Month of Horror V: the Seed of dsheinem & noiseredux

[stickem]

watched "you're next" last night. as a home invasion movie, i thought it lacked the tension of movies like "the strangers". the acting wasn't all that and some of the lines made me lol. not sure if that was intended or not. the twists were easy to spot if you paid attention to some of the character's mannerisms. but that said, it was a fun watch. maybe i went into it expecting something different. but the movie it tried to be, it did well. the best part is that catchy tune that loops throughout the movie. after the movie i just sat back with it on repeat while i fixed a vodka/orange juice.

[TSTR]

The Strangers was pretty damn scary. Ending sucked though.

[stickem]

The Strangers was pretty damn scary. Ending sucked though.

i liked the ending. i also liked the fact there wasn't a motive.

[TSTR]

The Strangers was pretty damn scary. Ending sucked though.

i liked the ending. i also liked the fact there wasn't a motive.

You mean the

overused not really dead scream jump scare ending?

I loved there was no motive too. Just pure fucking terror. Same as the first Halloween. No motive, just a psycho back to his hometown to kill again.

[stickem]

The Strangers was pretty damn scary. Ending sucked though.

i liked the ending. i also liked the fact there wasn't a motive.

You mean the

overused not really dead scream jump scare ending?

I loved there was no motive too. Just pure fucking terror. Same as the first Halloween. No motive, just a psycho back to his hometown to kill again.

yeah, pretty much lol.

like in "you're next" the terror was gone half way through the movie when you had the reveal and the motive. not to say the last half didn't kick ass, but in a different way.

[J T]

Is truth stranger than fiction? The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a movie that is reasonably closely based on the real life exorcism of Anneliese Michel, a case in 1975 of a German girl in her early 20s who was having what some believed were seizures and psychotic hallucinations and delusions, but what others believed were signs of demonic possession. After attempting some psychiatric and medical care and feeling dissatisfied with the results, the family turned to a Catholic priest to perform an exorcism,


The real Anneliese, pictured above

The exorcism lasted for a grueling 10 months. From Wikipedia:

"On 1 July 1976, Michel died in her home. The autopsy report stated the cause was malnutrition and dehydration because of being in a semi-starvation state for almost a year while the rites of exorcism were performed. She weighed 30 kilograms (68 pounds) and the previous day, she had broken knees due to the continuous genuflections and was unable to move without assistance, and was reported to have been suffering from pneumonia."

Audio recordings of the actual exorcism exist and can be heard here:


The parents and the priests were tried in court for negligent homicide. To avoid movie spoilers, I won't state the outcome of the jury's decision here, but it is easy to find online and is included in the link above to the Annelise Michel wikipedia page.

Now, about the movie:



The movie is a mashup of a courtroom drama and a horror movie, with more emphasis on the courtroom. What's great about the movie is that it welcomes your skepticism, both about the supernatural and about atheism (or ademonism, as the case may be). It presents scenes of Emily's behavior as if she really were possessed (thus the horror movie aspect), but also provides rational explanation for her behavior in the courtroom scenes, and in some alternate non-supernatural flashbacks.

Jennifer Carpenter (Deb, to you Dexter fans), gives an expertly horrifying performance in her role as the demon-possessed Emily Rose. She twists her body into unholy shapes, contorts her facial expressions to extreme torment, fear, and evil, and she screams bloody murder like few others. In the DVD special features, the special effects team hired for the movie explain that they decided that much of their job had to be to simply stand out of her way because her performance was so intense that CGI would only cheapen it. To their credit, the effects in this movie are minimal and it is all the more frightening because of it. We really get a believable sense of her madness.

What I really love about this movie though is that it doesn't clearly have a villain, except for the demons that it never fully concedes exist or do not exist. The priest, who stands accused of negligent homicide is a caring man who believed he was doing the right thing. The prosecuting lawyer, though shrewd, condemns the priest based on logic and medical science in service of the public's best interest. The defending attorney is open minded to both sides of the argument. In many ways, the movie assumes that you don't believe in demonic possession and it tries to get you to consider the possibility, while at the same time, making sure you retain your doubts. It's also respectful to Emily Rose's desire to share her story of faith, and in turn Annelise Michele's conviction that she suffered for the fate of others' souls.

This has been my favorite movie this far for October, and though there are weeks of horror-movie-watching left before Halloween, I think The Exorcism of Emily Rose stands a good chance of staying in the top spot throughout this month.

[noiseredux]

This has been my favorite movie this far for October, and though there are weeks of horror-movie-watching left before Halloween, I think The Exorcism of Emily Rose stands a good chance of staying in the top spot throughout this month.

hmm... my recollection was that I thought it was 'alright,' but I haven't seen it since it first came out. Maybe I'll have to re-watch it, as I really don't even remember much about it. I feel like there was a bunch of possession movies that came out in a somewhat short period as well, so they maybe are mashed up in my mind.

[J T]

I think a lot of people were disappointed by Emily Rose because they wanted a horror movie, and got more of a courtroom drama. And if you actually wanted a courtroom drama, the horror aspects probably seemed to stray too far from the facts of the case. I liked the combining of genres, but I imagine it didn't sit right with everybody.

[Ack]

The Indestructible Man

This film combines aspects of a 1950s B-movie film noir with science fiction horror and stars Lon Chaney, Jr....though he only has a couple of lines. Apparently he underwent throat surgery around the time of the film and was therefore unable to speak during most of filming. So instead of having him speak, the movie focuses on closeups of his eyes when it wants to show his murderous intent. But even though he's the main villain, a treacherous bank robber known as 'Butcher,' most of the story actually focuses on police detective Dick Chasen trying to find out where he hid his money after he double-crossed his partners. They set him up for Death Row. Now he's back to life and nearly invincible, and he's out to kill his former partners and anyone who gets in his way, including the police.

While it's way before the likes of Friday the 13th and Halloween, Chaney has a brutish brutality, appearing in time to beat, strangle, and hurl people to their deaths. And he's immune to bullets and knives. Hell, he takes a bazooka round with relatively little damage. But like I said, the movie and exposition focuses on Det. Chasen...and that's a big reason why I don't think it's that great. Chasen's a pretty terrible cop who does his best investigating well after the criminal has been executed apparently. And his method of picking up women is to buy them a burger and then tell them his life story...which somehow leads to marriage in the end? I wish the film had focused more on Chaney stalking his targets and throwing them down flights of stairs or pummeling cops who get in his way, but sadly there's just not enough of that to really hold one's interest in an otherwise banal film.

20/31

La chute de la maison Usher
Werewolves on Wheels
Opera
Satánico pandemonium
The City of the Living Dead
The Town That Dreaded Sundown
The Sentinel
Silver Bullet
Tourist Trap
Dead & Buried
The Giant Gila Monster
School of the Holy Beast
Friday the 13th
Friday the 13th Part 2
The Entity
From Beyond
Burnt Offerings
The Company of Wolves
The Brain That Wouldn't Die
The Indestructible Man

[Michi]

Eyes of Laura Mars



Yet another write-up brought to you by the friendly schedulers at TCM. I’d never heard of this before, but the familiar names associated with it intrigued me enough to convince me to watch.

Faye Dunaway plays Laura Mars, a fashion photographer who’s made her niche in the industry depicting violent imagery and death. The night before a big show Laura has a dream of one of her friends being killed from the vantage point of the killer. While at the show, the police arrive and Laura finds out that her dream was anything but. Laura has almost convinced herself that it’s a coincidence until it happens to her again, this time in the middle of the day. Laura and her coworkers are taken in for questioning by the police and, miraculously, one detective John Neville (played by Tommy Lee Jones) believes her story of dream-death (or at least humors her). It’s then up to Laura and Neville to stop the killer before he knocks off any more of Laura’s friends and associates.


They’re fighting over who has the most teased hair.

As I mentioned, Eyes of Laura Mars has quite a few impressive names behind it. Not only is it chock full of some top-notch character actors, including the classy Faye Dunaway, Tommy Lee Jones, Brad Dourif and Raul Julia, but it was also directed by Irvin Kershner and written by John Carpenter. It was surprising to see Carpenter’s name attached to this film. It’s more of a mystery/thriller rather than a horror, and I don’t think he ever really wrote or directed a movie similar to this ever again. There are a couple of jump scares, par for the course with the genre, but really the most terrifying thing about the movie is the 70’s hairstyles and Jones’ unibrow.






Tweezers, man. Tweezers!

That’s not to say that there aren’t elements in this film that horror fans won’t appreciate. The first scene in the movie is a first person perspective ice-pick murder (followed by more) and crime scene photos depicting bloody murders. So while it may be best classified as a thriller, at it’s heart is a story about horrible murders of terrified men and women and one even more terrified woman who’s the unwilling (supernatural? Psychic?) witness to them all.


Ha! I found a nude-y shot I didn’t have to edit!

The topics of corruption, the evils of commercialism and violence in the media are also touched on at various points of the film, something that's no stranger to Carpenters work.



What the film might lack in some more traditional horror elements it makes up for with a its sense of style. With a story focusing on a fashion designer that’s to be expected, but the more I watched the film the more the word giallo slipped into my mind. The blood (what little there is) is bright red, there are dramatic music cues galore, a high body count and a silly plot twist. If the movie was looking for some flair, it certainly found it.



But even if it’s an American giallo, it is unquestionably a late 70’s one. The hair, the styles, the patterns, the ads, the fashions, the flannel


My god, the flannel.

It’s all very 70’s and, dare I say it, chic (and I don’t throw that word around lightly.) There are times in the movie when the style and fashions even seem to try to commandeer the very plot itself. So even if you can’t stand the story or obvious clichés, at least you’ll always have something stylish to look at. Unless the sight certain 70’s styles causes you to break out into hives or something.


Like the mustard fedoras.

There are two things that bothered me about this movie. The first is the lack of any explanation as to why Laura has these visions. There is no time spent whatsoever in even attempting it. We’re just expected to accept that she has them, and possibly has had them in some form or another, for some time.

The other is that she doesn’t really seek out any sort of help for her visions. She tells the police and she tells her manager, but there’s no mention of going to some sort of doctor to try to get help, even though the visions are all but crippling, allowing her only to see what the killer is seeing at the time of the vision. The closest she really gets is reading about something similar maybe/maybe not happing to someone in a book. I suppose they didn't think it was necessary to the overall plot, but I'm surprised the topic wasn't at least touched upon.

Overall, Eyes of Laura Mars is a pretty entertaining 70’s thriller. It kept me interested in the story for the most part, but did start to lose me a little when Detective Neville and Mars had their little lovey-dovey scenes before picking back up again. The twist ending is weak and pretty noticeable long before the ending and all the red herrings (Is it him? Is it her?) weren’t nearly convincing enough. But it does have a pretty good script, decent pacing, a nice 70s soundtrack and a great sense of style. So, it’s like a classy horror. Classy horror… is that a thing? If not, I’m making it a thing.

Unless you have a huge aversion to all things 1970's in general. If that's the case the movie might actually venture into terrifying.




Should I start a list? I guess I should start a list.

Ginger Snaps
The Relic
Phantasm
Phantasm II
Phantasm III
Phantasm IV
The Unnamable
Eyes of Laura Mars