Dracula (1992)

Directed by: Francis Ford Coppola
Released: 1992
Staring: Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, Keanu Reeves, Anthony Hopkins, Clary Ewles
Rated: R
Times Viewed 5+

 There is a moment in film making when the artistic choices go beyond  filling a lot, clothing an actor, and underscoring a scene; the artistic team behind Bram Stoker's Dracula immortalized not only a literary character but multiple periods of art and history, all on screen.

   Nothing dates a film more than bad special effects, whether they be shoddy stop motion or CGI. Francis Ford Coppela's adaption of the iconic novel by Bram Stoker will forever stand the test of time due to his traditional method of special effects and camera technique. When one says "traditional"the usual connotation is old, boring, out of day; however, by using practical effects and no CGI, Dracula is  a back of all treats and no tricks. Coppela's collaboration with costume designer Eiko Ishioka, scenic designer Joseph Hodges, special effects artist Roman Coppola, and composer Wojciech Kilar resulted in a true work of classic, cinematic art. 

  The only thing more engrossing than watching Coppola's adaption is watching the production documentaries and videos following the development of the film. I own a copy of the 15th anniversary edition DVD which is packed with hours of such footage. Absolutely no green screen's were used all sets were built on screen and effects only produced as they would have been in the early 1900's. Magic tricks, reverse photography, and double exposure were all used to create the unique and often haunting effects that give Dracula it's classic flair. In this Coppola really must be applauded, his passion and unrelenting dedication to the classic art of film is something sorely missed in today's Hollywood. There are some truly BRILLIANT effects and sequences created in this film...all of which are addressed in this fantastic short The Naive Visual Effects of Bram Stoker's Dracula. I highly suggest checking it out, it's a great look at the technical craft and ingenuity that goes into practical classic film making. 

  Special Effects included, Bram Stoker's Dracula is wickedly theatrical and full of art history and this is most apparent than in it's costume designs. Eiko Ishioka one of Hollywood's most creative and dramatic costume designer's created looks that not only elude to famous works of art , but become art themselves; Dracula's garments specifically span generations and cultures. Coppola refers to images as "swatches" during the visual production period and the these "swatches" from Klimt to numerous other's are...There are just too many brilliant pieces to choose from, each gorgeous in it's own individual fashion...

 The quality of the production design is beyond words, and let's not forget that the film one best Oscar for Costume Design, Make-up, and Sound Effects/Editing...The old age make-up on Gary Oldman is truly THEE best over put on screen, I've yet to see it's rival...Benjamin Button, eat your heart out. Besides age make-up, the creature prosthetics are incredibly detailed and quite honestly perfection; every line was considered, every hair in place. The costumes are pure theater, and the make-up pure magic.

Wojciech Kilar's melodies are equally haunting as the tale they underscore. A multiple repetition of chords that build and build, creating tension; Kilar compliments these heavy tracks with a light as air romanic theme that twists itself and soon becomes a hair raising refrain.This soundtrack is the perfect mix of horror, danger, and romance.

  Now let's address the one conflicting factor that takes this Art History masterpiece of Romanic Horror and turns it from Oscar gold, to B-film camp. The acting...Specifically Keanu Reeves acting.

  Poor, poor Keanu Reeves...he tried, He really, REALLY tired. While he's one of those actors who's been consistently bad in almost every movie he's in I, due to some unknown force, like his movies. {The Matrix, Constantine, & of course Dracula} Some roles are juste cursed and the role of Jonathan Harker is on of them...first of all, he's like Raoul in The Phantom of the Opera...the writer's try SO desperately to turn him into the romantic lead when it's obviously the opposer. Second, he's a bit of a pussy...he goes to the castle, get's imprisoned, get's out then whines the entire rest of the story...I don't think anyone has every felt badly for Jonathan Harker in Dracula's history. THAT, however, does not excuse the exceptionally painful job that Reeves did in this role. His acting befits that of a high school freshman...who doesn't enjoy theater.

  Keanu Reeves is not the only one having a hard time in their roles...Sadie Frost who plays the part of Lucy Winestra struggles through her character by series of sexual moans and screeches. Winona Ryder as a whole makes a mostly successful transition from child star to leading lady with this role, however she does have a couple awkward moments herself. And if I must be totally honest I have to confess that, while he's brilliant, this is not Sir Anthony Hopkin's best role. He was and is perfect for the part, it's simply falls upon some rather odd physical choices he makes that bring the performance down to a satire level.

  Check out this clip below, it shows not only the faltering attempts of Reeves, but also the levels that Gary Oldman brings to his performance of Dracula as well as the rich costume, set, and sound designs...it's definitely a defining scene of the film.

  The shining star in this sometimes fading constellation without a doubt is Gary Oldman. Oldman's versatility and complete commitment never fails to blow me away, Dracula is no exception. In a performance that could have been weighed down by make-up and costume, Oldman uses them to his advantage and brings a timeless, yet fresh take to the most iconic of Monsters. The performance plays on the subtleties and theatricality of the character of Dracula creating a new character who you are both revolted and attracted to. My personal favorite, of all Gary Oldman's performances.

  So if you haven't see it yet, Bram Stoker's Dracula is the one to watch this Halloween evening. With his stunning costumes, intriguing set and special effects designs and above all Gary Oldman's performance it's not only my pick of  Halloween movie, but also happens to be my FAVORITE movie.

The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

You all think I'm going to talk about the 2004 Gerard Butler, Joel Schumaker adaption of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical don't you? That's adorable.

Directed by: Dwight H. Little
Released: 1989
Staring: Robert Englund, Jill Schoelen, Bill Nye,
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 4

  There are certain movies you watching thinking...I'm really enjoying this, I know I shouldn't because it's probably a ridiculously cheesy horrible movie, but I really am enjoying this. You watch it about three or four times, making jokes in your head but it doesn't matter because it's still a good movie. Then you watch that movie with other people and you realize all those jokes you made to yourself were totally justified and you should probably hide the fact that you bought this movie off of Amazon and you really love it from the general public....Anyone else have that movie?
        Anyone?
                 No?
  Well the 1989 adaption of The Phantom of the Opera staring Robert Englund and Bill Nye is mine. It's 80's, it's gore, it's ridiculous, it's not an accurate adaption of the book, and it is AWESOME. This being said, I have to let you all know....

  The bane of my existence presents itself in two forms. Bad Dracula adaptions {we'll get to this in a review later this month} and bad Phantom of the Opera adaptions. Is it really so impossible to produce a faithful adaption to the book??? The book has all the elements of an awesome horror/romance/mystery movie because it's an awesome horror/romance/mystery novel!
As of 2007 there were over 40 adaptions of Gaston Leroux's book. 
  I really love Phantom of the Opera. I got hooked thanks to a cassette of the Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical my parents bought after seeing the production in the early 90's. I forgot about the show for a while until 2004 when Joel Schumaker made it into a colorless, sub-par, yet enjoyable adaption. After being reunited with the story I hunted down the book and basically every other adaption I could get my hands on...let me tell you, there are A LOT of adaptions of The Phantom of the Opera. Most bad, all cheesy, but all (save the Dario Argento adaption) have their redeeming qualities.

  The 1989 adaptions' is it's 80's thrill and gore and Robert Englund....Poor, poor Freddy Kru... I mean ROBERT ENGLUND. The poor guy signed his action soul to the Devil the day he decided to do Nightmare on Elm Street. I'm sure he's made quite the pretty penny on the series, which boast 7 sequels to the first as well as the 2010 remake, but they've limited him creatively. ROBERT ENGLUND IS A GOOD ACTOR, I truly believe he is. Sadly, like make villains of 80's horror, he's been typecast to no end. Whenever he DOES land a role that is not Kruger, the character still haunts him. Marking people are mainly to blame for this and I have to say whoever was captain for this ship should have been fired because this is not acceptable...He's basically a marketing strategy

Seriously, I don't mean to be rude, but what assholes. From what I've read on the web Englund wasn't too happy about this either, and for good reason! I would not want people to go to a film because they expected to see Freddy, I would want them to go to see what else Freddy can do!
.

  This all being said, the character Englund creates is brilliant but he does offer several Freddy-esque characteristics. He has some great, macabre one liners, creepy laugh, and dream-like presence...In reality this has nothing to do with Englund's acting and more about screen writing. This may be a strong statement, but Robert Englund's interpretation of The Phantom is the closes to what I had generated in my mind from the book.
The Phantom is not a nice, cuddly guy chilling in the basement waiting to watch The Notebook with you *cough* Charles Dance *cough* he's a bad ass, crazy stalker. I say this with nothing but love in my heart, but he is out of his mind. He kills people, he LIKES killing people; but he's some how charming and intelligent!

  The rest of the cast is mediocre at best, even Bill Nye is odd in the role of the Opera House manager. Please don't even get me started on Christine...the young Jill Schoelen is not the worst Christine to grace stage or screen but she's not the best either. Her singing voice {which I don't believe is her own, is no where near "angelic"} I don't think I've ever seen a performance of Christine Daae (outside the musical content) that I enjoyed. Always winy, annoying, just uh...Not much praise can be showered upon this cast apart of Englund of course.


Now let's talk about the movie itself. This is NOT accurate adaption of the Leroux novel, it takes many, MANY heavy handed liberties included name, location changes, and TIME TRAVEL. The Paris Opera House becomes the London Opera House, I see no reason for this...it's not like they actually shot in either location...Daae becomes to American DAY a change which I despise and Erik disfigurement comes for the Devil in the form of a midget in a brothel....ya I'm just gonna let that one sink in.  LIKE I SAID, heavy handed liberties...they were taken. I've seen so many adaptions I've learned to take them as they come and all the changes in this adaption, while crazy and outlandish WORK with the film and I *screams quietly* love this movie!

  One of the main reasons, it's gross. Just sick...and so good! While no one has ever gotten anywhere close to showing Erik's true disfigurement on screen, the 1989 adaptions offers a pretty nasty take. Instead of wearing a mask made of any synthetic material or fabric, the Phantom chooses to cover his burned face in HUMAN SKIN...that's right a la Buffalo Bill, this Phantom does some patch work sewing on his own face. This is where that 80's gore and horror come in. We the audience get several scenes of Erik skinning people, sewing the skin to his face, the skin be ripped off...and it's awesomely disgusting. There are some top notch make-up jobs in this film no matter how Nightmare on Elm Street inspired they may appear. Having The Phantom wear a mask of human flesh really bumps up the gross out factor that the original novel held so close {in the scene where Christine takes off Erik's mask he takes her hands, and digs her nails into her skull, pealing off dead skin}

Did I mention, Erik has a really AWESOME Red Death costume in this adaption?

  It's not perfect, it's occasionally ridiculous in it's retro-ness, and it's ghastly gory, but it's for those reasons I enjoy it! I don't take it seriously, and you shouldn't either! So if you've watched your collection of Nightmare on Elm Street so many times you can pin point the second a prosthetic tongue worms it's way out of a cored phone, give The Phantom of the Opera a try. Not as hokey as Nightmare but retaining a similar atmosphere and leading man of course. Robert Englund's performance is reason enough to watch Phantom but the gory 80's style are PERFECT for a Halloween viewing. Someday I hope this film will worm it's way onto the cult classic shelf along Nightmare, Halloween and Friday the 13th.

  I was going to talk about the Charles Dance tv miniseries of Phantom from 1990 but it's quite an extensive review all ready. All you need to know is I like it for unknown Charles Dance-y reasons.

I love Charles Dance...he is my favorite character on GOT and I didn't even know this until I rewatched season 2. Dance is no Lion in this miniseries however...he's almost the opposite.

  Charles Dance is an adorable English man who plays a French man with an American accent while everyone else around him keeps their English accents. I'm sorry but when I hear the voice of an Angel he doesn't sound like he's from Iowa. He is a cute and cuddly phantom who actually sings. Possibly one of the worst Christine's even if she is blond like she is in the book. It's both horribly bad and charming all at the same time. If you're bored you can watch the whole whole mini series on youtube.

 You guys...Tywin Lanister was a total FOX.

NOTE: This is definitely NOT from the 1990 adaption of Phantom.

He's just fun to look at

Hitchcock

I figured if this film was filmed in only 36 days, I can take some time and give it a quick review.

Directed By: Sacha Gervasi 

Released: 2012

Rated: PG-13

Staring: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, & Danny Huston 

  Well my dears it's October once again, my favorite time of the year! Horror films shall soon be filling up my schedule but before they do I thought I'd give you all a review of a movie I caught earlier this summer, Hitchcock. Released in 2012 this quick, well acted piece tells the tale of cinema's master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock and his wife Alma during the filming and production of his most iconic film Psycho. Labeled a suspense thriller, Psycho has been terrifying audience goers for generations.
  The 60's saw a boom in the psychological horror genre with hits like Rosemary's Baby, Psycho was no exception. Hitchcock revealed the true horror that a brutal killer could be ANYONE. The real monsters are the ones right down the street. Hitchcock reflects this thought and portrays some top notch creepy scenes delving into the psychology of both the story behind the movie and the man brining it to life.

 
  That being said, the movie confuses it's protagonist flitting between Hitchcock, his brief decent into  madness, and his wife Alma; self conscious, dealing with an inattentive husband and her own career. The movie tries to show us what's going on in Hitch's mind, but also tell the story of the woman behind the man and how much she attributed to his success. This is where it becomes muddled and a question of WHO'S movie is this? Hitchcock feels like two films; one about Hitchcock and one about his wife.  On their own they'd be good, but lacking in impact for the silver screen. The story of the director and the story of his wife both seem fit for an HBO movie or mini series. Putting them together made sense for a feature film but not enough for the film to garner any attention from the Academy.

Anthony Hopkins & Michael Wincott have a little chat about murder
as Hitchcock and serial killer Ed Gein. 

The always lovely Helen Mirren, although I don't remember her
smiling this much... 

   All that may give the impression that I didn't care for the movie, but I actually did! Despite it's somewhat confused center, Hitchcock is a charming, witty, and bright film...enough so that some of the more morbid scenes featuring a grizzly Ed Gein popping up in Hitch's subconscious don't bring the film too far south. As a period piece, costumes and hair and make-up especially were spot on! Hitchcock retains a light atmosphere regardless of the unsettling movie that it's characters are producing {referring to Psycho} Hitchcock simply looks clean and features a strong leading, as well as ensemble cast. My concerns expressed above, while valid, didn't produce a negative effect upon my final opinion.  I quite enjoyed this film and I think movie lovers, especially Hitchcock fans will too! 

Jessica Beil reenacts an iconic scene as Vera Miles 

  If you're not a huge film history junky like myself, it's fun to see for the first time just how secretive Hitchcock was during the production and release of Psycho. From buying all copies of the book, to enforcing his rule of no one entering the theater after the movie had started all to preserve the secrecy of the final plot twist!
   
  Pros like Hopkins and Mirren are bound to get the job done and in Hitchcock they did just that, in only 36 days no less! To Hitchcock's benefit, it' running time concludes a few minutes over an hour and a half. Great for a casual watch or popcorn movie marathons, it doesn't depress and it doesn't condescend. Had it been any longer the material would have stretched too thin and turn melodramatic but it ends nicely and with a bit of a humor as well.
 
  There are periods of darkness in the film where we see Hitchcock imagine himself performing grizzly murders accompanied by Ed Gein (the inspiration for Norman Bates for those who didn't know) and dramatic sections featuring Alma wrestling with fidelity to her husband and her own work, but when the two sides come together to produce the final cut of Psycho it's a fun and entertaining insight.
 
Don't let the title fool you, this is Helen Mirren's movie; creating a believable and relatable character. Mirren tops the bill followed closely by Hopkins who's Hitchcock is good (with the help of make-up crew) but never comes to a definitive portrayal of the Master of Suspense. Scarlett Johansson surprised me with her fresh performance of Janet Lee; I feel she, as an actress, is finally coming into her own.

The Remake & Television

  Gus Van Sant, an undeniably talented director, fell short in 1998 when he directed a shot for shot remake of Hitchcock's original. This film is one where we cross ourselves and whisper "God save the Cinema" He produces compelling work, but why would you waste time, money, and talent on such a project? Reason escapes me...

 
  2013 brought us another in a long line of horror movie prequel T.V. shows. Bates Model on paper was a brilliant idea and had so much promise. All the Mommy issues and back story on the characters of Norman Bates and his mother rooted in the book give writers so much to work with...but then, as with almost all made for television prequels, it *excuse me* got it's head stuck too far up it's backside and became ridiculous and outlandish on the verge of a joke. I can honestly say I think Hitchcock would turn over in his grave if he saw what they did with such solid source material. Initially I looked forward to the series but dropped it half way through due to increased head shaking and face palms I implied after every episode. Vera Farmiga's talent alone can't carry this sinking ship.

Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

  Sometimes I wonder what the movie industry would become if it didn't have an endless supply of teen fantasy novels to act as screenplay material...

Directed By: Harald Zwart
Released: 2013
Staring: Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower, Robert Sheehan, Adrian Turner, Kevin Zegers, Jemima West, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, & Lena Headey
Rated: PG-13,

  Vampires, werewolves, and witches; staples in Hollywood cinema are normally figureheads for Halloween themed horror flicks. From Max Sherck to Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. and even Jack Nicholson, these actors are known for their roles within the supernatural realm. The classic era of Hollywood produced THEE images audiences associate with fantastical and horrific creatures. Looking The Wolfman and Frankenstein in particular, the monster's were terrifying yes, but sympathetic emotions were injected into the story and performances. I myself still want nothing more than to wrap my arms around poor Larry Talbot aka Lon Chaney Jr.and tell him everything will be alright.

Above: The sad and adorable Lon Chaney Jr. & the scary and irresistible Bela Lugosi
Bottom Lon Chaney Jr. & Evelyn Ankers in The Wolfman (1941) 

  March 40 some years in the future and the 80's resurrected horror and it would never be the same. The blood was redder, the girls were hotter, and the villains unforgiving. 80's horror has become it's own genre, generating  countless cult classic that today still have movie goers covering their eyes and jumping out of their seats. The image transformed from sympathetic beast to blood-lusting killer; directors and make-up artists pushed the envelope as well as the fake blood supply. 

David Naughton in American Werewolf in London (1981) 

Keifer Sutherland in The Lost Boys (1987)

  Horror, one of my favorite genres of film, has transformed medieval monsters of folk lore into house hold, revenue-generating assets. Transformation included the jump from horror to other genres; largely fantasy and even more surprisingly romance. Not to say furry monsters, scaly creatures, and charming blood-suckers haven't been the subject of their fair share of amour, just never to the extent of our modern film and more importantly modern literature. 

  New authors create their own rules within their own worlds, generating an endless flow of fresh material for Hollywood to manipulate and market.  I read both Bram Stoker's iconic vampire novel and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein before I finished 5th grade. I read the Twilight series in middle school and despised the film which lead me to question why and how I had enjoyed the books...final conclusion, I enjoyed them out of secret love I had (and still do) harbor for Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jr. Despite the complete failure that was the entire franchise, I continually read fantasy, teen-romance series. While every other girl buried themselves in Nicholas Sparks, Sarah Dessen I attached myself to authors like Melisa Marr and Holly Black. Lots of fae fantasy...{note: J.K. Rowling & J.R.R Tolkien were my first a favorite as far as fantasy literature goes.} 

  But holy cats I need to get back to the movie in question

  Long story short, being a fan of fantasy/romance a friend suggested I check out The Mortal Instrument  series and I HAVE READ THE FIRST ONE, CITY OF BONES...that took much longer than it should have...apologies. The reason I wrote that 4 paragraph exposé was just to give you a little insight on the genre crossing that is so common in not only writing, but in film making. The majority, if not all of the dark fantasy romances with vampires, werewolves, witches, and now demons have come from the flood of cross genre, young adult novels that have captivated readers all over the world. Tolkien was the first, followed by Rowling to create a HUGELY successful franchise off of a fantasy series. It's only a matter of time until YOUR favorite series gets an adaption and you can love or loath how the film industry interprets it. 

FINALLY TO THE ACTUAL MOVIE REVIEW!

 I read City of Bones my junior year I believe and thought it was a solid enjoyable start to a series; I feel the same way about the film. That being said, had I not read the book (no matter how long ago it was) I think I may have been marginally confused by the film. I love vampires, werewolves, fae, and demon hunters so this series is right up my ally; however, for the average movie goer City of Bones may just be a jumbled piles of monsters, angels, demons, and young, angsty romance. 

  

 From what I remember of the book, all major plot points, action sequences, and back stories are present to provide a fun and thrilling movie going experience for audiences but that comes from someone who has read the books and understands that world in which it takes place. I don't know...I've heard mixed reactions from viewers... it IS easy to understand...it ISN'T easy to understand...As one who has read the book it's difficult to be objective. I'll do my best...

City of Bones flows nicely with well choreographed action sequences and features a relatively solid cast. 

  I say relatively solid because let's be honest, this is a young cast in an action/fantasy/romance film, I'm not expecting any Oscar worthy performances but most, save Godfrey Gao as Magnus Bane, were on character and correctly cast. For this reason I'm not going to dissect any of the main cast, just two of the supporting male characters.

  

  The first is Jared Harris as Hodge. His performance less than what I had expected primarily because there was less of his character than you'd think. Where WAS he? I honestly think the character of Hodge was present on screen for less than 10 minutes, making his character nothing more than a story telling device, leading to minimum to no audience connect and therefore reaction when something actually happens to his character. I felt a bit uncomfortable with his character, at first I attributed it to miscasting but the more I think about it that wasn't the problem. The problem was he was just NEVER in the film and was never give a strong character. Hodge is described as this great leader and he was reduced to a shivering coward...I feel screen writers could have done much more with his character, giving poor Jared Harris more to work with.

He does have a nice face...

  Next I want to discuss Jonathan Rhys Meyers...perpetually confusing as a human being, I've never come to a firm like or dislike of him as an actor. Is he fantastic? Not particularly. Is he dreadful? No. He just IS. Soulless seems the appropriate descriptive...Perhaps this is why I so enjoyed Rhys Meyers as Valentine. Soulless yet filled with emotion, is this too contradictory a statement? Well if it is you understand how I feel about him. He has these empty eyes...empty eyes filled with tears, a man totally consumed with power and passion it has destroyed him. Rhys Meyers will next be appearing as the title character in NBC's adaption of Dracula...So far I'm not necessarily thrilled about this BUT one must remember I felt the same way about Hannibal which has become one of my favorite network television series...only time will tell.

The special effects were nothing special...somewhat generic, but I thought they were used well when it came to the werewolf transformations and some of the fire demons featured near the end of the film.

As I wrote earlier, the action sequences were very well choreographed with various weapons and fighting methods used, it kept the fights interesting. I particularly enjoyed the battle with the Vampires. These are no Twilight, hopeless romantic vegetarians, they're an underground bloodsucking gang; taking prisoners and ensuring fear. In this series, the author has returned to the vampires natural core, evil and hungry. The make-up used made them appear a bit zombie-ish but I'll take ripped clothes and dirty skin over diamond sparkles any day. 

Adrian Turner sports some Sweeney Todd esque hair as alpha werewolf Luke

  The troop of werewolves are a bit generic and stereotypical...a bunch of scruffy, motorcycle driving, car fixing guys...but hey, Adrian Turner looked the part and was a good choice for the part. Also, let us rejoice that the werewolves weren't a click of young, hot, hairless teenage bros but older, rough and tough gents I can picture a hard hearted Lon Chaney Jr. joining...as long as he grew a beard. 

  The movie was not without it's corny bits but it's a teen based film so what can you expect...All in all I enjoyed watching City of Bones. It not exceptional, but I think they did quite well taking the source material and putting it on the big screen. It's no Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings and doesn't have the support like the Twilight fandom, but I feel badly that this film didn't do better. Earlier this summer I watched another fantasy teen romance series turned film franchise Beautiful Creatures. I hadn't read the books but my feeling toward that film were almost equal to City of Bones. Nice. I had a good time, I enjoyed it. Many, many critics say these films are "misfires", I disagree. They're just good enough to possibly make a sequel. I mean you have to consider the MATERIAL you're working with...

My final reaction to City of Bones, surprisingly positive.
 

Evil Dead & The Conjuring

This past week I jumped back on the adrenaline pumping wagon that is Horror movies.

  The horror genre is without a doubt one of my favorites. A couple of my favorite movies are horror films [The Shinning, Bram Stoker's Dracula '93, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari] That being said, it's in my opinion the hardest genre to do correctly and successfully.
  A great horror movie isn't just something that presents scary faces, ghosts and gross out moments, it's all about the feeling. A heavy lingering atmosphere is was accelerates an ok scary movie to a great horror film. The sensation of unease and primal wrench in your gut is what a great horror film should create; and not just through it's images. Music, camera angles, lighting are the biggest factors in creating that eery, haunting feeling. Last Friday I dragged my friends along to The Conjuring and was thrilled that after years and years, we have finally got a solid, no nonsense horror classic. But first....

  My review of The Evil Dead has the most hits out of any reviews on Miss Morgan At The Movies.
Now when I originally watched The Evil Dead I was quite terrified. I did not have a good time. BUT THAT'S WHY IT'S SUCH A GREAT HORRO MOVIE. It freaked me the hell out. And for that reason I did NOT want to check out what I thought would be the ultra-ultra-mega-super gross/violent/CGI filled reboot "Evil Dead", but by the end of the review I broke down and admitted I would probably end up seeing it with my friend and fellow cult film lover, Thomas Hacker whom I also watched and enjoyed The Evil Dead 2 with...no Army of Darkness yet...

Evil Dead

Directed By: Fede Alvarez
Released: 2013
Staring: Jane Levy, Shilo Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas & Elizabeth Blackmore
Rated: R

  Oh The Evil Dead with it's undying horde of fans, spin offs and even a musical! It truly is a genre of it's own. Zombie-ish, Cabin Teen genre right? Right. Anyway...Evil Dead I can't say I watched this film completely untouched by the influence it's predecessors. I mean...having watched Evil Dead 1 & 2 and ultimately enjoying them both for what they are, I feel like I am apart of the fandom...I know what real fans of the series want and expect. And all I have to say is there are only two opinions for hardcore Evil Dead fans. Love and Hate.

Jane Levy get's in deep in Evil Dead (2013)

   Here's the first thing I must note. Evil Dead is NOT a remake. It's a new story, a new group of kids, but.....The car is there, the deer (anters) are there, the cutting off of the hand is there, vomiting blood in the mouth is there, the sawed off shotgun is there, the CHAINSAW IS THERE. It's ALL there. Evil Dead, to me, seemed to say "Hey! We respect the original, we love the original and guess what? All of that still happened! This is just 30 years after the fact" Repercussions, a loop in events almost. Think J.J. Abrams Star Trek (please don't kill me for that one) It has the same...stuff, but obviously has been modernized and doesn't contain some of the hoke that a low budget movie of the 80's was bound to have.

Jane Levy as Mia sits atop a familiar car in Evil Dead (2013)    

"Cut it, CUT IT!"
No turkey to carve, but plenty of rotting flesh
Evil Dead (2013)

    You have character that represent the past characters. At first Thomas and I kept asking "Where's Ash? WHERE THE HECK IS ASH!" But as the film went on we caught it...Ash has three letters in his name, Mia has 3 letters in her name...MIA IS ASH! And for me...it all worked. Once that hit me, the re-imagining with nods to the past, I sat back and let the references come. This is what I think will split the true fans...they'll either enjoy it for the clever, sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle nods to the past, or they'll hate it for "shitting on the original" Whenever a film has such a passionate group of people behind it, someone is gonna get upset. I just really hope fans can and will enjoy it for what it is...don't try to make it into the new Evil Dead because it's not and nothing ever can be, but there's no reason why we can't all just sit around a burning cabin chanting the incantations of The Book of the Dead TOGETHER!

What I liked most about this new take was there was actually a plot line. The group taking Mia to the cabin to help her quit drugs is not only justification for them being there, but also ads a bit of psychological creepiness to it...the friends first think she's just hallucinating, it's gets worse blah, blah...but yes. I liked that part. BUT WHERE WAS BRUCE CAMPBELL? #LOLZ #ForeverBadass

Horror soundtracks are sometimes difficult because of drawn out pauses for effect and the screechy scratchy can get annoying and not particularly enjoyable to listen to, but Evil Dead composer Roque Baños did a fantastic job.
Crazy scary, fitting, and unique. Check out this track that accompanied the final scene. Sirens, Chanting, Piano it has it all.

  

Final Thoughts

1. Did I like it? -Honestly I have to say YES. It's gross. Horribly gross, but so was the original. And I'm sooo happy it's not just a remake with the exact same characters and plot line...it actually HAS a plot line now. I wasn't too thrilled with the ending...I won't tell you what happens but the end end did bring it down a couple notches...no sunshine...NO.
  -Also, MAKE-UP. They used REAL MAKE-UP, fluids, and PROSTHETICS. This is one of the reasons I think my expectations were surpassed. I truly thought majority of mutilations in the film would be done with CGI (it must die) BUT for the most part, it was REAL...well real make-up. LIKE THE ORIGINAL. I think I'll cry from happiness.

2. Would I recommend it? -Uhh...unless you are a fan of the original or ultra gore-horror I have to say no. For the average movie goer who wants a good ol' horror movie for a couple jumps and scares this is not the movie for you. It's just too much (as with the original) tree rape, blood vomit-in-mouth, razor blade tongue-cut, chainsaw motherf*cker dismemberment...I mean Thomas and I were laughing, and cheering but for the average person...No, I can not knowingly suggest this to my friends who are not gore-enthusiast.

  While it has it's fair share of scares, Evil Dead is without a doubt a gross out horror film. Created to scare it's viewers through blood, guts, and severed limbs. You'll be watching through your hands, but that's because of the mutilated bits of flesh and body parts flying across the screen...not from genuine suspense and scares...The Conjuring on the other hand proved to have all these kinds of scares and more!

The Conjuring

Directed by: James Wan

Released: 2013

Staring: Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Lili Taylor, Ron Livingston, Joey King & children ensamble.

Rated: R

  It's been quite a while since I actually went to the theater to see a horror movie; the last one I remeber was 1408 with my sister back in 2007! Besides mockumentary superstar Paranormal Activity, my generation is not one to flock to the theater in great throngs to catch the newest horror flick; however, smart and classic, The Conjuring might be just the film to change all of that.

  With it's trending on twitter almost every night since it's release on the 19th, The Conjuring is an undeniable hit with a sequel soon to come.
The Conjuring is laden with suspense and eye covering, jump out of your seat moments.

  The 70's and 80's were cinema's golden years as far as horror films go. They were everywhere and they were good. The Exorcist, The Shining, The Omen, Poltergeist, these are good old fashion horror films that terrified audiences and for good reason. They're not hokey (well the Exorcist might be now but back then it was horrifying) and they play on a level of psychological horror as much as physical.

I quite enjoyed Vera Farmiga as Lorraine Warren
The Conjuring (2013)

   Just as Evil Dead has has it's own (multiple) sub-genres, {Gore, Zombie, Devil/Demonic Possession ect.} The Conjuring is primarily a haunted house film. The Hunted House movie has to be one of my favorite sub-genres of horror. The Conjuring sticks to the atmosphere of the classics without becoming old and tiresome. A familiar story is refreshed by clever camera angles & tricks, and unexpected scares.

  The Conjuring tells the story of demonologist, ghost hunters, and married couple Ed and Lorraine Warren as they attempt to shed the Perron family of the ghosts who inhabit their home and torment their children.

So I when I wasn't cowering in my seat, I was admiring Patrick Wilson...He's kind of a fox...and as I whispered to Sarah "Him...nice butt"
Patrick Wilson (NOT Will Arnett) in The Conjuring (2013)

 While it starts a bit slow, The Conjuring develops into an epic of  engaging and spine tingling suspense.  The scares, as in any horror/ haunted house film start slowly, quietly and innocently then escalate to a scream inducing collage created by a creepy score, even creepier back story, and prime ghost effects.
  The special effects weren't over done or ridiculous, and when a certain character was possessed I was again thrilled that the scary visage appeared to be created by make-up and prosthetics...maybe Hollywood has been reading my blog!
 
  As I said before a great horror film isn't just in it's scary images and gross out moments, it's in the atmosphere; the feeling, and The Conjuring consistently carries that feeling of apprehension and dread. You really don't want to know where the clapping is coming from, you don't want to see what's reflected in the mirror, you don't want them to go in the basement, but at the same time you NEED to! THAT is exactly the uneasy feeling a horror film should generate for it's viewers. That is exactly what The Conjuring brings to the table in old school fashion. According to interviews directed James Wan stated that he modeled the "cinematography and atmosphere after vintage 1970's horror films" This was very evident in the title sequence...color, font, scrolling and all.

How can a font and color be so scary?

  For me one of the most horrifying parts of the film was something so small yet had a huge impact in the creating of an atmosphere full of terror and panic. Near the climax of the film, there is a scene where Ed Warren & Roger Perron are attempting the rescue Roger's wife Carolyn from the locked home after discovering it's her the demon spirit is after. The camera is situated behind the two men as they attempt to break open the front door and once the door is finally flung open there is this unholy sound that rushes out of the house and seemingly into the audience. It's simply part of the score, nothing the characters react to as the camera flies above, but as they charge into the house a blare of deep horns, and voices, engulf the audience as if all the tortured souls of that house are bleeding through the speakers.
...is that too dramatic of description? Well it had me sinking about 6 inches lower into my seat. I felt like my soul and just dropped into the pits of hell...at first I didn't even know if it was in the movie because it was sometime I had never experienced before in a film. Such perfect blending of camera work and musical score...utterly terrifying.
   Music by Joseph Bishara

We are NEVER playing the clap game.
Lili Taylor in The Conjuring (2013)

"Based on a True Story" as always is fabricated for film, but after some research it's been discover the house in which the Perron family lived did have quite the history. As far as the questioned credibility of the Warren's...They worked deeply in the Amityville Horror case which is alluded to in the end of the film and therefore a possibility for the sequel...to say their work was or wasn't real would force one to admit whether one does or does not believe in the supernatural, demons ect. Either way they were a  fascinating couple; both in real life and on screen.

  The Conjuring is not without it's flaws. Like I said, the first 20 minutes are a bit slow but pick up quickly. The recurring instance concerning the Annabelle doll was unnecessary. It was perfect for an opening and character introduction but not needed after that. I felt the same away when the Warren's daughter kept getting brought up. It seemed like something that was thrown into the script as an after thought and doesn't really do anything for the film except remind the audience that the Warren's have a daughter too...other than these minor flaws this was, without a doubt, the best horror movie I've seen in a very, very, long time.

Ok I could have gone without literally a ghost in sheets but I see what you were going for.
The Conjuring (2013)

Final Thoughts

1. Did I like it?
     -Yes. Yes. Yes. I am particularly particular about my horror movies and The Conjuring took the haunting and suspenseful vibe of the classics of the 70's & 80's and modernized it.

2. See it in Theaters or wait for DVD?
     -I say see it in THEATERS for sure! When was the last time you went to a horror film in theaters? I hadn't since 2007 and I had forgotten how fun it can be! That sound ridiculous, but when you watch a horror film with such a large group of people you have the chance to see how differently every reacts to  films like this. Some scream, some jump, some talk nervously throughout the who film, and other's just cover their faces completely. It was filmed in scope and really utilizes surround sound. Even though some may pass it off as "just a horror movie" I really think this is one to see NOW and in theaters!

Frankenweenie

The story of a boy, his dog, and every classic horror movie reference imaginable. I loved it. 

Directed by: Tim Burton

Released: 2012

Staring: The voice talents of- Charlie Tahan, Catherine O'Hara, Martin Short, Martin Landau, & Winona Ryder.

Rated: PG

Times viewed: 1

The answer is yes. Yes I am one of those crazed, obsessed Tim Burton fans. Yes, I USUALLY love anything that has is name tied to it in any way, shape, or form...except for Dark Shadows, I'm still trying to forget Dark Shadows. That movie brings up an interesting point. Tim Burton used to be one of those Directors that did basically whatever the hell he felt like, not really concerned if it gained him commercial success or not; however, the past couple years have been, in my opinion, on and off for Burton. First of all Dark Shadows. I did, sort of, enjoy the movie (I'm just going to say, there will never be a Tim Burton film I will not enjoy, he's just ingrained too deeply in my cinematic roots), it was what Burton does well, dark macabre romance as well as comedy, then then last 20 or so minutes was complete..ugh..I don't even know...just BAD. Special effects were bad, story was bad, just BAD. Maybe it was just Chloe Moretz character turning into that sad excuse for a werewolf. Not sure, but at some point it went wrong. Then there was Alice in Wonderland. I loved Alice in Wonderland, but it felt more like a Burton imitation, or perhaps one of his produced films...not a project that was SOLEY his. Sometimes I feel like Disney has a yoke on Burton and doesn't let him express his crazy, beautiful, deadly worlds in full force. The movie I'm going to discuss in this post, Frankenweenie is a perfect example of this restrainment.
  The 2012 stop motion horror nostalgia flick, as many now know, is not the only Frankenweenie. In 1984, Tim Burton was working for Disney as an animator and had the chance to make his own short, live action film. The product, Frankenweenie resulted in the firing of Burton from Disney due to his "wasting" of their  resources. The film tested poorly with young children and was not released until after Burtons rise to fame in early/mid 90's. Typical, way to go Disney.
Come 2010/2011 Disney released Burton's hugely successful take on Alice in Wonderland. The film won 2 Ocars: Costuming (Colleen Atwood) and Art Direction (Karen O'Hera & Robert Stromberg) and is currently the 13th highest grossing film of all time. (world wide) With this HUGE commerical success as well as his cult following, I think this is when Disney decided they should stop trying to control Burton because let's face it, whatever he does will make major dollars.
At this point I envision Tim saying, "Hey Disney! Remember that short you fired me for making back in the 80's because it was too scary for kids? ...Before I was a world wide phenomenon? Yey I'm gonna make it AGAIN! And I'm gonna make it MY WAY! (more death, more monsters, more horror references, MORE MONEY!" ...and that's basically what happened...now that he's made them millions and MILLIONS of dollars Disney's removed Burton's collar and pretty much lets him do whatever the hell he wants. Even create a MONSTER!!

Sparky(Frankenweenie) Who could be afraid of that face? He is ADORABLE!

  For those of us who love the Classic Universal horror films of the 30s/40s this film is jam packed with all kinds of references, easter eggs, and the same beautiful high contrast black and white cinematography we loved from movies like Frankenstein/The Bride of Frankenstein, Dracula, The Invisible Man, The Wolfman, The Mummy, and The Creature from the Black Lagood. Having seen all of these films quite a few times, I found myself inwardly screaming "Oh my gosh! It's the same lighting they used on Boris Karloff's face! Vincent Price-like Character! Elsa Van Helsing, as in Van Helsing the vampire hunter!" ect. ect. #FilmGeekProbs There is even a GREMLINS reference in there if you're paying attention. Hint, just add water ;) 

  All the nostalgia references is without a doubt the a sizable reason I had such an exceptionally positive reaction to this film. Burton's original live action short is good, but the time limit didn't allow him to put in all those great, little details and characters that propel Frankenweenie from average animated movie to the ultimate Horror tribute film...Come to think of it, Burton should have made this film for Universal...they would have gotten a lot more out of it...especially with the re-release/restoration of 8 of their greatest Monster classics see HERE! If I had $100+ that set would be MINE...jumping trains and getting back on track now. 

"Frankenstein" is the name of the doctor who creates The Monster...the monster itself is not Frankenstein...it's just The Monster....incase you didn't know. Basic plot, Victor Frankenstein is a shy, quiet boy who lacks many friends, but possesses a fantasmic imagination and a passion for directing monster movies...huh, who does that sound like? His only real friend is his loyal dog Sparky, who is horribly killed after chasing a home run baseball into the street. *Note to all fathers, never force your child into joining a baseball team in return for your signature allowing him to participate in the science fair.* Asshole. Your child is a scientific protégée and you want him swinging at balls (he clearly does not want to) when he could be curing cancer, just to make friends? He has a dog, leave him alone!

Victor Frankenstein voiced by Charlie Tahan

.......Anyway......after the death of his best friend Victor receives a jolt of inspiration via his Vincent Price-like science teacher, and plans to bring Sparky back through means of electricity and SCIENCE!

Victor's "lab" set up is truly wonderful! In order to conduct the massive amounts of lightening generated by New Hollands nearly constant night storms, Victor utilizes his mothers pots and pans, the christmas reindeer, hair driers, bicycles, every appliance in the kitchen (including the toaster and blender)  and a swing set. These tools radiating with electricity and the resounding snaps and zaps illuminate the same Frankenstein we saw in James Whale's 1931 version. This scene is truly fantastic and heartbreaking as much of the film proves to be. Losing any pet is hard, especially when that pet is your best friend; I think so many people now a days forget how strong a bond between a human and a pet can become over the years. Frankenweenie reminds us, weather we want to or not, the pain of loosing that best friend as well as the desperation of wanting, needing them back. Kenneth Branagh portrayed this beautifully in his 1994 adaption of the classic, a plot line emitted from the 1931 production. The Monster in lonely despair, kills Frankenstein's new bride in order for the doctor to bring her back for himself (The Monster). In 2012, ABC's hit fantasy show "Once Upon A Time" also took on the theme of lost love and resurrection with it's own interpretation of Frankenstein. In the episode The Doctor, Frankenstein does not reanimate any old corpse, The Monster turns out to be that of his recently deceased brother. 

Not magic, but science. David Anders portrays Victor Frankenstein on this season's Halloween episode of Once Upon A Time 

Inevitably, Victor's secret is discovered and everyone wants a piece of his project. The things these children are will to do to win a science fair is quite terrifying....or perhaps it's just the children themselves who are (hilariously) terrifying. First to try to steal the secret is Edgar 'E' Gore. A hunchback little creep with an infinity for wringing his disproportioned, skeleton-like hands. You'd think that he (being Egore in a sense) and Victor would be friends right? Not really the case.

Edgar 'E' Gore voiced by Atticus Shepard

  As in any Tim Burton film, there must always be one fat boy in a stripped shirt. In Frankenweenie that boy is Bob, faithful friend but more like experimental subject of Toshiaki. The creepy asian who rivals Victor in scientific study and throws a mean curve ball. Not racist at all...

Bob. Voiced by Robert Capron

Toshiaki. Voiced by James Hiroyuki Liao

Next in the group of Victors..."Friends" is Nassor. Who basically IS Frankenstein's Monster. Quite obviously. I was a bit surprised they used this design for a competing character when it's very clear from the title and story that Victor is ...Victor Frankenstein and Sparky is "The Monster." Having a character inspired by another horror monster, say Dracula, would have added to the diversity of the characters and references. In the end it proved not to be a very big deal and the character was still very Monster-like.

Huge applause to Martin Short for voicing 3 different characters, Nessor included.

The ghostly "Weird Girl" and her cat Mr. Whiskers, to me, are the scariest things in Frankenweenie. Not only scary but quite funny. The girl reading Mr. Whiskers poop is hilarious and her freaked out face is reminiscent of The White Zombie or perhaps The Daughter of Dracula. Another great reference character. 

Again, cheers to Catherine O' Hara for voicing "Weird Girl" as well as 2 other characters. 

 The Final counterpart and possibly Victors only real friend not to mention possible love interest is Elsa Van Helsing. Not only is she VAN HELSING, Elsa is voiced by Winona freakin' Rider who hasn't worked with Burton since Edward Scissorhands. What's up with that!? Get back together! Elsa's poodle is fabulous not only because she, later in the film, sports some hot Bride of Frankenstein hair, but is also named Persephone. Greek demi godess wife of Hades lord of the underworld. Mythology spasm!

Elsa Van Helsing and Sparky's love Persephone.

  After discovering his secret to creating life beyond the grave, Victor's science fair competitors plan to electrify their own deceased pets and take first prize. This is were more classic horror monster madness ensues! All but Elsa resurect the likes of Shelly (a nod to Mary Shelly) the Godzilla like turtle, Nessor's dead hamster turned into the creeping incarnation of The Mummy...poor thing doesn't get far, The furry werewolf from Nightmare Before Christmas makes an appearance as Edgar's Wererat, and Bob creates an uncontrollable army of sea monkeys (Think Creature from the Black Lagoon meets Gremlins) Annnd the weird girl...well Mr. Whiskers is simultaniously incineracted and conjointed with the likes of a vampire bat. Creating......The emaciated version of Richard Roxburgh's Dracula from the 2004 film Van Helsing.

Well that's uncanny!

  Destroying these monsters one at a time leads to the 3rd tear inducing scene where, mirroring the 1931 flim, Victor is almost killed in a fiery windmill death. Sparky rescues him at his own cost. I'm NOT going to tell you weather the folks of New Holland find it in their hearts to save Sparky or if they choose to let him die; teaching Victor a lesson on life, death, loss, and love. Let me just tell you this scene had me BAWLING! Not just tear, tear, I mean rivers of salt water pouring onto my chest.

 I lost my own best friend when I was in 9th grade and let me tell you that was not easy. Indy had been there basically my whole life. We got her when she was a pup and I was two; we grew up together. She was beautiful, a black lab-huskey mix. She loved to be outside, hunting, running around on my neighbors porch when she wasn't suppose to, and being a ham! Just like Victor, I loved playing scenes with my dog. I would dress Indy up in the most ridiculous costumes and that poor dog put up with it! I wish I was at home because I have a whole album of photo shoots I did with her. I thought she would always be there, so when she got sick and had to be put down my freshman year I didn't take it very well. As I've said in previous posts, I didn't have many friends 5th-8th grade so I'd go home and talked to my dog. Sounds dumb but honesty, she was my best friend in my pre-teen years. Here are some pictures of Indy...I think should would have made a good Frankenweenie. She's got the color scheme and a bit of the creepy look.

Queen of the castle! Always watchful

Look at that face! What a beauty! 

Well, maybe not always...but she had personality! 

This was about a month or two before she died :( Even when she got really fat, and turned orange she was my favorite.

  Tim Burton has expressed in interviews that he wrote this story was because he himself lost a dog when he was younger and had problems coping. I believe this to be a big reason why the movie works so well emotionally. I mean let's face it, this basically IS Tim Burton loosing his dog and doing what couldn't be done. Heartbreaking and glorious.

  This movie was FANTASTIC! It was what Tim Burton does best. BEING TIM BURTON. By drawing inspiration from Hollywood's past, he creates a league of lovable misfits and their monsters. As there must be in all Disney movies, there are life lessons about love, loss, parents accepting their children, misunderstanding science and so on, but no to the point where it's overly cheesy and ridiculous. What else can I say? This is a MUST watch for children and adults of all ages. The older generation will love it for is humorous, accurate reference of the classics, and kids will love it because of it's ADORABLE leading dog and goofy characters. I can say some smaller children might be a bit off put by some of the monsters and the kids, but nothing a good rewatch can't solve.
  I truly PRAY this film ignites a whole new generation's interest and passion for those classic movies that have shaped horror movies, monsters, heroes, and villains into what they are today. Men like Burton, who hold true to the classics and attempt to bring them to light in darkly unoriginal days like this, continue to inspire me. And if that can be done through a "children's film, then bravo. Bravo sir. The greatest original creates spawn from somewhere, an ever evolving chain that links our present to our past. Corporations like Disney must be careful about the talents they choose to support or not support. A missed window of opportunity can change not only the future of cinema, but culture as a whole. Don't believe me? Think of Hot Topic, now imagine Hot Topic WITHOUT any Tim Burton merchandise. This is a small trivial example but to think that an entire sub group of pop culture has been created by ONE man's work is extraordinary.

Enjoying some Valentines chocolate with my own Sparky! ...And Johnny Depp? Well this is a Tim Burton post!