9. Cape Fear (1991)
I know, I know, I’ve gone off on blasting horror remakes on here often, but with good reason, it’s most of the current horror movie remakes that really really suck. Besides, this is a remake from Martin Scorsese who is one of the few directors out there that I would honestly say hasn’t made a movie NOT worth watching. It has a great cast feature Robert De Niro pre-career suicide, Nick Nolte Pre-famous mug shot, and Jessica Lange. Plus, and I know that I will probably lose some movie buff cred here... but the original Cape Fear wasn’t as good as everyone wants to say it is. It’s a classic! Don’t misread what I’m saying here, but I feel that there are a lot of things in the 60’s movie that the remake did better.
Those that don’t know the plot, Cape Fear is the story of a lawyer, Samuel Bowden (Gergory Peck in the original, Nolte in the remake.) that is living a pretty nice life with his wife and teenage daughter when a man named Max Cady (Robert Mitchum/Robert De Niro) shows up. Cady had been a client of Bowden’s while he was a public defender, and Bowden buried evidence that might have saved him from jail time. Well, naturally the reason that Cady is new in town is that he’s figured this out and is looking for revenge.
The major difference that causes me to prefer the remake to the original is how Cady’s revenge plays out. In the original it’s implied, but most of the action and terror happens when they get themselves isolated on the river in the house boat. Now in the remake, most of what he does is about how he can terrorize this family without being caught up to being able to weasel in and out of their house completely unseen. Cady comes off as more cunning and scary because of it, despite the fact that De Niro’s over the top performance IS still blown out of the water but the chilling one given by Mitchum.
Another thing that I prefer is that Scorsese’s style of directing makes for a more interesting movie. The original may have cribbed more than a few notes from Hitchcock, but the remake just had this mood and creepy energy going through it. It felt more creepy to me.
BUt I’m not going to lie, the main reason I like this movie so much is because it’s clearly using a mesh of contemporary and old school film techniques, but it actually kept the original score from the first, something I think is unique to this movie. I may someday put together a list of film composers that are the greatest in my opinion, and I know for a fact Bernard Herrman will be on that list. This score is intense and in a weird way works perfectly in the new movie.
Basically if you want a movie that will just weird you out about how easily a guy can wreck someone’s life, you should see both but I give my preference to this one. It just works better for me.
5 out of 5
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Lunatic's Top 10 Best Horror Movies
Number 9:
The Haunting (1963) AND Poltergeist
Yes. In a way I’m cheating with this one, but I honestly tried to pick just ONE of these movies. The problem was I couldn’t decide between the two. One of the things that I’ve been trying to do sort of with this list is not let one kind of horror movie over take too much of this list. You know, only limiting myself to one werewolf movie, one vampire movie etc. However, I know that I wanted to put one of these haunted house movies on here, but I just could not figure out which was the superior film.
Both movies are classics, and both have a lot going for them on the script, direction and scares level, but they are so vastly different that I just had to include both of them. The Haunting is a classic because it’s an entire movie that shows you absolutely nothing and can still scare the hell out of you. With a great premise of a bunch of people that are have decided to stay in one of the most haunted houses in the country to investigate the supernatural, how could this not make for a great horror movie? (or Darwin Award.) Director Robert Wise has been famously quoted as saying that he made the film because while reading the book it is based on (Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House) in his office and nearly hitting the ceiling when someone knocked on his door. He seem to take this to heart because this is a movie all about how effective it uses its sound to build the suspense. Be it the loud, ominous banging our characters hear throughout, or the protagonists terrified voice over, this movie is one of the scariest things you will ever see because of it. Sadly I don’t have much to add to the movie’s praises because it would involve plot spoilers, and since I actually want you to seek this movie out I’m not going there. But I will say this, if I ever make a list of the 10 worst horror movie remakes (and god knows I have given this serious consideration.), I know that the 1999 remake of this film will make it on there. The one you want is the black and white one. It’s a moody, atmospheric, and damn tense flick that still works even after almost 50 years.
But what, say you about Poltergeist? Why is that film here when The Haunting is clearly the older and more classic film? Well, Poltergeist is a classic of another kind. First, back story:
The movie came out in 1982 and while this was a movie that Steven Spielberg (yes, that guy) pitched, came up with the story, helped write the screenplay and actually wanted to direct, but since he was working on E.T. couldn’t due to contract restrictions, thus The Texas Chainsaw Massacre director Tobe Hooper was hired with the understanding that there was a chance to Spielberg to unofficially co-direct while on set observing in his role as a producer. Because of this, I feel that Poltergeist has this odd touch that no other horror movie has.
Firstly, the fact that for once the house that is haunted actually looks like a house someone is living in, granted because of this movie’s success there has been a massive surge in THESE kinds of haunting movies (looking at you Paranormal “Why the fuck am I a franchise?!” Activity), but still when you first see this setup it really ups the stakes in a way The Haunting, no matter how will it does with what it has, just never could because you know that it’s just some house these people are in that no one in their right mind would actually live in. The house in Poltergeist on the other hand looks like YOUR house. Not exactly, but it has enough touches to it that it feels like a home that does exist in the suburbs. Something the creators specifically have stated was the point. Hell, some of the movie’s most memorable scares are based on the childhood fears of the creators.
The performances are all very good, particularly Jobeth Williams as a mother desperate to get her young daughter back. The actors all feel like they are genuinely terrified, and not just screaming because that’s all their characters were required to do.
The point is that both of the movies scared the hell out of me when I first saw them, and then still held up fantastically as films when I went back over them. Well worth a look this year if you haven’t seen them yet. Check them out.
both films:
5 out of 5
The Haunting (1963) AND Poltergeist
Yes. In a way I’m cheating with this one, but I honestly tried to pick just ONE of these movies. The problem was I couldn’t decide between the two. One of the things that I’ve been trying to do sort of with this list is not let one kind of horror movie over take too much of this list. You know, only limiting myself to one werewolf movie, one vampire movie etc. However, I know that I wanted to put one of these haunted house movies on here, but I just could not figure out which was the superior film.
Both movies are classics, and both have a lot going for them on the script, direction and scares level, but they are so vastly different that I just had to include both of them. The Haunting is a classic because it’s an entire movie that shows you absolutely nothing and can still scare the hell out of you. With a great premise of a bunch of people that are have decided to stay in one of the most haunted houses in the country to investigate the supernatural, how could this not make for a great horror movie? (or Darwin Award.) Director Robert Wise has been famously quoted as saying that he made the film because while reading the book it is based on (Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House) in his office and nearly hitting the ceiling when someone knocked on his door. He seem to take this to heart because this is a movie all about how effective it uses its sound to build the suspense. Be it the loud, ominous banging our characters hear throughout, or the protagonists terrified voice over, this movie is one of the scariest things you will ever see because of it. Sadly I don’t have much to add to the movie’s praises because it would involve plot spoilers, and since I actually want you to seek this movie out I’m not going there. But I will say this, if I ever make a list of the 10 worst horror movie remakes (and god knows I have given this serious consideration.), I know that the 1999 remake of this film will make it on there. The one you want is the black and white one. It’s a moody, atmospheric, and damn tense flick that still works even after almost 50 years.
But what, say you about Poltergeist? Why is that film here when The Haunting is clearly the older and more classic film? Well, Poltergeist is a classic of another kind. First, back story:
The movie came out in 1982 and while this was a movie that Steven Spielberg (yes, that guy) pitched, came up with the story, helped write the screenplay and actually wanted to direct, but since he was working on E.T. couldn’t due to contract restrictions, thus The Texas Chainsaw Massacre director Tobe Hooper was hired with the understanding that there was a chance to Spielberg to unofficially co-direct while on set observing in his role as a producer. Because of this, I feel that Poltergeist has this odd touch that no other horror movie has.
Firstly, the fact that for once the house that is haunted actually looks like a house someone is living in, granted because of this movie’s success there has been a massive surge in THESE kinds of haunting movies (looking at you Paranormal “Why the fuck am I a franchise?!” Activity), but still when you first see this setup it really ups the stakes in a way The Haunting, no matter how will it does with what it has, just never could because you know that it’s just some house these people are in that no one in their right mind would actually live in. The house in Poltergeist on the other hand looks like YOUR house. Not exactly, but it has enough touches to it that it feels like a home that does exist in the suburbs. Something the creators specifically have stated was the point. Hell, some of the movie’s most memorable scares are based on the childhood fears of the creators.
The performances are all very good, particularly Jobeth Williams as a mother desperate to get her young daughter back. The actors all feel like they are genuinely terrified, and not just screaming because that’s all their characters were required to do.
The point is that both of the movies scared the hell out of me when I first saw them, and then still held up fantastically as films when I went back over them. Well worth a look this year if you haven’t seen them yet. Check them out.
both films:
5 out of 5
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Lunatic's Top 10 Favorite Horror Movies Of All Time
And now for the other list I’ll be updating in october. The horror movies that I personally have the most fun watching. These can be movies that are truly great films, but I for one reason or another just couldn’t fit on the other list, or they can be outright crap that I just enjoy for the make up effects or the cheesy plot/acting. I’ve stated before that if I was to pick a favorite genre it would be horror, and I stand by that. To me watching a horror movie is some of the most fun a film watcher can have. Either it’s a legit good horror movie and you get the piss scared out of you, or it’s just hilarious. To me these are the ones that I like to go back and watch every October, and without further ado, here it goes:
Number 10:
The Cabinet Of Doctor Caligari (1920)
Yeah, I am a person born in 1986 that loves one of the oldest surviving horror films. But at the same time, how could I not? I won’t even bother asking if you’ve seen it, I’m sure most of you haven’t unless you’ve had to take an International Film Studies class, but you really should. It’s a movie that told in flashback, describing the event that happened around a carnival involving a man named Caligari (Werner Krauss) and his attraction, A somnambulist named Cesare (Conrad Veidt, better known in geek circles as titular Man Who Laughs [the inspiration for The Joker] but best known for being the Nazi Major in Casablanca). Cesare is said to be in a trance and can predict the future, and when the friend of our main character asks when he’s going to die, it’s not the most pleasant answer. That night he is murdered and all the suspicion starts to be cast on Caligari and Cesare, leading to one of the most iconic chases that has been repeated and homaged for decades upon decades as well as one of the first jaw dropping twist endings that you’ll ever see.
The big thing that must be noted, and often is cited as one of the film’s strengths is that the set look slightly off. Things are all at an angle, they don’t look all that natural. The movie has a very dream like quality to it that many Tim Burton fans may have become all too familiar with. Added to this is haunting atmosphere that it permeates throughout which is even more impressive since this movie is silent.
This is a movie where the camera is there to take in the scope of everything, and everything in view is a twisted nightmare. So many great techniques for horror films started here, and while I do think that this one does suffer a little from antiquity, it is still a great watch.
Since this is mostly about the visuals there isn’t much to say, but I will go on this tangent because I feel it is important to discuss: This movie is in the public domain, like many other films from the slient era, as such this movie is very easy to find. However, I’m giving a shout out for people to seek out the version released by Kino Video. It keeps the film’s original tinting and toning to help add to the overall effective nice and has a great option to either view it with a traditional silent score or a contemporary orchestral score (this for the record, is my recommended score.) It’s not super cheap, but it’s well worth the money if you want to take a look at it.
5 nightmarish horror out of 5
Number 10:
The Cabinet Of Doctor Caligari (1920)
Yeah, I am a person born in 1986 that loves one of the oldest surviving horror films. But at the same time, how could I not? I won’t even bother asking if you’ve seen it, I’m sure most of you haven’t unless you’ve had to take an International Film Studies class, but you really should. It’s a movie that told in flashback, describing the event that happened around a carnival involving a man named Caligari (Werner Krauss) and his attraction, A somnambulist named Cesare (Conrad Veidt, better known in geek circles as titular Man Who Laughs [the inspiration for The Joker] but best known for being the Nazi Major in Casablanca). Cesare is said to be in a trance and can predict the future, and when the friend of our main character asks when he’s going to die, it’s not the most pleasant answer. That night he is murdered and all the suspicion starts to be cast on Caligari and Cesare, leading to one of the most iconic chases that has been repeated and homaged for decades upon decades as well as one of the first jaw dropping twist endings that you’ll ever see.
The big thing that must be noted, and often is cited as one of the film’s strengths is that the set look slightly off. Things are all at an angle, they don’t look all that natural. The movie has a very dream like quality to it that many Tim Burton fans may have become all too familiar with. Added to this is haunting atmosphere that it permeates throughout which is even more impressive since this movie is silent.
This is a movie where the camera is there to take in the scope of everything, and everything in view is a twisted nightmare. So many great techniques for horror films started here, and while I do think that this one does suffer a little from antiquity, it is still a great watch.
Since this is mostly about the visuals there isn’t much to say, but I will go on this tangent because I feel it is important to discuss: This movie is in the public domain, like many other films from the slient era, as such this movie is very easy to find. However, I’m giving a shout out for people to seek out the version released by Kino Video. It keeps the film’s original tinting and toning to help add to the overall effective nice and has a great option to either view it with a traditional silent score or a contemporary orchestral score (this for the record, is my recommended score.) It’s not super cheap, but it’s well worth the money if you want to take a look at it.
5 nightmarish horror out of 5
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Lunatic's Pick For Top 10 Best Horror Films
So October is finally upon us and here I am filling out my promise to give you 20 good solid horror movie recommendations based on 10 films that I hold dear to my heart as favorites, and 10 that as a connoisseur of film find to be the most shining examples of the genre. This is going to be tough as finding where both of these fall on the scale is like asking to pick which leg I’d leg to have severed first, but I shall try. So let’s start this one with number 10 on the best list!
Number 10:
Ginger Snaps
I’ve covered this ground a bit already in my review of it’s threequel Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning, but I still have more to say about this film. It’s an amazing work of horror fiction. Just to save you from going back at my previous review, allow me to first give you the skinny on the plot. Ginger Fitzgerald (Katherine Isabelle) and her sister Brigitte (Emily Perkins) are very close. They have a bond as sisters that has lasted through their whole lives, which has partly lead them to being the weirdos of their high school. Ginger and Brigitte are typical goth girls and frequently stage death scenes for photography projects, and both are bordering on nihilism when the film starts. Then one full moon while they are trying to pull a prank on one of the preppy kids, Ginger has her first period (yes, this actually is important.) and is promptly attacked by a werewolf. As Ginger begins to turn, slowly her relationship with Brigitte crumbles as she goes out more and begins to give into more of her baser, more animalistic urges and it’s up to Brigitte to find a cure before the next full moon.
The first thing that should be said is despite a couple performances here and there, this movie is solidly cast with the standouts being the two sisters and their mother (played by Mimi Rogers). Isabelle and Perkins have such a great chemistry with each other that it really sells the bond that the two sisters are supposed to have. In fact some of the most gut wrenching moments of the movie are them arguing because they were shown as so believably close before things went sour, and that’s before Ginger grows a tail.
Speaking of which, the films makeup effects are superb slowing showing Ginger’s gradual transformation with subtle augmentations until the film’s climax where things get real and the final form of Ginger’s inner beast is revealed with a creative and haunting design giving this particular werewolf a nice individual look.
All this is backed up by the fact that the movie is working with a screenplay that really wants to use the werewolf as metaphor for puberty angle to its fullest. At its core the film is more about the growing divide between the two sisters and using those great makeup effects to visually show how different the girls have become.
If this film has any shortcomings, it’s that some of the goth aspect of the girls feels a little haphazardly crammed in for the sake of appeal to potential demographics, and I do feel like pointing those out is more nitpicking than anything. They are obsessed with death and all that but it never feels intrusive. And also I do feel that certain aspects of the movie feel a bit rushed, especially during the third act where the movie really is in a hurry to get to the final transformation.
However I still maintain that this film should be recognized by taking a risk to make the horror of the piece come from something that is more thematic than just “oh this is supposed to be scary” kind that wears out it’s welcome far too soon. It’s a solid movie with a well done story and great acting with some great scares and make up effects. What more could you ask for? I also said before that it has a very very good sequel Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed. Give them both a watch this halloween.
Ginger Snaps rating:
4.5 mysterious animal attacks out of 5.
Number 10:
Ginger Snaps
I’ve covered this ground a bit already in my review of it’s threequel Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning, but I still have more to say about this film. It’s an amazing work of horror fiction. Just to save you from going back at my previous review, allow me to first give you the skinny on the plot. Ginger Fitzgerald (Katherine Isabelle) and her sister Brigitte (Emily Perkins) are very close. They have a bond as sisters that has lasted through their whole lives, which has partly lead them to being the weirdos of their high school. Ginger and Brigitte are typical goth girls and frequently stage death scenes for photography projects, and both are bordering on nihilism when the film starts. Then one full moon while they are trying to pull a prank on one of the preppy kids, Ginger has her first period (yes, this actually is important.) and is promptly attacked by a werewolf. As Ginger begins to turn, slowly her relationship with Brigitte crumbles as she goes out more and begins to give into more of her baser, more animalistic urges and it’s up to Brigitte to find a cure before the next full moon.
The first thing that should be said is despite a couple performances here and there, this movie is solidly cast with the standouts being the two sisters and their mother (played by Mimi Rogers). Isabelle and Perkins have such a great chemistry with each other that it really sells the bond that the two sisters are supposed to have. In fact some of the most gut wrenching moments of the movie are them arguing because they were shown as so believably close before things went sour, and that’s before Ginger grows a tail.
Speaking of which, the films makeup effects are superb slowing showing Ginger’s gradual transformation with subtle augmentations until the film’s climax where things get real and the final form of Ginger’s inner beast is revealed with a creative and haunting design giving this particular werewolf a nice individual look.
All this is backed up by the fact that the movie is working with a screenplay that really wants to use the werewolf as metaphor for puberty angle to its fullest. At its core the film is more about the growing divide between the two sisters and using those great makeup effects to visually show how different the girls have become.
If this film has any shortcomings, it’s that some of the goth aspect of the girls feels a little haphazardly crammed in for the sake of appeal to potential demographics, and I do feel like pointing those out is more nitpicking than anything. They are obsessed with death and all that but it never feels intrusive. And also I do feel that certain aspects of the movie feel a bit rushed, especially during the third act where the movie really is in a hurry to get to the final transformation.
However I still maintain that this film should be recognized by taking a risk to make the horror of the piece come from something that is more thematic than just “oh this is supposed to be scary” kind that wears out it’s welcome far too soon. It’s a solid movie with a well done story and great acting with some great scares and make up effects. What more could you ask for? I also said before that it has a very very good sequel Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed. Give them both a watch this halloween.
Ginger Snaps rating:
4.5 mysterious animal attacks out of 5.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)