That’s the approach a new breed of horror films have started taking with their killers. The seven-foot-tall monster brandishing a machete is hackneyed. Mass murderers are growing a pair and I don’t mean down there.

Click here to read more.

Después de ver este tráiler de H2 o lo que es lo mismo Halloween 2 de la mano de Rob Zombie, y que pronto veremos en nuestros cines, se han despejado todas mis dudas…..

Sencillamente, B-R-U-T-A-L!!!

Gracias Diego!

Ok, yeah – I’m still pissed that this trailer isn’t on either of the Grindhouse DVDs. Wtf, QT and Rodriguez? The mock trailers were the best part of the 3hour+ Grindhouse feature and I’m still saddened and devastated that I have to go to YouTube to see ‘em.

Also – If Eli Roth can actually make Thanksgiving into a full feature-length film, I’d be the happiest slasher fan in the WORLD, I tell you!

*EDIT*

I am the happiest slasher fan in the world! Cinematical posted this:

“During an exclusive telephone interview to promote his role as Pvt. Donny Donowitz in Quentin Tarantino’s WWII epic Inglourious Basterds, Eli Roth told Cinematical that Thanksgiving is not the next film he’s set to direct, but it’s definitely going to get made. “That movie, the financing, the money is in a bank account,” Roth said. ‘I mean, I could literally say I’m starting production tomorrow and we’d start. It’s 100 percent up to me, but I’m just working on the script with Jeff Rendell, the co-writer. Jeff’s the one who in the trailer, he plays the Pilgrim, and we’re just writing it. We’re just figuring it out and we’re just coming up with the kills and the characters.’”

It’ll probably take forever, but I’m so on board. Thanks to V.J. for the info!

Hoy os reseñaré la pelicula “El Republicano” película del año 2006, dirigida por David Arquette (buscad información sobre él, ha salido en multitud de películas y series), también ha hecho de guionista junto a Joe Harris, y no os lo perdáis que también sale en la película.

Bien, esta película es un poco contradictoria por lo tanto no me fijaré en los actores ya que dan un mensaje político y luego hacen todo lo contrario en su vida diaria, si queréis saber quién sale en esta película buscadlo vosotros mismos, dejando esto de lado, prosigo.

Esta película empieza con la cita “Un hippie es alguien que se parece a Tarzan, camina como jane, y huele como Chita” de Ronald Reagan. En esta película lo tenemos todo, un asesino con la careta de Ronald Reagan, un sheriff un poco freak, a su ayudante al que vemos fumar canutos en una escena, un alcalde al que odiaréis sólo verlo (es algo visceral sin explicación), al organizador del concierto al que sólo le preocupa la pasta, a un leñador loco y un largo etc… de clichés.

En una de las primeras escenas nos muestran a un niño cortando con una motosierra a un hippie por la mitad, en este punto de la película descubrimos dos cosas, que la peli tiene buena pinta y al asesino.

Luego unos años después de ese suceso vemos a un grupo de hippies coger la furgoneta e irse a un concierto en medio del bosque a lo Woodstock. De este grupito sólo nos interesa una de las chicas, la protagonista de la película.

Descubrimos que la protagonista tiene un exnovio un poco siniestro al que nos cuelan por en medio para que sospechemos de él, aunque como os he dicho antes a estas alturas ya se veía a la legua al asesino real.

Escenas interesantes :

• Una escena en la que nuestro asesino llega a un claro en el bosque donde hay muchos hippies y se lía a hachazo limpio contra todos

• Otra escena dónde el organizador del concierto se mete por la taza de un váter de estos de obra que hay en los conciertos, aún me estoy preguntando cómo coño entró.

• En otra escena vemos a la protagonista liarse a martillazos contra nuestro asesino.

La película en sí prometía, lo de hacernos saber el asesino desde el principio tiene toda la pinta de intencionado, sobretodo cuándo vemos que es una película que parodia el cine de este tipo.

Cómo el director es tan guay y tal se supone que esto es una crítica a Bush y a los republicanos en general, sólo decir que es pura demagogia sin sentido y absurda, pero la peli esta simpática y es entretenida, sobretodo si os sobra hora y media de vuestras vidas.

Much ink has been spilled over the years about the recent surge in film remakes, and the horror genre is not immune to this trend. On the contrary, horror films trade in recycled products, revamping old franchises (Friday the 13th, Halloween, and A Nightmare on Elm Street), as well as producing unnecessary sequels and prequels (Exorcist: The Beginning). Obviously, there are crude business reasons for utilizing old materials for new products: name recognition, easy access to screen rights, and speedy replication of previous written material all make such productions a no-brainer investment. But such motives for film production often generate a comprimised product, lacking in originality or creativity.

Which brings me to the prime example of problem remakes by production company Screen Gems. This subsidiary of Sony remade two of the worst horror films I have seen in the past year, When a Stranger Calls and Prom Night, and is poised to release The Stepfather, which looks to be an abomination as well. Here’s the trailer for the latter:

Like its Screen Gems predecessors, The Stepfather remakes a cult slasher film of the same name. The original The Stepfather may be one of the most radically feminist, anti-conservative slasher films of the 1980s, and academics Isabel Cristina Pinedo and Patricia Brett Erens have said as much. The original stars Jill Schoelen as Stephanie, the teenage daughter of a widowed mother recently remarried to Jerry Blake (played perfectly by Lost’s Terry O’Quinn). The somewhat rebellious Stephanie resists Jerry’s efforts to get closer to her, in spite of his projected image as the perfect family man. From the start, though, the audience is in on Jerry’s secret, as this opening sequence below demonstrates:

While such carnage may give away Jerry’s identity as psychopathic dad, it allows the audience to empathize with heroine Stephanie, who faces Jerry’s rage most acutely when he discovers her kissing a boy. From the trailer above, it appears that the new film’s protagonist, now a male named David, faces a similar rebuke; however, the nature of this parental criticism changes because of David’s sex. Instead of David facing criticism, his scantily clad girlfriend becomes the problem. In essence, it seems that the remake’s stepfather finds fault with the relationship based on the girlfriend’s sexuality, rather than the son’s.

Another interesting change: the new mother (played by Sela Ward) is not widowed but divorced, bringing David’s father into the equation. Thus, while the original film challenges the idea that a manly presence is necessary for a stable home, the new version seems instead to be a struggle between various males for domination within the family. These changes do not bode well for the film ideologically, and if the previous Screen Gems remakes are any indication, the stylistic “upgrades” will not likely make up for these alterations.

When I speak of aesthetic changes, I refer to the slick packaging of these films by comparison to their originals. Take the remake of Prom Night, for instance. The original who-dunnit set at a 70s-disco prom remains a classic for its camp value. Check out this rad dance sequence:

Who knew Jamie Lee Curtis had such killer dance moves? Now, check out the trailer for the remake:

Notice the attention to mise-en-scene, with emphasis on stylish dresses, extravagent sets, and smooth camera movement. It’s as if the filmmakers translated MTV’s My Super Sweet 16 into a slasher, and not a very good one at that. With a PG-13 rating limiting the gore to implication rather than depiction, Prom Night’s kills lack impact. Worse yet, filmmakers could work around these limitations by generating suspense in the manner of Drag Me to Hell (also PG-13), but produce a predictable series of cat-and-mouse games with a bland as white bread killer. Hence, the remake of Prom Night sucks the life (i.e., camp, suspense, gore) out of the original.

Screen Gems’ When a Stranger Calls suffers from the same afflictions. Of these three remakes, When a Stranger Calls is probably my least favorite in terms of source material, but the first ten minutes of the film in which babysitter Jill (played by Carol Kane) fields calls from a creepy killer who, it turns out, is actually inside the house, generates tension as does the closing scene in which Jill encounters the killer once again as an adult.

The original When a Stranger Calls poster. Image taken from impawards.com

By contrast, the new film’s attempts at suspense fail in much the same way that Prom Night does. The expansion of the first ten minutes of the original film into the bulk of the remake’s running time feels stretched at best and monotonous at worst. As in Prom Night, the mise-en-scene becomes the focus while characters and suspense fall by the wayside, leading one to wonder why on earth Screen Gems filmed a single reel.

Jill upgrades to digital technology in the remake of When a Stranger Calls.

Of course, the reason is very simple: moolah! Both films debuted on top of the box office during their opening weekends quickly making back expenses and then some. Critics hated these films, but neither held advance screenings to mitigate the backlash. But while their originals will continue to have fan followings for years to come, I expect that many of these Screen Gems remakes will fall into obscurity.

Halloween 2 - H2 - Michael Myers

Ha llegado el veranito y por consiguiente, las vacaciones. Y ahora que uno dispone de más tiempo libre para hacer actividades, cogemos la cartelera y el panorama es desolador… No hay nada, dentro de nuestro género claro está, que me llame la atención!

Lo único interesante y todavía está por llegar sería H2 o Halloween 2, la segunda parte de la precuela-origen de nuestro gran venerado clásico Halloween de John Carpenter. La fecha oficial de lanzamiento es el próximo 28 de Agosto, también será dirigida por Rob Zombie, al igual que Halloween: El Origen. En el proyecto también intervienen John Carpenter y Debra Hill, supongo que para dar el visto bueno o algunos consejos a la versión de Rob Zombie; pero ellos dos fueron en su momento, los creadores de Halloween II del 1981, pero como todos sabemos no pudo rodarla Carpenter.

La verdad es que por muy fan de Mr. Zombie que sea, y por muy fan del cine de terror, uno no sabe si comentar o no algo al respecto de Halloween 2. Estoy hasta los mismísimos de los remakes, orígenes, precuelas, relux, sedux,… y otros productos nacidos del marketing, para justificar una falta real de talento y buenos guiones-historias.

Pero Halloween: El Origen, fue una peli que me gustó, sobre todo, la aportación o visión que hace Rob Zombie de Michael Myers! Esa parte me encantó! Fue genial! Mientras que la otra parte de la película, un tributo en sí de Halloween de 1978, pues eso se queda en tributo y nada más. Como si sólo hubiese hecho la peli con el trozo de la niñez de Myers, ya tendría validez. Parece ser que esta segunda parte sobre el origen, será como Halloween II, que será una continuación de la primera peli y no una secuela en sí, de todas formas, esto forma parte de la rumorologia que hay por Internet.

De todas formas, desde que supe que Rob Zombie haría esta segunda parte, sólo he tenido una única pregunta en mi mente respecto al proyecto:

¿Hacía falta esta película?

Tendremos que esperarnos hasta el día 28/08 y sólo entonces, sabremos si estoy en lo cierto o no!!

GORE……: 1 / 5
HUMOR…..: 1 / 5
SEX…….: 3 / 5
SPÄNNING..: 2 / 5
VÅLD……: 3 / 5
STORY…..: 3 / 5

SCREENSHOTS

The sorority has been effectively used in slasher films since the sub-genre formed in the early seventies. With the trailer for fall 2009 release Sorority Row playing in theaters and all over the internet, it seems like a good moment to reflect on the use of the setting in previous horror films.

One of the earliest slashers, the Canadian film Black Christmas (1974), featured a serial killer terrorizing sorority sisters staying at their house over the Christmas break. That film’s effective use of first-person camera angles, disturbing music, and a strong cast (Olivia Hussey, Margot Kidder, John Saxon, and Andrea Martin) set the bar high for Greek-organization horror. The trailer (one of my favorites for a slasher) captures the creepiness of the film, particularly its crank calls:

It’s difficult to understand just how influential Black Christmas was in developing the slasher genre. It clearly drew from Italian giallo films, which often featured groups of women being terrorized by a serial killer. Other conventions–the crank phone call, the first person camera angles–now come standard in the horror genre but were fairly unique at the time. The sorority house itself plays an important function in simultaneously bringing these female characters together to create tension between them and isolating each woman from the others to make her vulnerable. The attic becomes a sort of nest for the killer to gather his prey in one place, and, in a grim kind of female homosociality, allow their cadavers to commune. Black Christmas, then, portrays the female space of the sorority house as prone to victimization. (A largely panned remake of Black Christmas was released in 2006.)

The House on Sorority Row (1983), recycles elements of Black Christmas’ plot. The film follows a handful of graduating sorority sisters as they plan their last hurrah before entering “the real world.” Right from the beginning, the film plays up the girlishness of the sorority space with a credit sequence that features a montage of feminine practices (Start the video below about two minutes in to see the sequence):

As the film progresses, there are scenes of queer female-bonding, such as the one starting about nine minutes into the video above. Of course, this homosocial paradise devolves into a blood bath after bad girl Vicki gets caught having sex by the house mom, Mrs. Slater. After a poorly planned prank ends with Mrs. Slaters’ death, the women try to cover up the accident before getting picked off by a killer that may or may not be Mrs. Slater. Of course, the women are presented as careless, petty, and cruel (with the exception of the “final girl” character). The trailer emphasizes the promiscuous and violent behavior of the women:

Obviously, the film’s regressive sexual politics bothered me as did the lack of creativity and poor execution. The House on Sorority Row felt much longer than its ninety minute running time, in part because it failed to develop compelling characters and lacked suspense.

A far better example (stylistically) of use of the sorority house in horror would be a scene with Sarah Michelle Gellar in Scream 2 (1997). Gellar portrays Cici, a sorority sister assigned to stay home on a Saturday night so she can drive her sorority pals home safely. Of course, the assignment makes her vulnerable to the film’s killer in the scene below:

The film does not take place exclusively in a sorority house, but Greek life does play a role in the film since it is set on a college campus. Scream 2 perpetuates many of the stereotypes of sorority sisters as shallow and ditzy (particularly in scenes where a group of sisters attempt to recruit the primary protagonist of the film, Sydney), but interestingly, the film avoids the temptation of exploiting the sorority house setting to show women at odds with one another, instead choosing to isolate one character in the house in order to make her a victim of the killer. In other words, Cici is specifically targeted because she is alone, and her status as sorority sisters seems coincidental.

Sadly, most sorority horror films depict women in groups as incapable of working together, and at worst, pit the female characters against each other when utilizing the sorority house setting. This appears to be the case with the remake of The House on Sorority Row, now abbreviated to Sorority Row. The trailer, for instance, begins with a unified effort by its female characters to avenge a cheated sister, but as with the original film, the prank turns deadly:

Of course, efforts to cover up the accident fail, and the terror begins anew during graduation. It’s difficult to say just how problematic Sorority Row will be, but if the trailer’s last line–”Don’t think I’m a afraid of you, I run a house with fifty crazy b…”–and the hints of soft core sex are any indication, Sorority Row will likely carry on the regressive tradition. I’d love to see something that exploits the queer elements of the sorority house and portrays women making a unified effort to overthrow a killer, but that film has yet to be made.

Week 2 of the ongoing Friday night series at my house: Crappy newer horror movie starring a current or former actors from the CW network vs. an older and surprisingly good horror/slasher film. I don’t know if I would call this a “series” in all honestly, just two weeks of coincidences.

Boogeyman (2005)

This was the second outing of Sam Raimi and Robert Tapert’s Ghost House Pictures after the wildly successful and fairly entertaining remake of The Grudge in late 2004. Boogeyman is the opposite of entertaining however. If anything, it’s proof that perhaps that Eric Kripke’s talent has improved over the past 4 or 5 years. He co-wrote Boogeyman and is the creator and frequent collaborator on Supernatural, a series that has gotten better over time. The Kripke motif’s displayed in Boogeyman are that the main character drives a classic car and has a doomed girlfriend named Jessica. Boogeyman is a dull film that uses flashy and stylish camera tricks just to wake you out of your boredom. The tale is pretty basic: a man (Barry Watson, formerly of 7th Heaven) who is haunted by a Boogeyman that apparently killed his father when he was 8 and tore apart his family returns to his still-haunted house after his mother’s death. There is no tension to be found in this movie, so it is really hard to care what happens. The final battle is so distractingly CGI and tips it’s hat so much to the final battle of Evil Dead 2 that all it makes you think is “You know what’s a good movie? Evil Dead 2.”

The House on Sorority Row (1983)

Out of the three slasher films I’ve seen that takes place in a sorority house, The House on Sorority Row ranks a solid #2 after the original Black Christmas. Sorority House Massacre would be third. The House on Sorority Row almost seems like a sequel to Black Christmas, since the killer also is hidden and resides in the attic of a house full of doomed sorority sisters. While the killer remains shrouded in mystery for much of the film, unlike Black Christmas, he is revealed at one point. A group of graduating sorority sisters decides to throw a party in their house, disobeying their troubled house mother. A prank on the housemother goes horribly awry, and the girls don’t particularly have fun at their party as a result. What’s kind of interesting about this movie is that the obvious final girl, Kate, has a blind date pursuing her thoughout the entire film, but she obviously doesn’t care about him because she has other, more important things on her mind, (like why her friends are disappearing), and there is no romantic angle to the story. He ends up drunk and sitting in his car, which is humorously realistic. Seriously, the romantic angle between Laurie Strode and that cute EMT guy who slips in a puddle of blood in Halloween 2 was more pursued (and abruptly dropped) than the story of Kate and the blind date.

Fun fact: Bad girl Vicki is played by soap opera stalwart Eileen Davidson.
Fun fact #2: The housemother in the upcoming remake will be played by Carrie Fisher. Even if I don’t totally see Carrie Fisher as a housemother type, she will likely be the best part of the movie.

Cry_Wolf

The inherent problem with using a technological or internet fad in a film is that sooner rather than later usually, it becomes obsolete. Cry_Wolf is a film where at only 4 years old, you look at it now and laugh at the use of AOL IM, candy bar cell phones, and possibly the first version of the T-Mobile Sidekick phone – the only piece of technology that is still relevant. I seriously think 2005 was the last year I used AOL IM. This isn’t the only problem with Cry_Wolf however. When your cast of characters basically consists of spoiled, overprivileged prep school kids who are all jerks of various levels and are just minimally conceived, it’s hard to care. I imagine the pitch for this movie was “a modern telling of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” meets The Usual Suspects meets Heathers.” The filmmakers received a $1 million grant from Chrysler to make the film  after winning a short film contest (and you can understand now why car companies are in trouble). The only reasons why this movie was watched in my household was 1) it was filmed in Richmond, at the University of Richmond, Union PSCE, and St. Joseph’s campus’ – all schools that look way nicer than the university I attend and my sister and I work for, despite UofR and my university being somewhat competitive in certain areas. Although one scene I recognized as being filmed in the dingy stacks of the Main location of the Richmond Public Library, where at the time, was where they hid their tiny DVD collection; and 2) Jared Padalecki, playing a Senator’s son from Texas, whom, despite being from Texas himself, J. Pads does not sport a Texan accent in this film. I’m pretty sure only crappy movies are filmed in Richmond, although we occasionally get pretty good TV shows and mini-series filmed here, such as HBO’s John Adams series. Most of the movie was spent with my boyfriend, sister, and I asking questions such as, “Do you think Jared Padalecki went to Ellwood Thompson’s or Ipanema when he was here?” and “Where do you think Jon Bon Jovi went to when he was here?” Despite getting the “Unrated” DVD copy, there really isn’t much gore or any nudity, so there isn’t much reason for your typical horror fan to rent this. It is just a gutless film altogether, no pun intended. I’m assuming it was aimed towards teenagers, but seriously, teenagers deserve decent movies too.

Cry_Wolf is somewhat similar to another horror movie that came out around that time called Stay Alive, which was based in RPG video games, and featuring Frankie Muniz, Milo Ventimiglia, and Angelina Jolie’s brother. I feel bad saying that Stay Alive is actually the more entertaining movie and still fairly relevant.

I hate underscores, by the way.

It’s unfortunate that the poster is cooler than the movie.

Curtains

All About Eve meets Samuel Fuller’s Shock Corridor meets a giallo film. An aging, but still pretty Method actress pretends to be insane to be put into a psychiatric institution to research a part, and the director has her full support. But after awhile, the actress does become a teensy bit unhinged, and the director abandons her in the institution and chooses to recast the part. She breaks out of the institution and invites herself over to his weekend casting session at his house with six younger actresses, and the younger actresses begin to die one by one, just as the director is bedding almost each actress. There is a post-modern twist to this in that Samantha Eggar (from Cronenberg’s The Brood) is playing an aging actress named Samantha, and the director in the movie is named Jonathan Stryker, who is the director of Curtains (the director in the movie is played by an actor though…confused yet?). Despite Samantha being set up as the protagonist and lead suspect of the film, she is missing from this movie for long periods of time, I guess partly to lay more suspicion on her. So it is hard to know who to root for when there is no clear protagonist or villain really, other than Stryker. The film does have a good twist ending, and is really well-paced. It’s also somewhat known for the mask of the killer being pretty scary and how one woman is chased on ice skates.

I still find it interesting that Canadian horror films in the late 1970s and early 1980s primarily featured adults in the casts. Not adults portraying teenagers, such as the case with American horror films.

And yeah, I’m not going to make a habit of using “pitches” to describe movies.

By Tim Seeley (Writer & Artist), Mike Norton, Ross Cambell, & Chris Burnham (Additional Art), and Rachelle Rosenberg (Colors)

Some Thoughts Before The Review: I’ve been looking forward to the Hack/Slash: Entry Wound one-shot since I first heard about it. I may not be part of the target audience since I’m a longtime fan, but more Hack/Slash is always a good thing in my book.

The Story: A radio station host gives the rundown on the “Serial Killer Killer” as Cassie and Vlad head to the site of the next holiday slasher appearance. It’s the Candlemas Murderer’s turn to encounter the Hack/Slash team…

What’s Good: As advertised, the Entry Wound one-shot is sure to feel quite welcoming to new readers. It features a nice looking short story that organically gives a rundown on what Hack/Slash is about and shows the team doing what it does best. In addition, the book also gives readers an introductory letter from writer/artist Tim Seeley and a small pin-up gallery that shows the characters interpreted by various artists. All in all, Entry Wound works surprisingly well as a quality package for new readers.

What’s Not So Good: The story told in the one-shot is pretty lightweight and far from memorable. It does what it needs to do, but nothing more. Also, while I realize that the comic is meant for people new to the series, I still wish there was at least something in it for longtime fans.

Conclusion: Hack/Slash: Entry Wound does a good job doing what it is supposed to do. It’s a solid package for people new to the series and should help the series expand its fan base.

Grade: B

-Kyle Posluszny

In this unsettling and creepy thriller, Karen (Ilona Elkin), a young nurse who works in a psychiatric ward, boards the last subway train of the night only to have it stop suddenly in the middle of the tunnel. As those around her are brutally murdered, Karen and a handful of survivors must face supernatural forces, homicidal religious cult members, as well as their own fears and suspicions of Armageddon, in order to survive.

Maurice Devereaux (Slashers, Lady of the Lake) is Director, Writer and Producer.

Adrien Morot (The Bone Collector, The Day After Tomorrow, Night at the Museum) is the special makeup effects supervisor.

Therese Faniel is the key makeup artist

Get the DVD for “End of the Line”

…more like this at  GoreMaster.com

(Slacking off from writing a research paper edition).

Oh, I had high hopes for this one for some strange reason, I’ve heard that this is considered the best of the series. It is the first Friday the 13th with Kane Hodder as Jason, the main character is a girl with both psychic and telekinesis powers. I don’t know if I can correctly make this statement without having seen Part V again (I saw Part V about 10-12 years ago), but Part VII is where the series may have completely jumped the shark.

Is Jason simply territorial,  just a teen killing machine, or a killing machine in general? I know I said in my last post that I should stop trying to figure out a reasonable mythology for this series, or find any rhyme or reason in general. I may still be at odds with what the Jason reputation or representation in pop culture for these past 29 years has been. This film series is only a year older than I am, so I’ve been hearing about since the third grade at least. Is Part VI where he just becomes a full-on killing machine and the body counts just keep going further and further up with each subsequent film? He kills two perfectly nice girls, as well as at least a half-dozen adults, and seems to threaten small children in Part VI. Part VII is no different in that regard, except I swear there were more, mostly unlikeable teenage characters than usual that were only there to be killed, including 4 characters who never even got to the main setting, and were killed within 3 minutes of their introduction. This film has the infamous sleeping bag murder, reused to humourous effect in Jason X, and used with an even more brutal effect in the Friday the 13th “re-imagining” that came out almost 3 months ago.

SERIOUS SPOILERS IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.

I think what I can’t get over, besides the fact that this movie was pretty boring and had the original film’s slow-as-molasses pace, is that Jason kills the main character’s mother. Maybe he didn’t know she was the girl’s mother, maybe it doesn’t matter because as of Part VI, he is a killing machine. The framing device however, was a major logical plothole to me. The girl’s father drowns, and is left in Crystal Lake for at least 7 years? And when he rises out of the lake to take Jason back at the end, his body is fairly intact? Even when Jason rose out of the water, he was pretty busted looking, even more so for a fellow who has been killed at least 3 times in the series at this point. They had the devices back then to be able to skim bodies of water for well, bodies, and the father did not drown that far out into the lake (he practically was about 10 feet away from the shore, if that), so why was he left there? I just feel as though that was lazier storytelling than usual from the series. I probably should not have expected much because it was directed by the same guy who made the first Troll movie.

I will admit though the Jason unmasking in this movie is pretty cool and scary looking.

Fun Fact: the main character’s jerk of a doctor is played by Terry Kiser a.k.a. Bernie of Weekend at Bernie’s.

I will be going ahead and making a Friday the 13th tag. I will not be viewing Part VII: Jason Takes Manhattan this weekend because I’m trying to finish a lot of semester-end school work. The only break I’m getting this weekend is to watch the Rifftrax version of Twilight.