100 Scariest Movie Moments: #93 Child's Play

Child's Play is a movie that will make anyone smile. It's absolutely no wonder this franchise eventually turned to self-parody. Even with the original movie, there isn't a single thing in the entire film that makes a bit of sense. A voodoo priest (Raymond Oliver) teaches a serial killer (Brad Dourif) how to steal people's bodies to keep from dying, and later complains that he's “used it for evil” when he sees that he's transferred his consciousness into a doll. I can't help but wonder what his definition of “using it for good” would be, since he evidently believes there is such a thing.

That makes the movie neither bad nor unscary. Chucky is creepy as hell, no matter how little sense anything that happens in this film makes. The movie is largely style over substance, with creative choices being made to create an atmosphere that is scary, rather than to tell a story.

For example, we see quite clearly at the beginning that the doll was possessed by the killer, and I seriously doubt anyone finds this point ambiguous. Yet, the movie still waits to show us Chucky moving or talking. Even knowing that it’s coming, the effect is chilling when Chucky first speaks.

The story is fairly paint-by-numbers. Chucky has two people he blames for his death; a partner who abandoned him (Neil Guiantoli), and a cop who shot him (Chris Sarandon). He takes his revenge on the former. The latter is conveniently sent to investigate the murder of a woman who was baby-sitting Chucky's owner, 6-year-old Andy (Alex Vincent). Naturally, romance with Andy's mother (Catherine Hicks) happens, and they eventually realize they're fighting a living doll.

The horror really dies in the last act. The characters just get too dumb, and you want to scream at the scream “What part of ‘destroy the heart’ are you having trouble understanding?” Even with this stupidity, though, the final confrontation is filled with enough action to remain entertaining.

Scarier movies than this are a dime a dozen and better movies are a penny. But movies that are more entertaining are few and far between.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #94 Pacific Heights

If I had to pick one movie that didn't belong on this list, it would be this one. I don't hate Pacific Heights for existing, but I hate it for being on this list. It's a completely generic thriller, no different from a dozen other completely generic thrillers that come out every year. Why this particular thriller stuck in the public consciousness, I have no idea, except perhaps that Batman is the villain. And given that I don't even like Michael Keaton as Batman, you can guess that this scores few points with me.

I've heard conflicting views on how realistic the legal aspects of this movie are. Supposedly, in California, tenants are almost impossible to evict. However, when you're releasing cockroaches into the other building, creating noises that keep the other tenants up at all hours of the night and refusing to even make your initial payment, while also refusing to let the landlords so much as inspect the property, I'd like to think there's something the police could do.

The plot of the movie is that Michael Keaton's character, Carter Hayes, comes from a rich family that disowned him. He rents apartments, wrecks the place, and then buys the property cheap when the bank forecloses. He seems to be uninterested in actual profits from this. As far as I can tell, he just wants to ruin peoples’ lives. He has an accomplice named Greg (James Spader) who seems to exist mainly to be an asshole, and to allow Hayes to avoid direct confrontations with the Landlords.

I literally don't think a single person involved in this movie saw it as anything more than cashing a paycheck. The entire film feels generic as Hell. And the performances are at best adequate, and at worst completely indifferent (Spader embodying the worst). A large portion of Hayes' actions seem to be based around creating as many creepy visual images as possible for the audience, even when they put his plan in danger. For example, he steals someone’s cat, and comes to the house at a point when he is dependent on their belief that he's out of town and can't be contacted.

At the same time of course, the Landlords, Drake Goodman and Patty Palmer (Matthew Modine and Melanie Griffith), don't help the situation. Or rather, Goodman doesn't , while Palmer contributes virtually nothing but whining until the final act of the film. Goodman, realizing himself to be “morally right,” cuts off Hayes' power and heat to force Hayes' out, thus putting the law on Hayes' side. This initial mistake was understandable, but after he already should have seen Hayes' game, he attempts to destroy his car, and then publicly assaults him. He even violates a restraining order, allowing Hayes to legally shoot him without repercussion. This man is an idiot.

The idea that this movie is even frightening makes me roll my eyes. It takes a full hour for a single human life to be in the slightest amount of danger. In the final act, Hayes having fled, Griffith does seek him out, putting herself in real perile in the process. By posing as his wife, she enters his hotel room and finds out that Hayes has stolen her husband's identity. She has Goodman freeze all of his assets and then calls for an expensive dinner party at the hotel room, leaving Hayes unable to pay for it. She also calls the police to report that his car is stolen, and steals a great deal of evidence against him, thus making his confrontation with them all the more personal. Why she didn't simply call the police, resulting in every single thing that she did to him happening anyway I have no idea.

In the last 12 minutes of the film Hayes seeks them out for revenge. I have not a clue what happened to Greg, who had a conflict with Hayes halfway through the movie and then seemed to just disappear into thin air. But Hayes falls on some pipes and is impaled, so everyone lives happily ever after.

As I said before, I don't hate this movie. I can't imagine I would ever discourage anyone from watching it. But likewise, I can never imagine myself recommending it. Even if someone came to me and said “I want to watch a really generic thriller, with some A-list actors clearly just making a quick buck,” I imagine I'd respond with Fracture.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #95 Jurassic Park

It's been over a week since I re-watched Jurassic Park, and I've spent much time since then trying to figure out what to say about the film horror-wise. What strikes me about the movie though is not its horror value, but the fact that it shows how incredibly lazy most blockbusters are in terms of writing, effects, and acting. Because in defiance of the usual low standards, this was a movie that had real effort put into it.

There's a real build-up to the action, and that build-up never once feels like padding. All of the actors seem to actually care about the project. Even the children, usually the worst part of any film with kids in it, manage to give acceptable performances.

However, that's not what I'm supposed to be talking about, is it? In terms of horror the biggest problem with this film is that almost every shot that could be considered even slightly chilling has become so well-known through pop-cultural osmosis that the shock is lost. Indeed, the only film I can think of which I can confidently say has been parodied more than Jurassic Park is The Godfather.

The obvious scenes are the original T-Rex attack (if I need to explain why being attacked by a Tyrannosaurus is scary, then something is wrong), and the Raptors hunting the kids. Both of these scenes get credit for making the predators act more-or-less like real predators, thus not breaking my suspension of disbelief. In far too many dinosaur films (including the sequels to this one) gigantic predatory dinosaurs were willing to put far too much effort into trying to kill and eat humans, who would have been little more than a snack to them. Here, though, the T-Rex does little more than run a short distance to kill humans and poke some glass with his nose. The Raptors, on the other hand, are small enough to justify a very enthusiastic hunt. Even the Raptors, the classic villains of the franchise, are clearly no more malicious than any other hunter.

Beyond that, I have very little to say other than “Jurassic Park is fucking awesome!” It's a film that should be enjoyed not simply by horror movie buffs, but by anyone who is capable of enjoying films.

Wednesday Review: The Vatican Tapes

This movie is terrible. It appears that the recent streak of good horror movies Hollywood's been producing has finally come to an end, and we've gotten one of the biggest stinkers I've seen in quite some time. It doesn't even feel professionally made.

I imagine this is the kind of film you'd get if Tommy Wiseau directed a movie, while working with a script written by someone else. The story mostly makes sense, but the scenes lack build-up, and often seem to begin or end with no rhyme or reason. I suspect at some point this was supposed to be a Found Footage movie, because we periodically jump to the POV of various cameras, but without the Found Footage aspect this is simply a distraction.

I don't want to give the impression that I dislike director Mark Neveldine. I enjoyed both Crankand Gamer as stupid fun. However, both of those films were based around constant action, and I suspect that's what left him so unable to craft suspense or build-up effectively: they're not elements he's used to using.

The actors really don't help the situation. They're not bad actors, but I never got the impression that any of them particularly cared about this project, and they usually look downright bored. Even Djimon Hounsou can't make his scenes fun.

The movie revolves around a girl stuck in a conflict between her over-protective Catholic father and her non-religious live-in boyfriend. The two most important men in her life don't get along, and have wildly different values. Then, she cuts her finger and it gets infected. Then she becomes possessed, which may or may not be related to her finger. It speaks poorly of the movie that reading back over my own plot-summary was somehow more frightening than watching the events unfold in the movie.

I don't recommend this movie, at all. I cannot imagine anyone enjoying it, and even ironically there's nothing that jumps out at you as funny. For the love of God if you're thinking of seeing this, just see The Gallows a second time.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #96 The Birds

I can't help but wonder if anyone with any knowledge of cinema has ever watched The Birds without comparing it to Psycho. While the movie does seem to remain in the public consciousness, at least enough to be sporadically parodied, it also had the shit luck of being made by one of the greatest filmmakers of the twentieth century three years after he'd completed his magnum opus. It also doesn't help that the Magnum Opus was practically put together with barbed wire and spit, as the studio attempted to punish Hitchcock for not making the movie they wanted him to make by cutting his budget. The Birds, on the other hand, has a budget roughly four times higher than Psycho, but still can't hold a candle to it.

If the movie does exceed Psychoin any area, it’s in the aesthetics. The movie is unquestionably beautiful. It creates a fantastical aesthetic in which people in fur coats and sweaters on hot, sunny days are not even allowed to sweat, let alone have their beauty tarnished before the evil comes.

As with Psycho, the film opens with the appearance of a totally different movie. A practical joker named Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren), and a lawyer named Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) have an encounter in a store that sells pet birds. He informs her, knowing of her record of criminal pranks, that she should be in prison. And she, being attracted to him, decides to track him down and bring him some love birds for his young sister (Veronica Cartwright).

Part of me does wonder how that film might have played out. It's unusual today to see a romance that's not a comedy, so this tone is strange. It obviously doesn't last, though.

It’s hardly a spoiler at this point to say that she finds Brenner at his mother's farmhouse, and then an army of birds attack. I don't mean to imply that there's no build-up to this event. A few comments are made about the behavior of birds, and Melanie is injured by one that swoops down and scratches her. Then, there's an initial attack on birthday party of Mitch’s sister, and another attack off screen, followed by a lull. Next, there's an attack on the school, and several other residents at the bar mention similar occurrences before there's an all-out war.

In my view far too much has been said about the decision to never explain the Bird's behavior in this film. For some, that makes this movie scarier. For me, it affects the movie not one bit. I can say that a scientist running into the house to explain why this is happening might be a bit distracting, but I find that an explanation for the birds' behavior is completely superfluous to the fear elicited by it.

Far more significant is the pattern of the behavior. Towards the end of the movie the birds stop attacking and simply rest by the sides of the road, allowing the characters to escape the farmhouse and head for the city as the final shot. The earlier, smaller attacks however leave open the possibility that this is just another lull. And that mere moments after the film ends, the characters could all be torn apart.

The film is frightening, yes. It feels almost as if it’s an idyllic still-life that has been disrupted by terror. It certainly never hits home in the way that Psychodoes. It never feeling as if the characters or places represent the real world, or even a facsimile of it. However, representing reality was hardly Hitchcock's intention.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #97 Cat People

I'm less than impressed with this film. I feel it’s a good idea for a movie, but there comes a point at which a horror film becomes too subtle. Parts of Cat Peoplefeels more like a discussion of a horror film the characters saw earlier that evening than an actual horror film in itself.

The basic premise is that a young Serbian immigrant named Irena (Simone Simon) believes that if she falls in love she'll turn into a panther and kill her lover, and she's just gotten married. From there on we establish that animals are afraid of her. She feels an attraction to a panther in the zoo, to whom she feeds a dead bird who died of fright after seeing her. Eventually, Irena’s husband (Kent Smith) falls in love with another woman (Jane Randolph). And he feels torn between his responsibility to take care of his wife, who he believes to be mentally ill, and his desire to be with his new lover.

Having Irena actually go to a psychiatrist is really the kiss of death for this movie. Because while he does serve a role in the film, attempting to seduce her and thus drawing her wrath on himself towards the end in one of the few truly frightening moments, his talks with her frequently serve to make her emotional turmoil too explicit, leaving nothing for the viewer to interpret.

I've heard many people say that this movie is brilliant for its subtlety, making it uncertain if Irena is actually becoming a panther or merely imagining that she is. However, my opinion is that this is total bullshit. Several scenes leave no other interpretation, unless a panther literally just happened to wander into the room and attack someone. Specifically, a panther with a strange fear of crosses.

The movie ends with Irena, having attempted to kill her husband and his lover, allowing herself to be killed by the zoo's panther. The husband says “she never lied to us,” and he and his new lover walk off. Apparently a bit of reflection at the end would be too much to ask in a film that was otherwise obsessed with analyzing itself.

Do I hate this movie? No. But do I find it memorable or interesting? Equally no.

100 Scariest Movie Moments: #98 Zombie

In reviewing this movie, I choose to use the name from the original list, “Zombie.” This movie was originally released as a cash-in sequel to Dawn of the Dead, called “Zombi” in Italy, under the title “Zombi 2.” Since there was no “Zombi 1,” in US or UK markets it was rebranded as “Zombie” in the US and “Zombie Flesh Eaters” in the UK. Although the sequels were still released as “Zombie 3” and “Zombie 4,” which I'm sure back in the days before the internet left many a film buff searching desperately for “Zombie 2.” The movie was also shot in both English and Italian, simply because they had both American and Italian actors who didn't speak each others' languages, and then released the film with Italian and English dub tracts. So no matter what language you choose to watch the movie in, there will be lips out of sync.

The plot deals with two stories. For the first, a boat floats into New York harbor, devoid of passengers. The daughter of the boat's owner (Tisa Farrow), along with a reporter (Ian McCulloch), must journey to a mysterious island to investigate what happened to them. In the other plotline on the island, a doctor (Richard Johnson) is fighting a zombie plague... or investigating it for science... The storylines come together about halfway through the movie, with the daughter's arrival on the island.

It's fairly interesting that this movie puts emphasis on the uncertainty as to the origin of zombies, presenting the characters as debating them as supernatural or the product of a disease. This definitely sets it apart from more modern fare which goes immediately to the viral theory. (For anyone who’s read the original Walking Dead comics, the idea of zombies notbeing viral is considered a major plot twist). This arguably makes the movie work well as a sequel to Night of the Living Dead(as an extension of its status as a sequel to Dawn), where the uncertainty was presented, but not dwelt upon (Primarily because Romero was dealing with characters who neither knew nor cared where the zombies came from).

The movie is also distinguished from more modern horror films by its emphasis on individual zombies, each of which is presented as a real threat to the protagonists. While they're still slow, it is shown that they are at least as strong as humans, and can do real bodily harm without biting. One infamous scene has a zombie pull a woman's eye into a long splinter of wood while trying to drag her towards him. Whether this makes them more frightening than modern zombie hordes (which do, eventually, make an appearance) is really up to you. Although personally, I found it a bit contrived that the writers had to continuously find ways to put humans in close quarters with one or a small number of zombies.

If the movie excels in one category though, it’s in awe. This is most likely a result of it being produced before the wave of zombie films had fully hit. But the characters in this movie never appear as if what they're seeing was anything short of mind-blowing and horrifying. The material isn't used for humorous effect, none of the elements of the horror are glossed over, nor are any characters dispatched without any real weight behind their deaths. Even towards the end, when zombies are being gunned down, you understand how hard it is for the protagonists to open fire on the reanimated corpses of innocent people. It's that weight, especially towards the end, that does succeed in making Zombian effective film.