Last Blog On The Left

Tomorrow I´m boarding a plane set for New York City, where I´ll be spending a week to walk in Joey Ramone´s footsteps. That´s why you won´t be seeing any new posts here in the next week, but before I go I will leave you with a slice of some man-love of the highest order, fiends! You know what I´m talking about, don´t you? There are certain actors and musicians that you can´t help but love. They can do no wrong in your eyes. I have a couple of those and one is the incredible, amazing, impeccable Crispin Glover! In my mind, he is one of the greatest actors to ever walk this earth. Let me tell you why and about my relationship to this amazing actor…

There are certain actors who have it: you know that elusive thing that everyone seems to be talking about when you watch the auditions for a crappy show like American idol, Swedish Idol or whatever country you may find yourself. When it comes to talent, there´s just some people who has it and a whole lot who doesn´t. It´s a funny thing when it comes to actors… Some people are just so extremely watchable and fascinating that you can´t take their eyes away from them. One of my favorite actors of all time is Harry Dean Stanton. I don´t know why.  Sure, he has been in his fair share of cult movies but he also has that enigmatic thing that you can´t put your finger on. In Harry Dean Stanton´s case it is combined with an almost supernatural sense of cool. However, there is one other actor that rivals Harry Dean when it comes to watchability. I dare you to take your eyes off the screen whenever Crispin Glover enters. The man is, simply put, a force of nature and whenever he´s in a new movie, I have to see it. Fortunately, Glover has a tendency to portray bizarre characters, to say the least, so it´s more than often likely to find him in genre flicks of different kinds. Whatever genre he´s working in, he always seem so create a memorable performance and part of his charm is that you´re not quite sure exactly just how bizarre Crispin Glover, the human being, is.

Those of us who grew up with “Back To The Future” (1985) as a childhood staple will always know him as George McFly, Michael J. Fox´s shy and bumbling dad in the original film. But the matter of the fact is that Glover managed to create a string of memorable characters back in the 80´s. After his breakthrough in “Back To The Future”, he was Lucas in the excellent “At Close Range” (1986) opposite equally twitchy and intense Christopher Walken and Sean Penn. He also managed to create one of his most disturbing character portraits in “The River´s Edge” (1986). With this role he managed to become sort of a poster boy for teenage angst. This naturally meant that when I started to hit puberty and started to feel about as awkward as a whore in church, Glover was one of the few actors who managed to portray that awkwardness accurate. During the 90´s, things were pretty quiet. There were no legendary appearances on Letterman, where he tried to dropkick the host like he did back in the 80´s. He made a brief but memorable appearance as Cousin Dell in David Lynch´s “Wild At Heart” (1990) and he was Andy Warhol in Oliver Stone´s “The Doors” (1991).  It felt like Glover tried to steer away from the oddball character roles during this part of the decade and from 1996 to 2000 he didn´t do any roles at all. During this time I feared that maybe he had ventured so far into his own weirdness, that we´d never get to see him on the screen again.  This was the start of a dark period in my life. Sure, I still had Harry Dean to look to for comfort but without Crispin Glover making regular appearances in movies, I started to hit the bottle pretty hard. Those years when Glover were absent from the movie industry are a blur to me. Memories of roaming the streets at night alone pop up from time to time, like a bad acid-flashback. There were reports that Glover was performing his music live under the name Crispin Hellion Glover and that he were filming his movie “What it is” (which have been shown at festivals and consists of a cast entirely made up of individuals with deformities of different sorts), but no acting roles. Then suddenly, without a warning, he popped up in “Charlie´s Angels” (2000), as The Thin Man, looking extremely buffed up and not uttering a single line. If that isn´t bizarre, what is? He turned in a welcome return to form as a small town reporter in “Nurse Betty” (2000). And then, ladies and gentlemen…

Then it was time for his crowning achievement: the role of “Willard” (2003) in the movie with the same name. Albeit that this was a remake of the 1971 movie starring Bruce Davison, but let´s face it: Bruce Davison got nothing on Crispin Glover! He is absolutely magnificent in this film and it´s a shame that this film didn´t make more money at the box-office. Whenever people starts moaning about how tired they are of remakes and that they should stop making them, I always think about this film and John Carpenter´s “The Thing” (1982). Two remakes that surpasses the originals by far! In August, Crispin Glover´s latest horror-starring role is released on DVD and it´s another remake. This time, it´s Herschell Gordon Lewis´ “Wizard of Gore”  (2007) which has gotten the redux-treatment and I´m really looking forward to watching it. Glover stars as Montag the Magnificent and he looks suitably sinister on the DVD cover. Most recently, Glover was reunited with Robert Zemeckis for his very entertaining take on the “Beowulf”-legend. In this one, Glover dominated the picture as an un-recognizable Grendel. It was worth the price of the DVD just to get a glimpse of him in the “Making Of”, dressed up in those weird motion-sensor-costumes that actors wear when they make these kind of CGI-pictures. Finally, the legend that is Crisping Glover have come full circle and portrayed another legend, that of Beowulf and Grendel. Well, if you´re not familiar with the work of this remarkable actor, I hope I have raised your interest some. You owe it to yourself to at least check out “Willard”… and if you already have, do it again!

I´ll see you in about a week when I will update you on the horrific events in New York City. The Clive Barker adaptation “Midnight Meat Train” (2008) opens on Friday in NYC, so I´m gonna try to check that out. If so, you´ll know all about it.

Take scare, stay sick & stay ghoul,

    Thomas Lovecraft

The other night I watched Andrew Lau´s (the director of the Hong Kong classic “Infernal Affairs”2002) latest movie. It is called “The Flock” (2007), made in USA and it has Richard Gere and Claire Danes in the leads. It´s a pretty ok flick that reminded me a bit of Joel Schumacher´s “8mm” (1999), so if you like that film, you should definitely check this one out. Anyway, while watching it I was struck by the fact that Richard Gere does a pretty good job in the lead. It´s a shame that he has spent so much of his career making movies like “Pretty Woman” (1990) and “Runaway Bride” (1999). I mean, he was amazing in “Internal Affairs” (1990), where he played a corrupt cop. He was also pretty damn good in “American Gigolo” (1980). This brings me to this week´s recommendation for you out there: It´s a film that has been overlooked since its release and deserves a place in the horror movie hall of fame. Hear me out on this one…  If I were to tell you that one of my favorite ”horror” films of recent years is a PG13-rated film that many people doesn´t consider to be horror at all, will you then question what little sanity I have left? What if I were to tell you that it stars Richard Gere and that red-haired chick from “Will & Grace”? That´s right, my fiends, I´m not joking. The film I´m talking about is “The Mothman Prophecies” (2002), directed by Mark Pellington. So, let´s just forget that it is indeed rated PG13 and I´ll try to explain why this film is so underrated. John Klein (played to perfection by Richard Gere) is involved in a car accident with his wife, but while he is unharmed, his wife mentions a moth shaped creature appearing. After her death, John begins to investigate the secrets behind this mentioned Mothman. It takes him to a small town of Point Pleasant, West Virginia, where he discovers a connection with the same problem. Here he meets Connie Mills (portrayed by Laura Linney), whilst he continues to unravel the mystery of what the Mothman really is.

“The Mothman Prophecies” is based on “true” events. Supposedly, people have been seeing the Mothman all around the world, just before disastrous events have occurred. We all know that “true” is a concept that filmmakers can twist to serve their own means but you can´t deny the fact that it adds a creepy aura to a film whenever it is attached? Think about why “The Amityville Horror” (1979) was such a huge success. Was it because it is an outstanding film? No, it is because they pushed the “based on true events”-angle in its marketing. We are always titillated when we know that what we are watching might have really happened. The same thing contributed a great deal to why John McNaughton´s “Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer” (1986) was so extremely unnerving. “The Blair Witch Project” (1999) pushed that angle successfully in their marketing and it worked beautifully. The list goes on and on. More recent films that have been based on “true” stories are “Open Water” (2003), “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” (2005) and “Borderland” (2007). I´m not saying that the only reason that these films were successful is because of their roots in reality but I definitely think it added to it. The thing about “Mothman” is that it is pretty damn unsettling and it deals with the supernatural. I mean, just the thought of this occurring in real life is extremely tempting, isn´t it? The Mothman is one of our modern urban myths and I find them to be extremely fascinating. That´s why it´s always so much fun when a movie deals with one of them. Remember “Alligator” (1980), anyone? After all, they´re the folklore of our time, aren´t they? And there´s always the slight possibility that they might be true. At least that´s what I hope… I mentioned earlier that John Klein is played to perfection by Richard Gere and I´m not kidding around when I say that. After watching the film, it´s hard to imagine any other actor in that role. I think that he´s an underrated actor and hasn´t gotten the credit he deserves. If you ignore the idiotic romantic comedies he´s done with Julia Roberts, he´s actually managed to create some memorable portraits of broken men. Like I mentioned earlier, he did one of the best ever corrupt cops in “Internal Affairs” and he played a male prostitute in “American Gigolo”. Let´s face it, he´s got the chops and in this film he really shines. Gere is extremely good at portraying sadness on screen and in this film he really gets to wallow in that. You see, this is not a fun film. Despite its PG13-rating this is an extremely bleak and downbeat film. It deals with issues such as personal loss of loved ones and mental illness, among other things. He also has the good fortune to be surrounded by excellent supporting actors. Laura Linney, who is one of the best actresses working today, manages to create a well-rounded and believable character and Will Patton… well, after this film you will have a problem seeing Will Patton in any other role. He is absolutely magnificent and pretty damn creepy in this one.

  Director Pellington whose previous film, the excellent “Arlington Road” (1999), proved that he knew how to create a chilling story, outdoes himself here. I can´t stress this enough, forget the PG13-rating! This is truly a chilling story and one of the things that impresses me most, is the fact that Pellington never once relies on cheap scares (or “jump” scares). Instead he manages to create a mood that makes the hairs on your arm stand up. Just watch the scene where Gere gets a phone call in his motel room and you´ll know what I´m talking about. Or the scene where his car breaks down. Or the scene… You get the idea, right? Whenever I watch this film I get the feeling that this is what you would get if you were to make a serious, adult version of “Final Destination” (2000) and mix it with “The X-Files”-episodes that were really good and didn´t deal with the alien mythology.

While “The Mothman Prophecies” may not be straight-out horror, it is definitely one of the creepiest films made in recent years and if you are a horror fan, you will definitely appreciate it. The mood and feel of this film harkens back to such classics as “The Exorcist” (1973) or “Rosemary´s Baby” (1969) and if it were up to me, this one would be right up there alongside those films on all critic´s “Best ever”-lists. It has been overlooked for far too long. Since time is the only thing we have in spades, you might as well check it out.

Until next time: take scare & stay ghoul!

Thomas Lovecraft

I find myself being forced to defend M. Night Shyamalan a lot these days. The other day I discussed his new film “The Happening” (2008) with a friend of mine and he absolutely hated it. He thought it was awful and looked at me like I had come straight from the loony-bin when I told him I thought it was pretty ok. I find this pretty interesting. This filmmaker seems to evoke something out of the ordinary within movie lovers. It seems that everyone hated him nowadays. I mean really, truly hate the man! I have no idea why this is. When I ask this question I usually get an answer along the lines like “I mean, “The Sixth Sense” was great and “Unbreakable” was pretty good. “Signs” was ok the first hour but “The Village” sucked and “Lady in the Water” was the worst ever! I hated it! I wanna kill him! He´s the anti-christ!” and then a violent fistfight ensues. Ok, maybe not the last part but that seems to be the consensus when it comes to Shyamalan´s films.

The reason I bring up this is because his latest effort, “The Happening”, is playing the theatres as you might have noticed. Here in Sweden, it was torn to pieces by the critics. Most of the people I´ve spoken to who have seen it, hates it. Shyamalan manages to really divide the audience with his films and that, to me, is the mark of a great filmmaker. If two people can walk out, after seeing the same film, and one loves it while the other one hates it, then it can´t be all bad, can it? That´s what movies is all about: making you feel things, right? And Shyamalan does that. I admit that I am a staunch supporter of his work. Hell, I even thought that “Lady in the Water” (2006) was a great film. “The Village” (2004) was fantastic! Now, if you put away those knives, I´ll tell you why I love his films…

  It all has to with my undying love for the classic TV-series “The Twilight Zone”. I remember seeing the re-runs of that show, along with “The Outer Limits” when I was a kid and I was enthralled by it. As many critics have pointed out, Shyamalan shares a lot of his sensibilities with this show and one of them is that he is one of the few filmmakers in Hollywood today that has the guts to make B-movies. When I say “B-movies”, I mean this in the best possible sense of the word. Shyamalan always works with a premise that could describe a film you´d find at the bottom shelf at your local video store and that would never reach the cinema. The thing is that he treats these premises and scripts with such a serious approach that he always makes you believe what is happening in the film. Think about it: when was the last time you saw a movie about a village being terrorized by monsters that looked like it was shot by Powell & Pressburger? Shyamalan´s films all look extremely good. If the premises are pure B-movie concept then the look of his films are definitely A-list stuff. “The Village” and “Unbreakable” (2000) springs to mind, especially. Those are two movies that you can, at any given moment, hit the “pause”-button and tell yourself that you´re looking at a painting; “Unbreakable” with its magnificent blue-tinted look and “The Village”´s wonderful use of red and yellow.

Speaking of “Unbreakable”… This is definitely one of the best comic book movies ever made. Never mind the fact that it isn´t based on an actual comic book but it is without a doubt one of the best origin-movies I´ve ever seen (along with “Batman Begins”). Shyamalan treats his character and what he´s going through with such seriousness and ground the whole film in everyday stuff, like his job as a security guard and his on-going divorce, that this film really stand out from other superhero-films. Bruce Willis makes for a fantastic hero in this one and one of the greatest tragedies is that this one didn´t do as well at the box office as “The Sixth Sense” (1999), so that the studio didn´t think it was worth it to make a sequel. That brings tears to my eyes, just thinking about it… I would have loved to see the further adventures of David Dunn and Mr. Glass.

Anyway, I went off on a tangent there but let´s get back to Shyamalan´s virtues as a director. Like I said, the main reason I love his films is the dead-on seriousness that he infuses in his, essentially, big budget B-movies. He also has the courage to let the story takes it time. This brings a kind of 70´s feel to Shyamalan´s films. He makes movies the way they used to, allowing the characters to grow. Imagine if another director would´ve made “Signs” (2002). I am pretty sure that Mel Gibson would´ve been a gun-toting sheriff instead of a widowed father who´s a priest, living together with his brother. Shyamalan avoids these pitfalls and he doesn´t get enough credit for that. Look at the heroes in his movies: In “The Sixth Sense” Bruce Willis character is a child´s psychiatrist; in “Unbreakable” he´s a security guard at a football stadium who´s going though a divorce; in “Signs” Mel Gibson´s priest is a widower and in “Lady in the Water” Paul Giamatti is a caretaker. “Lady in the Water” got a lot of flack when it was released and I do agree that many of his movies suffer from the dialogue. When I say that I appreciate that Shyamalan treats his subjects seriously, that doesn´t mean that people talk in that super-serious way they tend to in his movies. But then again, you can´t have it all. But you see, this is exactly why I love his films: for the exact same reason they get criticized so violently, the fact that they are too serious! I have nothing but respect for a filmmaker who has the guts to take the B-movie concepts seriously.

But why does Shyamalan evokes such strong feelings with the viewers? I think that it has to do with the success of “The Sixth Sense”. I remember when it was released. It was quite a sensation. They didn’t advertise the film at all and this was before internet had become such a major factor in how a film is marketed. Back then you could actually keep the plot of a film secret until it was released. We all know the ending to the movie by now but when it was released, people were so amazed by it! Here was a movie about ghosts but it wasn´t a horror movie. It managed to draw in people that would never pay money to see a horror movie and most of them were taken completely off guard by the ending. That is why Shyamalan will never be able to live up to that success. I think that people have such fond memories of seeing “The Sixth Sense” and being fooled by Shyamalan´s twist at the end that whatever he will come up with after this, so many will that they have just been cheated out of an experience that could rival “The Sixth Sense”. I think that is why people have such disdain for his following films. “The Happening” has received scathing reviews and once again, I find myself pretty alone in Shyamalan´s corner, defending it. This film is a prime example of the kind of “Twilight Zone”-storytelling that he´s built a career on: Suddenly, something is causing people to start killing themselves. The “plague” starts to spread… If that doesn´t scream out “B”-movie-concept, what does? I will admit that this one is definitely one of Shyamalan´s lesser efforts and even though Mark Wahlberg is seriously miscast in the role of a high school science teacher, I don´t think that it is the utter failure that critics have made it out of to be. I think that “The Happening” signals some welcome changes in Shyamalan´s storytelling and style as a filmmaker. He has definitely tried to pare down the story to the bare essentials (the movie clocks in at around 85 minutes), which is a welcome change of pace in today´s climate of overlong blockbusters. I can´t say that I am certain that this was a smart move, though. I think that maybe “The Happening” could have benefited from a longer running time cause as it stands now, John Leguizamo´s and Zooey Deschanel´s characters are pretty underdeveloped. However, Shyamalan´s skills a filmmaker keeps developing. He manages to create tension with something as ordinary as the wind arriving. This is also his first “R”-rated film, which is about time. The opening scenes of “The Happening” show the work of a director who is at the absolute top of his game. I really hope that this isn´t the last “R-rated film the Night does.

So there you have it, folks! The confessions of a self-appointed Shyamalan-addict… He may not be the most accomplished director working today but I think that he´s definitely one of the most original. He´s got a style of his own and that´s the mark of a great director. If you think about it, if you watch any 5 minutes of any Lynch-movie, you know that “This is a David Lynch-film!”, right? Same thing with Scorsese and Polanski. And of course, with Shyamalan…

Until next time: stay ghoul & take scare!

Thomas Lovecraft

The other day I was browsing through bloodydisgusting.com´s different articles and sometimes they´ll post different lists over there, which tend to be very entertaining even though I very often disagree with them. They have listed things like “10 worst remakes”, “10 best remakes” and “10 hottest vampire babes of all time”. In other words, things that concern our daily lives very much. The latest list to make its appearance was “10 worst director collapses”, where they list directors who have once made a horror classic, only to go on to make a turkey of some kind. For example, on tenth place we find Joe Dante, who went from “Piranha” (1978) and “The Howling” (1981) to “Looney Tunes: Back in action” (2003). While that film may be a horrific (in the worst meaning of the word) experience, it certainly stands a low-water mark in Dante´s career. On ninth place we find Sean Cunningham who went from “Friday the 13” (1980) to “Deep Star Six” (1989). Here´s where I started to disagree. I like “Deep Star Six”! I think it´s a terrifically entertaining b-movie. Maybe it has something to do with my undying passion for all films that features some kind of underwater monster.

  Anyway, further down the list we find Stuart Gordon, who went from the undisputable classic “Re-Animator” (1985) to “Robot Jox” (1990) in just five short years. “Robot Jox” may be one of Gordon´s weakest vehicles but he has since redeemed himself with such fantastic films as “Dagon” (2001) and “Edmond” (2005). The list then continues with John Landis, who went from directing one of the best werewolf movies ever “An American Werewolf in London” (1981) to the now forgotten vampire romp “Innocent Blood” (1992). I actually like Landis´ addition to the vampire genre and think that it is much underrated. I seem to be one of the few on this planet with that opinion, though.  But then, ladies and ghouls, on sixth place we find something that I cannot understand! If I were to call this a “blasphemy”, my words wouldn´t be powerful enough. Brian Solomon, the author of the list, decided to put Clive Barker on sixth place with this explanation:“After the top-notch Hellraiser and the underrated Nightbreed, the acclaimed horror author-turned-director gave us this movie, which helped explain exactly why Scott Bakula never made it out of the TV ghetto. Barker hasn’t directed another movie since.”

Obviously, the man had to be under the influence of some really shitty drugs when he wrote this. “Lord Of Illusions” (1995) is one of my favorite horror films of the 90´s. How one can consider this film a failure is beyond me and my (fairly limited, I admit) reach of intellect! I´d even go so far as to say that this is my favorite of the three films that Barker has directed. Let´s face it, “Hellraiser” (1987) is pretty damn awesome but haven´t you seen it a couple of times too many? And while “Nightbreed” (1990) may be underrated and features David Cronenberg in a kick-ass role and some awesome prosthetics, it is quite a mess. It´s brutally obvious that Barker didn´t get to make the film he wanted.

  “Lord of Illusions” however, is a different beast. If you haven´t seen it here´s the lowdown: During a routine case in L.A., NY private investigator Harry D’Amour (played by Scott Bakula, who never managed to leave the TV ghetto, as Solomon put it) stumbles over members of a fanatic cult, who are waiting for the resurrection of their leader Nix (Daniel von Bargen). 13 years ago Nix was calmed down by his best trainee Swann (Kevin J. O’Connor). In the meantime Swann is advanced to a populary illusionist like David Copperfield and is married to the charming Dorothea (“Goldeneye”-Bond girl Famke Janssen). She hires D’Amour to protect Swann against the evil cult members. Short time later Swann is killed by one of his own tricks and the occurrences are turning over. And of course, Dorothea and D’Amour are beginning to fall for each other…  

I love it when filmmakers decide to mix genres and two of my favorite genres are horror and the private eye-detective-genre. This mix resulted in one of the greatest films ever, “Angel Heart” (1987), starring Mickey Rourke. I´ll admit that “Lord of Illusions” doesn´t rival Alan Parker´s film when it comes to sheer brilliance but it definitely is a minor masterpiece in the genre. I recently watched Barker´s film again and while doing so, it became painfully obvious that Barker is a director with a unique vision. That, unfortunately, is something that is sadly lacking in Hollywood today. He manages to create images that´ll stick with you for some time. For instance, the credit sequence with the burning dolls and dead chickens in the desert; the montage where the cult members are getting ready for their reunion; the white, deformed angel at the foot of Harry´s bed and so on… It´s is clear that Barker is out to disturb the viewer and I think he succeeds. You gotta hand it to Barker with this one: he hasn´t watered down his film to make it appealing to the teenage horror audience (I am of course talking about the unrated director´s cut that is available on DVD, that´s the only version I have seen).

  There are some familiar themes in this film that runs through Barker´s work. For instance, we know that we are in Barker-land when Swann says things like “Flesh is a trap” and there is an instrument of torture that would have made the Cenobites proud. Barker has also managed to create a pretty scary villain with the character of Nix. His line “I was born to murder the world” is classic.  

I think it´s a damn, damn shame that Barker hasn´t directed another movie since. But I guess that you have to look at it from the bright side: there´s a lot of director´s that could have done a decent job with his films but there´s not a single writer that could have written any of his books, right? It´s a cruel world out there, folks… I remember reading interviews in Fangoria with Barker back when this was released and how he explained his plans of making a straight-to-video-sequel with the character of Harry D´Amour. Sadly, that project never came to fruition. I would have absolutely loved to see more films with this character.

  If you wanna check out Brian Solomon´s complete list, here it is: http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/12728 

Take scare & stay ghoul,

 Thomas Lovecraft

Brett Sullivan knows what it takes to make good horror movie. He´s done it. It takes two good actresses, a solid script that includes some character development and a talent for editing. That´s all it takes. “The Chair” is Sullivan´s second feature film. His first was the underrated sequel “Ginger Snaps Unleashed” (2004) and with this film Sullivan proves that he´s definitely a director to watch in the future. He works wonders with the extremely low budget he had for “The Chair” (2007).

 Here´s what it´s all about: Danielle (played by Alanna Chisholm, who also makes her feature film debut here), a young psychology student rents an old Victorian house while trying to get her life back together. She has a past of delusions and while living in the house she awakens some kind of presence. She starts to document the occurrences, to prove to her sister Anna (Lauren Roy) that she isn´t delusional again. That´s about it… Naturally, more things happen but you can pretty much sum up the whole movie like that. This film should be shown in film classes all over the world as a prime example for excellent filmmaking on a shoestring budget. The sound design alone makes this film pretty scary. The fact that the titular chair is a torture device that´s being used, without delving into the gory depths that today’s horror movies usually do, says a lot about what a talented filmmaker Sullivan is. He manages to make it scary, despite the lack of effects. This is much thanks to the actors. Lead actress Alanna Chisholm manages to make her character believable and that´s quite a feat.

These last couple of years, I´ve found that it´s often hard to maintain your interest in low budget horror films and that´s often due to the poor quality in acting that´s on display. Nowadays, it´s not that hard to get a movie made. There´s definitely been a revolution in filmmaking, thanks to DV-cameras and the fact that you can edit your own feature on your home computer. Thanks to this, every now and then we get a new low budget horror sensation but nine times out of ten, the straight-to-DVD-horror-movies being made today aren´t up to snuff, if you catch my drift. There´s just so many horror movies being released and many of them are independently produced and all respect to these filmmakers, but often times the acting is pretty dreadful. The thing about B-movies and straight-to-video-horror-films from the 80´s and the beginning of the 90´s, were that most of the time they had pretty good actors and there were no CGI. That definitely makes a film more believable and enjoyable, if you ask me. It seems that Brett Sullivan has realized this, too. He veers away from CGI and populates his film with good actors. Chisholm and Lauren Roy should have no problems finding work in the future. They really make their relationship seem like a real one.

  Like I mentioned earlier, Sullivan also knows that to create tension and dread and that sound plays an important part in this. Put all these elements together and you will forget that you are watching a shot-on-video film. This is not a conventional horror film. It doesn´t have much violence or any nudity in it. On the other hand, it is filled with subtle scares and sexual tension. Sullivan uses simple props, like a wind-up flashlight, to great effect. This is definitely a horror film that is more in the vein of Japanese horror films but unlike the many American remakes, this film feels pretty fresh and original. This is without a doubt one of the best haunted-house movies I´ve seen in recent years. In fact, it reminded me a lot of the classic “The Haunting” (1963). That movie really set the standard for future films in the genre, in proving that less is, in fact, more. Thanks to Sullivan´s obvious skill as an editor (he´s worked on “Saw IV” (2007), among others), he manages to create a film that is both scary and unnerving, without really showing us much at all.  I really hope that someone gives Sullivan a decent budget for future projects. It´d be interesting to see what he could unleash upon us then.

Check this one out, fiends!   Until next time: stay ghoul & take scare,

Thomas Lovecraft

Our odyssey into the uncharted world of despised films continues, my fiends, and the last time a ”guilty pleasure” was brought up it was ”Rise: Blood Hunter” which is an underrated vampire-flick so I thought we´d continue in that genre. Today, the luck has come to Mark Pavia´s deeply underappreciated “The Night Flier” from 1997. Once again, this is a film that I don´t feel the slightest guilt about liking because it´s an awesome flick that kicks most of the movies that are being churned out today´s collective asses!

“The Night Flier” is based on a novella by Stephen King and let me tell ya, this is one of my absolute favorites when it comes to adaptations by the King! To understand where I´m coming from, you gotta see the whole picture and get some background on how that came to be. I don´t know if you remember this, but it wasn´t easy being a horror fan back in ´97. I was eighteen back then and the horror genre was bleeding itself dry, slowly but surely. “Scream” (1996) had just proved to be a smash hit and “I Know What You Did Last Summer” (1997) were also so successful that it garnered a sequel. It felt like Kevin Williamson had a finger in every horror movie that was being greenlit and ironic teenagers in peril were all the rage in 1997. I was devastated. I have always had a problem with horror movies that are too self-referential. I liked the “Scream”-movies but the many imitations it had spawned were killing my favorite genre. It seemed that no one were taking the genre serious any longer.

 But all hope had not died, not quite yet. I had read in “Fangoria” about this low budget Stephen King-adaptation, that were partly financed by HBO, and according to the filmmakers it was supposed to be hardcore horror. But you know, that´s what every filmmaker says when they´re interviewed so  to be honest, I wasn´t that excited. Besides, it was a cable movie! How scary can it be? Bear in mind that this was before HBO turned into the institution it is today and before we had seen a single episode of “Sopranos” on these shores. It was directed by a guy named Mark Pavia and while I´d never heard of him, he seemed to have a genuine appreciation of the genre, in his interviews. Flash forward a couple of months and “The Night Flier” is released on DVD. Now, if you look at the cover I have posted here, you can understand why I still wasn´t too excited about it. It looks like a really crappy B-flick but I was proven wrong. Up until that point, I didn´t know that being proven wrong could feel so good…

The story revolves around Richard Dees (Miguel Ferrer), a cynical reporter for the sleazy tabloid weekly Inside View, who is assigned to investigate a series of “vampire” murders, committed at isolated rural air strips. The victims are bled dry and the culprit is believed to escape in small airplane. Dees doesn´t want the story at first but accepts after realizing it could be bigger than it seems but also because he wants to put young, idealistic reporter Katherine (played by Julie Entwistle) in her place.

Cable TV-movies aren´t supposed to be this good! This is one of the most effective adaptations of King´s work so far and you gotta give director Pavia and producer Richard Rubinstein credit for making this film back when what everybody wanted was screaming teenagers. If only this film had been released five or six years later, I am certain that Pavia would be one of the major horror directors working today. He had the guts to treat the script like a real horror story and didn´t try to dumb it down or play up the humor, like so many other directors would have done back at the end of the 90´s. He also had the guts to make the movie´s protagonist a real unsympathetic asshole, to say the least. There´s no definite hero in “The Night Flier” and that is one of the things that makes it so great! Dees is played by the awesome Miguel Ferrer (who you might remember as the ambitious Bob Morton in “RoboCop”, who ends up getting his knees shot out) and this is the role of a lifetime for him. Ferrer really sinks his teeth into this character and it is obvious that he relishes in the opportunity of playing such an unsympathetic character. That is also why the viewer never quite loses their sympathy for Dees: Ferrer makes it impossible for us to fully hate him. He´s simply having too much of a good time to not like him. The script gives us enough clues to realize why he has become the bitter, angry man that he is when the film starts. He is self-absorbed, manipulative, narcissistic and pessimistic but let´s face it: who among us doesn´t have traits of that in our personality? Dees has just given into them and given them a lot more freedom that I hope you and we have. It´s such a relief to watch a character like this and he´s given plenty of lines in Pavia´s well-written script to chew the scenery with. Actually, one of my all-time favorite lines is from this movie. Dees walks into a bar and orders a double Scotch. The bartender then asks, “Rough day?” and Dees grins and answers, “Rough life…” That´s how hard Miguel Ferrer is in this movie, folks!

The last couple of weeks I´ve been watching a lot of vampire movies. I have re-visited “Interview with the vampire” (1994) and “The Lost Boys” (1987) recently and the more vampire-flicks I see, I become more convinced that “The Night Flier” is one of the best ever made within the genre. It´s a shame that director Mark Pavia hadn´t gotten a chance to direct a second film. I remember reading in “Fangoria” that he was supposed to make a film starring Michael Berryman, but it got shut down due to a dispute of some kind. I would love to see a sequel to “The Night Flier” because Pavia really knows how to build an atmosphere of dread and doom. This is one gloomy film and in the end he pulls out all stops and if you´re a fan of George A. Romero´s zombie movies you´ll be sitting with a big smile on your face! This is the kind of horror movies I love: grim, serious, downbeat and brutal! Pavia directs the film like he is the bastard son of John Carpenter and George Romero. He´s not afraid to show us the gore, Romero-style, and he´s got that nihilistic streak that makes Carpenter´s films so fantastic. It´s a damn, damn shame that this man is currently unemployed…

So, ignore the cheap looking DVD-cover and check this one out if you haven´t already! It´s a small masterpiece and how this only has a lousy 5.5 over at imdb.com is, to me, a mystery. If you like serious horror, you´ll like “The Night Flier”!

Until next time: take scare & stay ghoul,

Thomas Lovecraft

Last night I decided to watch David Lynch´s “Inland Empire” (2006). I bought it when it was released on DVD  about a year ago but haven´t gotten around to seeing it until now. Gathering from the reviews, the movie was supposed to be pretty hard to follow and to sit through so I´ve been kind of putting that off. Besides, no matter how great Lynch-fan I might be, the prospect of spending three hours in his world may be rewarding but it sure as hell won´t be pleasant, of that I am certain!

Like I said, I am a huge fan of Lynch´s work. I thought that his most recent effort “Mulholland Drive” (2001) was nothing short of a masterpiece. “Lost Highway” (1997) is another work of genius and although I cannot explain those movie (who can, really?) and I have only a vague idea of what goes on in them, that is really not the point with Lynch´s work. His films operate with a kind of dream-logic that is hard to imitate. He is also one of the few directors working today who is able to conjure up truly horrifying images that will haunt you for a long, long time. Think about it: the scenes with Bob, out in the woods, in “Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me” (1992)? Or how about the scene where Robert Blake´s Mystery Man asks Bill Pullman´s character to call his home because as Blake puts it, “I am there now”. When he answers the phone and then smiles, while standing in front of Pullman, still sends chills down my spines. David Lynch is also one of the few directors who have realized just exactly how scary senior citizens can be. Just watch “Mulholland Drive” to find out.

What about “Inland Empire” then? Is it on par with “Mulholland Drive”? No, it isn´t. This is, without a doubt, Lynch´s most convoluted work. The film opens with a family of humans dressed in rabbit suits, sitting in a room, while a sitcom-type laugh track plays. After that, we get to see Lynch-regular Grace Zibriskie visit Laura Dern´s Nikki Grace, an actress who is about to make her comeback in a film that turns out to be a remake of a polish production where the lead actors died. This is how the film opens. After that, it is pure insanity and dream-like logic. The storyline with Dern´s actress soon develops into another where we get to follow the character she plays in the movie, Susan Blue. At one point in the movie she says: “I can´t tell if it´s yesterday or tomorrow and it´s a real mindfuck!” Well, that basically sums up the whole movie and if you already are a Lynch-fan, you will without a doubt appreciate the film and his special brand of utterly surreal humor, that manages to be extremely funny and scary at the same time. Take a look at the opening scene with Zabriskie and Dern to see what I mean. Like so many scenes in this (and many of his other) film, it starts as a bizarre but funny meeting between two characters but at the drop of a hat it completely turns when Zabriskie starts ranting about a “brutal fucking murder!”.

Like I said, there is no logic to this film. It moves in and out of different scenes and I have no idea how many layers of reality there is to it but there are some themes that remind you of “Mulholland Drive”. It does take place in Hollywood and the heroine is an actress and like in “Mulholland”, the producers of the film in this one seem to know more than what they are letting on. Many critics have pointed out that this is a sort of a companion piece to “Mulholland Drive” and while they are right about that, visually the two films bear no resemblance. “Mulholland Drive” was a polished, lush, great looking film where Naomi Watts and Laura Harring looked like 50´s models throughout the film. In “Inland Empire” we get a film shot on DV, which gives the film a much cruder look, and Laura Dern did not have the same make-up department, if I put it that way. While “Mulholland Drive” looked like Lynch´s fantasy of how Hollywood should look, “Inland Empire” probably resembles more how it is, in reality. At times it reminded me of vacation footage from hell! Much of this film is extremely unsettling (a particular scene with a woman running down a flight of stairs in slow motion springs to mind) and I can only imagine that this is what it feels like to have a complete nervous breakdown.No matter how you look at it, Laura Dern does a spectacular job in this film. Why she wasn´t nominated for an academy award, beats me. She is the focus of the movie throughout its three hour running time and why she hasn´t been getting more roles after this one is a mystery equal to Lynch´s script for the film.

“Inland Empire” echoes much of Lynch´s earlier work but is in no way near as accessible as they are (never thought I´d say that!) but if you already are one of those guys who worships at the altar of Lynch and if you are up for the challenge, check this one out!

Until next time: stay ghoul & take scare,

Thomas Lovecraft

One of the great mysteries in life is how the hell does Stephen King manages to read so many books? I mean, the guy writes faster than I can read! You see his name on the cover of a lot of books, saying that “this is one of the best books of the year” or something like that. Don´t get me wrong, most of the time, the man is right. Those books graced with a quote from the King is often well worth your time. That was why I was pretty excited when I picked up my copy of Scott Smith´s “The Ruins”. The cover proudly proclaimed that Stephen King thought that this book was “Better than any suspense novel since Silence of the lambs”. I was unfamiliar with Smith´s work up until this point. I knew that he had written “A Simple Plan” and the script for the film, based on the same book. My only close encounter with Smith was that I had seen that flick, which, by the way, is a spectacular film directed by Sam Raimi and starring Bill Paxton and Billy Bob Thornton.

“The Ruins” turned out to be a pretty entertaining read. Smith is extremely good at creating characters that seem believable. The two American couples that are our protagonists are just ordinary kids who are about to go off to college in the fall. They´re on a final trip, before school starts, to Mexico and they decide to check out some old ruins that are located off the beaten path. When they arrive, they realize that the locals doesn´t want them to leave the ruins. They are being held captive and they soon realize why. The main characters are not experienced in what they are doing, they are clearly out of their depth and Smith works this aspect of the story to his advantage. My one objection to the book was that it was bit too long. At about 600 pages, the story tends to drag every now and then but I can live with that when the author has such a keen eye for gritty realism that Smith has. I could see why King liked it so much, since the story very much reminded me of the type of short stories that King used to write back in the good old days.

  I´m sure you are all familiar with the fact that “The Ruins” was recently turned into a movie, scripted by Smith himself and directed by first time director Carter Smith. I saw this one the other day and like with all adaptations, where you´ve read the book, you´re always curious to see how the film will hold up against it literary source material. Usually, it´s a good sign when the author of the book is involved in the writing of the screenplay and since Smith managed to write a great one for “A Simple Plan”, my hopes were pretty high. It´s always interesting when first time directors get their chance to prove themselves in the horror genre.  

So, how did it hold up? Pretty well, actually! Smith has managed to do a great job in distilling the books´ 600 pages into a 90 minute story without leaving too much out. There have been a lot of movies recently of teenage American tourist going abroad and being trapped in various situations where they lose their limbs. I´m talking about movies like “Hostel” (2005) and “Turistas” (2006) that are part of the so-called “torture porn”-cycle. This is one of those movements in horror movies that will be talked about, 10 years from now, in the same way that “slasher”-films are mentioned when we talk about horror movies from the 80´s. I guess we can discuss why this movement was spawned and how it reflects the American involvement in Iraq (American teenagers going abroad to get mutilated), but I´m not gonna go there, at least not now. What I´m trying to get at is that “The Ruins” will probably be mentioned in the same breath as those other films, but it´s not really a torture film in the same sense as them. However, director Smith and screenwriter Smith manages to create the same sense of doom that was so obvious in the book and the actors does a pretty good job of portraying their state of panics that keeps getting worse. One thing I did like about this film (and about “Turistas”, too for that matter) is that the main characters aren´t your typical stupid teenagers that you normally get in this kind of horror films. Especially Jena Malone and Laura Ramsey do a good job in creating believable characters and when the story takes some nasty turns and ventures into self-mutilating territory, it gets pretty harrowing for the viewer. There definitely some scenes in this one that manages to get under your skin, so to speak.

 I like this kind of horror, where the threat isn´t a human one and is almost like an unseen force and I think that “The Ruins” works well, both as a stand-alone film as an adaptation. And no matter how good of a job he did with the screenplay, I hope that writer Scott Smith stops spending so much time writing them. The man needs to focus on writing more books. He´s obviously got the talent for it and times a-wasting! There are many other writers who can kick out a decent screenplay but there´s not that many that can write a really good book.

So, Scott Smith, no matter how entertaining “The Ruins” may have been you have to stop spending time on those screenplays and write more books! You´re not getting any younger…

Until next time: take scare & stay ghoul!

 Thomas Lovecraft

 I´ve finally had the pleasure to dive head first into my summer vacation and you all know what that means: an excellent opportunity to catch up on all those movies you´ve managed to collect, but haven´t had the time to see, the last year. I´ve managed to plow through a whole bunch of horror films the last week and while doing that, I stumbled upon a real gem! I´m talking about director Steve Barker´s debut “Outpost” (2008). This one managed to slip through the cracks when it was released. I think it went straight to DVD in the states but it got a brief theatrical run in the UK. Deservedly so, I might add.

  The story follows a team of hardened mercenaries who is being hired by a businessman, Hunt (Julian Wadham), to venture into the woods of a war torn European country to examine an old WW2 bunker. The team is lead by DC (Ray Stevenson, who you might remember as Pullo from HBO´s “Rome”) and the mission is an easy one:  quick in and quick out and lots of cash for it. But as you might figure out, things aren’t always what they seem.  When the team reaches this outpost, it seems that Hunt knows far more about the strange occurrences than he lets on. The group soon realizes that the bunker was used for gruesome experiments by the Nazis, during the Second World War. And as is customary in horror movies, they are not alone… “Outpost” doesn´t break any new ground or territory in the horror genre but it does make for a more than worthy addition to the latest string of British horror movies we´ve been having the pleasure of seeing these last 8 years. The story is a familiar one but director Barker succeeds in telling it, thanks to a keen sense of how to create tension, atmosphere and dread. This is one of those films where while watching it, a lot of other films spring to mind. You can´t help being reminded of “Dog Soldiers” (2002) and “Predator” (1987). There also have been a few military horror movies in recent years, except for the earlier mentioned “Dog Soldiers”. I´m talking about “The Bunker” (2001), starring Jason Flemyng, and “Deathwatch” (2002), starring Jamie Bell and Andy Serkis. When compared to this film, “Outpost” is definitely the superior one. This is a prime example of how you don´t have to feel the pressure to constantly break new cinematic ground. You can create a good old-fashioned horror yearn, without relying too much on special effects, just as long as you do it well. That´s where Barker succeeds! He takes the script seriously, where other directors might have tried to infuse it with some comic relief, he plays it straight and the cast does a great job at that. The actors portraying the mercenaries are suitably scarred and bitter, without ever becoming a bunch of cartoon characters. Ray Stevenson is playing the role of Frank Castle in the new “Punisher”-sequel and after seeing him in this one, I have pretty high hopes for him in that one. He´s got the “hard man”-schtick down to a T. 

A friend of mine, who also saw this, told me that it reminded him of the computer game “Wolfenstein”. Since I am a bit illiterate when it comes to computer games, I wouldn´t know anything about that but it might give you an idea of how the film plays out. “Outpost” is definitely a worthy addition to the British horror wave that´s been blessing us with some excellent films, like “The Descent” (2005), “Creep” (2004) and “Severance” (2006). This is definitely one you should check out on a rainy afternoon. You know you got the time to kill, suckers…

I´ll be back soon with some more recommendations for those long and lonely summer nights,

Take scare and stay ghoul,

 Thomas Lovecraft