411 Fact Or Fiction 10.31.08: Horror Movies

Posted by Ben Piper on 10.31.2008

With All Hallow's Eve upon us, it's only natural that Fact Or Fiction devolves into an all horror movie edition. 411's Arnold Furious and Lucas Huddleston check in with their opinions.



BOO!

Did I make you jump in your seat, just now? No? Well, to be honest I really didn't think that I would. It takes real skill to be able to get underneath people's skin and make them squirm in their seats, building up to a crescendo that they all know is coming eventually, they just don't know when. And when the scare finally does present itself, it hits the audience hard. Popcorn goes flying. Drinks get spilled. Boyfriend's shoulder winds up severely bruised by their girlfriend continuously and forcefully burying their face in it. You know the drill.

Yes, with Halloween upon us, Fact or Fiction is going all-horror for one week only. Joining us in this sojourn into the macabre is 411's resident English studboy Arnold Furious, as well as a newcomer to this particular column Lucas Huddleston. Let's see what they have to say…

1. With little to none advance TV marketing as well as a PG-13 rating, you are already writing off The Haunting of Molly Hartley as a watered down not worth your time movie before it even opens.

Lucas Huddleston – Fiction: I'm saying Fiction here for the simple fact that the way that the question is posed, and for the fact that I'm not one to crap all over any kind of movie before I've actually seen it.. Personally, for one, I don't think that a lack of TV spots necessarily marks that a film is going to suck; and two, I don't even necessarily believe that a PG-13 rating for a Horror film is a death knell, either. While I'm sure that there would be quite a few people out there that would say that PG-13 Horror films suck, there have been some good ones that have come out of that rating…The Ring, for example, or Gremlins, or Arachnophobia (depending on whether or not you believe that the line between Suspense and Horror lies between PG-13 and R…). The PG-13 brand really seems to open itself fairly well for a good ghost story, which is what I gather this film to at least be partially about (as well as a religious-themed movie, similar in theme to something like Rosemary's Baby) after viewing the trailer. If this movie does end up sucking for hardcore Horror fans, I believe that it'd be more because in the end, it seems to be tilted towards the MTV-reared teenaged crowd (which the trailer does indeed seem to be geared towards). But still, as I said, the rating for the film and the lack of advertising probably won't be the reason for it being watered down.

Arnold Furious - Fact. The teeny horror market is already way overcrowded with predictable and basic horror movies. The lack of promotion is probably a concern for those responsible for the film as it's unlikely to make much of an impact at the box office without any kind of promotion. Until this question came around I'd never even heard of The Haunting of Molly Hartley. The director is a first timer. The stars are inexperienced. The adults are not played by good actors. The PG-13 doesn't really worry me as much because PG-13's still have scares in them; you're just not guaranteed as much gore. If you're going the psychological thriller route you don't need gore anyway. I agree with Lucas' assessment that this is aimed squarely at the MTV crowd. It looks slick but shallow. Like a lot of modern horror films I write off before they're even released. There's nothing about The Haunting of Molly Hartley that makes me want to see it. The only thing that remotely tempted me was the mention of Nina Siemaszko (from Wild Orchid II and Airheads) until I remembered she wasn't much of an actress. Even unknown quantities have some measure of appeal about them like some less known J-Horror movies like Premonition or Pulse because the set-up at least sounds interesting. The Haunting of Molly Hartley just sounds bland and if they can't even make the trailer look interesting the quality of the finished product could be very alarming indeed.

Score: 0 for 1

2. You prefer the approach of psychological horror, where the most disturbing stuff is left up to your imagination, rather than seeing all the gory details play out in front of you.

Lucas Huddleston -- Fact: When I first read this question, two things popped into my head: motives for the villains, and visual stuff, so I'll give an answer for both of those reasons. First and foremost, as it pertains to motives and such, I ask you this, using The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Original Version) as an example: is it scarier, more disturbing, unnerving, etc. NOT knowing why Leatherface and his family are hunting down and killing people…or is it scarier to know that? Well, Leatherface is basically a sociopath because he has some kind of skin disease as well as a mental handicap, and he's been made fun of for most of his life, blahblahblah. For me personally, it's the first part of that, as revealing Leatherface as a product of bullying and shame opens the door for sympathy and humanizes the monster, which naturally leads us away from ‘terrifying'. I mean, what's more frightening than the unknown? Too much digging into the human aspects of the monster unearths something that we can relate to, and for me, hurts the ‘scary' factor a bit. As for visual things, such as gore, I'll use the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre as an example again. Over the years, this film has been built up by people who only seen it a couple of times in the past (or even those who haven't seen it period) as being particularly gruesome and gory…when it's really not. This film just goes to show you that merely the implication of gore is more than enough to get the message across without diving headlong into full-on shots of decapitations, or guts being unraveled, whatever it may be. Of course, given the era of Horror films that we live in, over-use of gore and delving into the monster has become the norm, which is unfortunate; it just takes away the ‘scary', in my opinion.

Arnold Furious - Fact. I had a hard time with this because I like a mixture personally. I like the build up and tension but then I also like the big jump at the end of it. Like in Jaws. The tension of the water being completely out of bounds for much of the film and then the jump of the shark popping up when Brody is shovelling fish guts over the back of the boat. That's a perfect mix for me. But if we're talking about the ear being cut off in Reservoir Dogs cutaway versus the ‘show you everything' mentality of Saw then I'll take my ear off camera any day of the week. Showing excessive gore is usually to cover up for something else; usually a lack of good characterisation, plot or an inability to build excitement or tension without the blood. Sometimes that works fine and there are plenty of films from accomplished directors that contain huge amounts of gore. Like Dario Argento's Tenebrae, Peter Jackson's Bad Taste or Wes Craven's A Nightmare on Elm Street. Just because a film contains gore doesn't necessarily make it lazy or bad. But the question remains; which do I prefer? And I'll take the slow boil terror of Jaws or Psycho over any blood-soaked masterpiece out there. The fear is in waiting…

Score: 1 for 2

3. The teaser trailer for the new Friday the 13th movie leaves you feeling positive that this movie will not outright suck.

Lucas Huddleston - Fact: Remakes and things like that don't bother me anymore; I've come to the realization that it's just a natural part of film, things change, times and audiences move on, and new life needs to be breathed into certain things. As a fan of the Friday the 13th series, I'm looking forward to this, and how could I not? It's a straight-up Jason movie that takes place in Crystal Lake, which hasn't happened since Part 7 – no Manhattan, no Jason-possessed people, no outer space, no Freddy…going back to basics, it seems (I hope). I had actually avoided the trailer for awhile, until I was coerced into checking it out due to all the ‘upheaval' over Jason running (what's with people being pissed at that?)…and I was glad that I did, as I thought that it looked more-than-decent. Naturally, I'm sure that some people would be worried about this new Jason movie being in the vein of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, and ‘ruining' the original by prettying it up (so to speak) and rendering it to be like just like any other Horror film that's been made in the past twenty years or so…but this reboot to the series really has a chance to right all the wrongs that the original series encroached upon, and could end up lending Jason Voorhees more credibility to those who believe that he's little more than a Michael Myers clone. I mean, the original series has been so mishandled over the years and reached several lows (in my opinion), how can Marcus Nispel really ruin it? Of course, it could still end up being crap, but right now, I got high hopes.

Arnold Furious - Fiction. The first two things that struck me about the trailer were 1. "From producer Michael Bay" and 2. From the director of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. My first reaction on #2 was "shit, I didn't know Tobe Hooper was doing this!" Then I realised they meant the re-make of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Interest….waning. The trailers make Jason out to be quite the badass killing machine but I just don't get the point of a re-boot. Yeah, Jason has been all over the place during the various sequels to Friday The 13th but that just means you can put him right back there. If they said it was another in the Friday The 13th series I probably wouldn't have minded so much. But this is a re-imaging of Friday The 13th. A total series re-boot. Hey, it worked for James Bond so maybe it'll be ok here. Marcus Nispel is at least capable at action sequences. Back to point one though, look at the shit Michael Bay puts his name to! This might be a controversial statement but in my eyes it's true; Michael Bay has never produced a good film. Ever. Keep in mind that's "produced" not directed. I don't want people saying "hey, Bad Boys was good". Yeah, it was. It was also produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. He knew how to make an action movie. Michael Bay doesn't. For me the trailer does nothing to stop my scepticism about this film. Although unlike The Haunting of Molly Hartley I'll actually watch it. After all I'm a horror franchise completist at heart.

Score: 1 for 3

Switch!!!

4. You are more than eager to check out the Swedish vampire film Let The Right One In based upon the overwhelmingly positive reception it's received at recent film festivals.

Arnold Furious - Fact. Although not because it's a vampire movie. I hate vampire movies. I was once asked to compile a Top 5 for vampire films and I struggled to get three that would have made the list. I like Blade, the early Dracula and Shadow of the Vampire. That's about it. It's strange because I really like Anne Rice's vampire chronicles. I think I've read four of those books. And yet the classic vampire flicks I'm just not a big fan of. I thought Nosferatu was over rated. I didn't like the Gary Oldman version of Dracula. Hell, I don't like The Lost Boys and I don't care for the second half of From Dusk Till Dawn. I like everything up to Salma Hayek's dancing and then all this vampire crap takes over. But the reviews for Let the Right One In have been really strong and after checking out the trailer it looks like a great film. And it's not easy to make a great film in such a tired and predictable genre. Look at 30 Days of Night. If there was ever a movie to demonstrate how bland vampire movies have become it'd be that one. It should have been a sure thing but it ended up as another disappointment. Even if Let the Right One In doesn't live up to the hype it still stands a chance of being one of the best vampire films ever made simply based on the track record of vampire movies. And let's face it; it's going to be better than Underworld regardless of what happens.

Lucas Huddleston - Fact: Personally, I love vampire films. Pretty much anything with a vampire (or a werewolf, for that matter) that I can get my hands on, I'll watch it, whether it's good or bad. Now then, I'd agree with Arnold that vampire movies have gotten a bit stale over the years, and in my opinion, it's for the simple fact that there has been very little by way of innovation for the vampire mythos. It seems to be either, A.) a film that focuses solely on the vampires, thus letting the audience get into their world, humanizing them, etc. (think Interview with the Vampire); or B.) their portrayed as being heartless, soulless monsters that kill everything they see (like in 30 Days of Night). Now I'm not saying that this film will bring vampires into a new light or anything (can that even be done?), but the storyline for the film does truly intrigue me (as it seems like it could pull off being both suspenseful and emotionally involving). Also, since I'm as well one who actually does put stock into things such as rave reviews and lavished praises, I can honestly say that I'm definitely eager to scope this one out.
Score: 2 for 4

5. The Exorcist is hands down the best horror movie to date.

Arnold Furious - Fiction. Don't get me wrong here folks; I love The Exorcist. There's a series link on The Exorcist coming right up where I look at all five movies and the first one is brilliant. But the piece of terminology that's stopping me going fact here is "hands down". I don't think it has a clear lead over the pack. There are about half a dozen horror movies that I like that are on a par with The Exorcist. And if I was forced to pick a favourite it probably wouldn't be The Exorcist. I love The Shining. I think Stanley Kubrick did a superb creepy atmospheric job on that film and Jack Nicholson is incredible, albeit slightly over the top. The perennial favouritism I have for Jaws remains. I think that's probably a more entertaining film than The Exorcist. I also love Alien way too much to not mention it. And Psycho. If you're looking back at the classics then Bride of Frankenstein would get my vote too. Also Rosemary's Baby would get a look in there and Night of the Living Dead. The Exorcist is up there with any of those films but is it hands down better than them? I don't think so. I think it's on a par.

Lucas Huddleston - Fiction: To some it would be the best; to others it would probably rank up there as ONE of the best. However, believe or not, there are people out there who would think that this film is a joke, to be honest with you. I'm in the camp that believes that The Exorcist is one of the best of all time, but not necessarily THE best. It's all relative now, isn't it? It depends on individuals…their personal thoughts and feelings on the matter, or what scares them, or how the film may or may not have affected them, etc. For example, I personally find some of the actions taken within the film and some of the imagery within it to be particularly disturbing, such as the crucifix part (you know what I'm talking about…); however, my buddy's wife was LAUGHING at that part, and thought that the whole movie was silly. I thought she was crazy, but, then again, she didn't have the same background as me, or the same fears, personality, whatnot. So, no, I can't say that The Exorcist is hands down the greatest Horror film ever made. Besides, we all know that that particular honor goes to Hellraiser!

Score: 3 for 5

6. Based upon the extreme internet buzz that it's drawing, you feel that Trick R' Treat probably should have been given a chance as a theatrical release, rather than being released direct to DVD.

Arnold Furious - Fact. It's been on the shelf for a few years with Warner Brothers figuring it has no market. Whether that's due to the success of the Saw movies is anyone's guess. Studios tend to see one film be successful and then shelve their own perfectly good film because it's different. The worrying thing is that everyone who's seen Trick R' Treat falls head over heels in love with the film! Read the reviews online and you'll find a series of upbeat reviews gushing praise for "one of the best genre films of the past few years" (Horror.com). So why haven't Warners released it? It's anyone's guess. I certainly think it could have competed in this season's weak crop of horror releases. Maybe Warners think that because Dark Knight made them an enormous fortune that they can just piss money away by not releasing films people genuinely want to see. I don't get it. It's tested well, it's got great reviews and it even has hype in its favour and Warners still haven't released it at the cinema. It seems like a no-brainer situation. They don't stand to lose any money seeing as they've already shot the f**king thing and have had their marketing done for them by keyboard junkies on internet sites. If this is just a shrewd marketing ploy then Warners are heading the same way as Fox. Remakes, spin-offs, sequels and video game adaptations galore over there at the worst studio around right now. Don't do it Warners. Stay strong.

Lucas Huddleston - Fact: I'd like to add that I personally think that the best time to release a film that's based around Halloween would be on…well, Halloween. Chances are, had it been released this year (as in this coming weekend…Halloween weekend), it could have drawn some serious money, as Saw is quickly delving into almost kind of a ‘fan only' trend (as anyone who seen Saw V or even IV knows that knowledge of past movies is damn near required in order to truly enjoy the more recent films) and would have already earned most of its money by then; you could have gotten both the Saw fans who'd already seen Part 5, PLUS the Horror fans who've grown tired of that particular franchise and wanted something original. Oh well, it's Warner's party to miss out on. But still, there's no reason to think that even on a Direct-to-Video format that the film can't be successful…I mean, look at Bubba Ho-Tep. That film had TONS of word of mouth from the people who'd seen it in its limited showings, before the film made it to DVD where the masses could eat it up, where it was dubbed a classic before it even landed. Same could probably go for Trick R' Treat.

Score: 4 for 6

Bonus Non-Horror based query: You fully expect Kevin Smith's Zach And Miri Make A Porno to be not only really well written, but completely hilarious.

Arnold Furious - Fact. I've been a Kevin Smith fan ever since I was 19 years old and working in a small liquor store in my neighbourhood. I saw Clerks and could immediately relate. It was one of the first films that really understood where I worked and who I worked with and what I talked about. It was like watching a movie about myself…only with better dialogue. Smith has remained a favourite of mine over the years. Chasing Amy featured on my favourite films for several years as once again Smith hit the nail on the head about growing up. I could relate once again (I was kinda in love with a lesbian at the time). Smith seems to be running parallel to my life with most of his movies. Up to Jersey Girl where as a single male I didn't really get the whole child thing but he totally redeemed himself with Clerks 2, which was how I felt about my life once again. It feels like he's finally moved on with this new film, breaking free of the View Askewniverse, and the trailer looks tremendous. The cast is great and the concept is too. I don't feel like Kevin Smith has ever let me down, like other fans keep claiming, and I don't expect him to start here. It'll be dirty, foul-mouthed and funny. I'm there.

Lucas Huddleston - Fact: I say fact here because I'd like to think so, even though Kevin Smith has yet to really step out of the shadow of his own creation, the View Askewniverse as Arnold put it. His first (and thus far last) attempt to do so was met with a bit of empathy, and was panned by quite a few people. I chalk that up to the involvement of the super over-exposed ‘Bennifer' within the film, as I thought that Jersey Girl was a decent enough little film. While I don't have the long running personal history with Smith's films that Arnold does, I've always felt that the strongest point of nearly all of his films is his character work…Jersey Girl included in that way of thinking. The film had good, natural feeling characters, and it had heart, so it's not as bad a film as some would make you think. So it should go without saying that I have every reason to believe that Zach and Miri will most assuredly be well written. As for completely hilarious…again, I don't see why it shouldn't be, as the subject matter for the film opens itself quite well for Smith's particular brand of humor. As long as people can deal without Jay and Silent Bob, it should be successful.

Final Score: 5 for 7

And there you have it. Lucas and Arnold have some minor disagreements, but more often than not, they're on the same page. I'd like to thank them both for not only taking the time to participate, but the fact they both put over positively the two under the radar horror movies (pre-release) I've heard the most buzz about since Pan's Labyrinth and The Orphanage.

While I've not personally seen Let The Right One In nor Trick R' Treat at the point of my writing this, these are the two movies that right now I'm most looking forward to seeing in the near future. The buzz is out there. It's real and palpable. If you are a fan of good horror, while I cannot give my personal stamp of approval at this point in time, I highly suggest that you seek them both out posthaste. Call it a hunch.

And usually my hunches are usually pretty spot on.

Thanks for clicking the link, my good people. We'll be back next time for more normal Fact or Fiction goodness.

See you then…

-BP