Halloween - Review

Happy Halloween everyone! Hope you're all having a safe and fun night! I have to admit that I didn't have to think long for which film to review tonight. John Carpenter's legendary horror flick not only terrified viewers in 1978 but would go on to inspire countless horror flicks and launch what would be known as the Slasher flick, which is still one of the most popular sub-genres of horror movies. Produced on a low budget, directed by a previously up-and-coming John Carpenter, and starring a then unknown Jamie Lee Curtis and respected character Donald Pleasance (who had been featured in films such as The Great Escape and You Only Live Twice), Halloween was a pretty big deal at the time of it's release. It took inspiration from the great Alfred Hitchcock opting for suspense and tension as opposed to blood and gore, yet would later go onto inspire a stream of far gorier sequels and imitators (including Friday The 13th). Does Halloween hold up or has it be done in by it's age and reputation? Let's find out.

The movie takes place in the town of Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night (duh!) in 1978. Curtis stars as Laurie Strode, a good-natured high school student babysitting her 10-year-old neighbor for the night. What starts off as an innocent and harmless evening soon turns into a nightmare, as Laurie and her friends are being stalked by a mysterious man named Michael Myers who recently broke out of a mental institution. As Myers begins killing Laurie's friends one-by-one, Myers is being pursued by Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasance), the former psychiatrist of Michael, who had been assigned to the young Michael after he was admitted to the mental hospital at age six for murdering his teenage sister. Loomis was never able to make progress with Michael, stating the he is simply "pure evil" and without remorse. With a seemingly unstoppable killer on the loose and Loomis unable to track him down, Laurie has to fight for her life in order to survive this Halloween night.

There tends to be some debate about whether it was Halloween or Psycho Alfred Hitchcock's classic thriller from 1960, that created the formula for what would eventually come to be known as the slasher flick. Personally, I think Psycho laid out the initial groundwork for the sub-genre, but it was Halloween that solidified most of it's major traits. This formula, while now something of a cliche unto itself, made Halloween (and it's following) imitators a very suspenseful and thrilling movie that, while not having aged "perfectly" per se, holds up significantly better than I expected. You have your teenage cast, a silent brooding killer, a rising body count, and of course the first teens to bite the dust are those that are doing drugs, having sex, and basically anything else one might consider "immoral." However, Halloween has one major difference compared to the barrage of slasher flicks it would go onto inspired... a surpising lack of excessive blood. Carpenter's wise decision to utilize Hitchcock-inspired suspense beats as opposed to over-the-top blood and gore works to the film's advantage, as it forced Carpenter to spend more time setting up a compelling mystery and slowly revealing bits and pieces as the movie progresses. Hitchcock's theory of "less is more" is wholeheartedly embraced, and it's just as effective as it's ever been. There are a few decent jump moments, but the film's constant sense of tension and danger is when it really shines. For that reason, I love it!

The cast, at least it's two main leads, is the other shining achievement for this movie. Jamie Lee Curtis was an unknown prior to this flick, and her performance as the frightened victim Laurie Strode earned her the reputation as a "scream queen" (her mother, Janet Leigh, ironically also earned this designation for her role in Psycho). Laurie is a likable character whom you want to see survive, and Jamie Lee Curtis acting really sells the "scared victim" role reluctantly fighting for her life. With all that said, I think the standout has to be Donald Pleasence as the scared-stiff Dr. Loomis. Pleasance gives a surprisingly dedicated performance in a role that most respected actors would have probably just phoned in, delivering some great monologues and serving as something of an unofficial "narrator" for the viewers. It's a memorable performance that Pleasence would long be associated with for years to come (he also reprises the role in four following sequels). Of course, the character who arguably made the biggest impact on what audiences was none other than Michael Myers, played by Tony Moran. He doesn't say a word throughout the whole film and spends most of it's runtime wearing a mask (an unpainted William Shatner mask), yet still makes one hell of an impression. He's a big and relentless killing machine with no remorse, no pity, and no soul. He exists for only one reason... to kill! That's pretty scary stuff. The rest of the cast, I don't have much to say about. I can't remember any particularly bad performances but nobody was especially memorable. Fortunately, the movie keeps most of the focus on Curtis and Pleasence, who were the most important.

On a storytelling level, Halloween doesn't exactly break any boundaries, especially considering that it's formula has been replicated countless times since 1978, but it still works. The film doesn't delve into why Myers has his sights set on Laurie (though it is eventually revealed in the sequels) and there are some supernatural undertones that appear halfway through the movie that also go unexplained. Some might be annoyed with seemingly important plot points introduced without answers, but personally I think that's what makes the movie so creepy. The details Michael's past are only hinted upon or briefly shown, any potential supernatural elements are kept a mystery, and even the ending is left on a cliffhanger. Does this make for a "good" screenplay? If I'm going to be honest, probably not, as it isn't exactly profound, deep, or challenging, but it does make for an intriguing story. I admit the sequels kind of killed much of the said mystery, but judging the film strictly on it's own merits as a standalone movie, it's pretty solid. The film often gets analyzed and discussed for a variety of topics ranging from sadism, morality, sexism, and others with reputable arguments being made on both sides. Personally, I don't think the story is quite profound enough to warrant such in-depth discussion, even John Carpenter agrees with this, but the fact that it's inspired so many conversations goes to illustrate the importance of this movie. At the very least, it's an entertaining story with a good hook that kept me interested and engaged. I imagine it will do the same for you.

So that's Halloween, and yeah it holds up. Sure there are times it shows it's age and it's lack of budget somewhat, but it nonetheless works as a suspenseful, thrilling, and often scary horror film that warrants a viewing from anyone who hasn't seen it. It's a classic that lives up to it's reputation!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Sinister - Review

Alright! Since my first couple of reviews for my, still relatively new, horror blog were genre classics, it's time to change things up with a review of a more recent movie. So for tonight's film will be Sinister, starring Ethan Hawke and directed by horror movie aficionado, Scott Derrickson. I mentioned in my previous review of Paranormal Activity 4 on my other blog (Films According To Chris Wyatt) that people should see this film for their Halloween viewing instead of the new lackluster entry in the Paranormal Activity series. What's so good about this film? Let's take a look shall we...

Sinister primarily centers around Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke), a once successful novelist whose last few works were not as well received. Ellison's initial success came in the true crime genre, where his first novel, Kentucky Blood, not only became a bestseller but also helped put the lid on a previously unsolved murder case after Ellison picked up on evidence originally unseen by the police. His two following books, however, were heavily criticized for it's less than enthusiastic remarks on law enforcement, and failed to sell. Desperate for another success, Ellison moves him and his family (his wife, Tracy, his son, Trevor, and daughter, Ashley) to a new house in the country where he can research his new novel. Unknown to his family, the house has a dark past. The family who lived at the house prior to the Oswalt's were murdered only a year ago, with the exception of the youngest child whose whereabouts remain a mystery. In the attic of the house, Ellison finds a box full of home movies with innocent sounding titles, but in fact not only depict the previous residents' murders, but a series of others as well. Ellison studies the films in depth, hoping to uncover the mystery behind these heinous crimes, but as he watches them, strange and seemingly supernatural things begin to happen to him and his family.

I'll just preface this review by stating that I actually really liked the film. Despite it's flaws (and there are plenty) there was a lot that I really dug about it. I wasn't a fan of some of the formulaic story beats or predictable scares, but despite that, Sinister took a fairly original approach, blending traditional horror filmmaking with elements of a found footage flick. I've often been critical of found footage movies, and while there are actually quite a few I've liked, there's a bunch of little pet peeves I have with the sub-genre that continues to get on my nerves. Sinister's way of switching back and forth between the super 8 films and the plot at hand works to it's advantage. Make no mistake, the creepiest parts of the movies are the snuff films Ellison discovers. They're all labeled with innocent sounding titles, which soon afterwards is revealed to be some "nice" sounding pun relating to the victims method of murder. For instance, one film is called "Family Hanging Out," and it contains a family of four being hanged from their necks in the backyard. With the grainy footage and home video effect, the films are raw, realistic, and incredibly creepy. There's one reel in particular, which I won't dare reveal, that made pretty much everyone in the theater scream like little girls. It's pretty creepy stuff, I'll say that much.

The talented Ethan Hawke portrays the main character, Ellison Oswalt, the aforementioned struggling writer. Hawke admittedly hasn't had a perfect track record, but there's no doubt that the guy, with the right role, has some real raw talent. His performance here, is definitely a testament to the guy's skills. While this was by no means an incredible performance, his acting nevertheless served the movie well. He portrays Ellison as a caring and loving husband/father but also kind of a selfish douche. Clearly bent on recapturing the success of his previous hit novel, Oswalt intensely studies the films as they continue to poison his mind all while the supernatural hauntings become more increasingly serious. Hawke's as the determined father whose slowly losing his mind is commendable, as they don't try to make him an immediately likable character but rather one who, while he loves his family, is clearly more intent on his work. The rest of the acting is overall satisfactory, I don't have too many complaints on that front.

As for what doesn't work... there are a few things. While the concept is creative, it's not exactly ingenious. A lot of the story unfolds in the traditional formula with few twists or spins that I didn't see coming. It definitely benefits from Scott Derickson's direction, who gives the film it's creepy edge plus a few memorable scares, but ultimately it's the script that holds it back. There's just not much I haven't seen here and the ending especially I can guarantee won't be a surprise to anyone whose ever seen a horror film in their life. Plus, while the movie doesn't go overboard with the jump scares, there comes a point near the end where I couldn't help but feel like they overstayed their welcome. So yeah, it's a creepy premise that works thanks to the efforts of it's cast and director, but the script, while not terrible, had one too many problems to make it something truly special.

Despite it's problems, I still definitely give this film my seal of approval. It's a good creepy horror film that should do just find for anyone looking for a good film to see this Halloween. A perfect film it's not but a solid scary movie that deserves a look. Check it out!

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

An American Werewolf In London - Review

John Landis is a director that most probably wouldn't immediately recognize (though they should), but his filmography consists of an array of well-known and well-received movies, some of which have even attained "classic" status. He is arguably best known for his comedic work in films like Animal House, The Blues Brothers, Trading Places, and others. That said, he's managed to receive a sort of "honorary designation" in the horror genre primarily for two different works. One, of course, is his directorial work in the legendary music video for Michael Jackson's Thriller. The other, is this film (which he also wrote), the horror/comedy An American Werewolf In London. For a filmmaker who was known for making comedies, this was a pretty dark departure from his usual shtick, but for all of the movie's horrific moments, it still manages to include some of Landis' trademark humor. So what we have here is a grotesque and bloody werewolf flick with quirky characters, witty dialogue, and one of the best werewolf movies ever made.

The film opens with American college students David Kessler and Jack Goodman (played by David Naughton and Griffin Dune respectively) in the Yorkshire Moors backpacking across Europe. As nightfall approaches (on a full moon), the two take refuge in a local pub filled with an eccentric and slightly paranoid crowd. Before leaving, David and Jack are warned to stay on the road and "beware the moon." While the pub-goers' warnings confuse the two men more than anything, the remarks are suddenly made clear when both are attacked by a vicious creature. Jack is killed but David survives with a few bites and scratches. After David wakes up in a London hospital weeks later, with most of his wounds steadily healing. Unfortunately, David is visited by the ghost of his buddy Jack, who informs him that he was bitten by a werewolf, and as a result, is doomed to transform into the same beastly creature the next full moon. Unaware of whether Jack's visit was in his head or truly supernatural, David ponders his fate as the full moon approaches...

An American Werewolf in London isn't, by any means, a perfect movie, but it is one that hits all the right notes. It's a movie that takes familiar plot points but puts an enjoyable spin on those archetypes. It pays homage to the classic werewolf movies of the past (namely the Universal monster movies of the 1930s while taking it in a different direction with it's sense of humor, updated special effects, and grotesque acts of violence. That's the main thing about this film, it's as funny as it is shocking, often changing it's tone at the drop of a hat. It usually doesn't have the creepy or atmospheric tension of classics like The Wolf Man, but instead goes for it's own distinct charm. One minute you'll be covering your eyes from the bloody monster mayhem while two seconds later you'll be laughing your ass off from some absurd situation. It's hard for a filmmaker to find that fine line between horror and comedy, but Landis' respect for both genres shows, and his direction hits a near-perfect balance of the two styles. The funny scenes have an assortment of perfectly timed jokes and lines reminiscent of his previous comedies (Animal House and The Blues Brothers) while his knack for horror has the tone of a grindhouse horror flick from the 70s. I also have to mention the amusing soundtrack, which features an array of songs chosen simply because they contained the word "moon" in their title. It's that sort of quirky humor that gives this film it's unique style. For this kind of film, that couldn't have worked much better.

While I can't personally say what this film is most remembered for, I think many who saw this probably have fond memories (or possibly traumatizing memories) of it's incredible special effects. Makeup and effects mastermind, Rick Baker, was the man behind these creatures in one of his finest accomplishments (considering his filmography, that's quite an achievement). There are some cool blood and gore effects, mainly involving the ghost of Jack, whose spiritual apparition slowly is slowly decomposing like a corpse. By far, however, his most impressive work in this has to be the werewolf itself, namely in the incredible transformation scene. While many werewolf movies of the past would obscure the Lycan in darkness, trees, or some other object during the transformation, In American Werewolf in London depicts it's sequence in a fully lit room with closeups of every painful and brutal detail. It's by far the greatest werewolf change sequence I've ever seen in a film and has yet to be outdone. As a matter of fact, Baker even won the first ever Oscar for best makeup for this film (a horror film winning an Oscar... that's something you don't see everyday). I will always maintain that the 80s really were the best time for practical movie effects. Special effects had peaked to a point where awesome looking creatures, beings, and deformities could be realized while digital effects still weren't quite convincing enough. It's too bad that CGI has overtaken Hollywood, as while it can be impressive, it often doesn't have the charm or mystery present in great practical effects like American Werewolf's. Oh well, at least we'll always have this movie.

The script, while clever, is kind of a mixed bag. John Landis apparently wrote this script when he was only 19, and his lack of experience kind of shows. As mentioned, it has a good premise and many enjoyable moments, but also throws in some pointless sub-plots and a rather abrupt ending. Not to mention, there are a few plot holes and inconsistencies that I couldn't help but notice. Some are pretty nitpicky while a couple are a bit more obvious. Ultimately the script, while flawed, benefits from some funny scenes, a few scary moments, and a talented cast and crew who provide the flick with it's delicate balance of thrills and fun. So while the movie has a few flaws (another of which is that the camera gets a little too shaky during the werewolf attack scenes), I was usually having such a fun time with it that I didn't really notice most of them until the flick was over. So while it's not perfect, the movie usually works when it needs to and delivers most of the goods.

So that's An American Werewolf in London... and I love it! There are many werewolf films to choose from in the pantheon of the horror genre, so if you're looking for a good one, this is definitely a solid choice. While it may or may not have you howling with screams or laughs, I give it a very high recommendation.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

A Nightmare On Elm Street - Review

As I mentioned in my previous review of Carrie, while that was not the first horror film I had seen, it was the movie that truly got me interested in the horror genre. It intrigued me to say the least, enough so that a few days later I happened to notice that this little gem of a film, A Nightmare On Elm Street, was playing on HBO. While normally I would have stayed far away, I was curious enough to sit and watch the film from start to finish. Needless to say, I made it through the movie, and ever since, my passion for horror films has never been stronger. What was it that made me so interested in this slasher classic? Let's just say "One Two Freddy's Coming For You" and check it out!

The original Nightmare On Elm Street was released in 1984, written and directed by renown horror filmmaker Wes Craven. Already featuring an extensive filmography consisting of acclaimed horror films including classics of the genre like The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, Craven's Nightmare was made primarily to cash in on the slasher craze started by 1978's Halloween. Nightmare, however, rises above the trends and delivered a thoroughly original and suspenseful film that continues to stand the test of time. The film focuses primarily around Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), a high school student who, along with her circle of friends (one of which is played by a young Johnny Depp in his first major role), has been having recurring nightmares of a hideously scarred boogeyman named Freddy Krueger. This terrifying man with horrendously burned skin, wears a red and green sweater, a dirty fedora hat, and a glove with four razor sharp blades. What they soon realize is that if Freddy kills you in your dream, you die in real life. Now, with time as a factor and bodies piling up, Nancy must find a way to stop the nightmarish Freddy before it's too late.

A Nightmare On Elm Street was a big hit back when it was released in 1984. As I mentioned, the film was greenlit mainly to cash in on the 80s slasher flick craze, but manages to take a very different and original direction from predecessors like Halloween or Friday the 13th. While it does keep to some of the typical slasher formula, namely making it's main characters teenagers and including a body count, it managed to change up the standards by adding a supernatural element and giving it's villain a voice and witty personality (unlike the silent killers such as Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers). I'll forever go on record saying that the premise for A Nightmare On Elm Street is one of the most ingenious and creative movie concepts to ever be conceived. This brilliant premise leads to countless possibilities for potentially suspenseful and thrilling scenes. Think about it, when are you more vulnerable than when you are asleep? Even more so, there is literally no limit to what can happen in a dream... absolutely none, and this gives filmmakers tons of freedom to think of amazingly creative nightmare sequences. Make no mistake, this film capitalizes on it's brilliant concept, bringing us some of the most creative and memorable scenes to ever be featured in a horror film. Some are slightly limited by the lowish budget but not by very much. Considering it's financial limitations, what they managed to put together is pretty incredible. The nightmare scenes are scary, thrilling, fun, and incredibly creative... pretty much everything you could want in a horror film. Even more so, the film has an intruiging mystery with some creepy undertones. While the movie and it's twists are, for the most part, commonly known by now, they still manage to give the film some suspenseful and intriguing questions and outcomes that don't disappoint. Overall, it's just a solid story, not much else to say other than it just works.

The cast is a bit of a mixed bag, but overall manages to work well enough. The slasher genre isn't exactly renown for the talents of it's actors, and while I don't think Elm Street will win over too many naysayers, it still manages to include a cast of mostly well above average actors. The film's primary character, Nancy Thompson, is played by Heather Langenkamp with inconsistent but mostly good results. Her commitment to her role is commendable, she does a solid job with the scared victim parts, and brings a solid intensity to the flick. While she has a few bland moments, she still manages to serve the film well and brings a satisfactory presence. Another standout has to be John Saxon as Nancy's divorced father and town police lieutenant Donald Thompson. His distant relationship with his daughter, commitment to protecting the public, and dark secrets add to some of the film's more subtle tension and Saxon sells the hell out of his role. Also, I guess I should mention Johnny Depp's part. This was, of course, Depp's breakthrough role and first step to movie stardom. His role as Nancy's boyfriend, Glen, is okay I suppose, but he doesn't leave too much of an impression here. Nothing terrible but nothing special, obviously he would develop his talent later on in his career.

Though, of course the real reason this movie (and series) became so popular is because of it's villain, Freddy Krueger. This demonic boogeyman is played to near perfection by horror icon Robert Englund. As I mentioned, Krueger played against the standard of horror killers being silent brutes and instead turned him into a scarred monster with a witty personality and dark sense of humor. While that sense of humor would eventually become his key trait in the following (and increasingly sillier) sequels, Englund's presence here is consistently scary. Not only does he kill his victims, but he enjoys the act and feeds of their fear. Even his humorous bits are so dark and twisted, that they're less funny and more disturbing. A few years back, the American Film Institute including Freddy on their list of the 50 greatest movie villains of all time, and it's easy to see why. There are few villains to ever grace the silver screen and make as much as an impression as Krueger. Even to this day, he continues to scare audiences who give this flick a watch.

So that's A Nightmare On Elm Street, and it was and still is awesome. Hands down one of the greatest horror films of all time, it's near-perfect blend of suspense, stylistic filmmaking, and thrills continues to make it relevant. If you haven't seen this legendary scary flick, you owe it to yourself to check it out!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Carrie - Review

For for my first official review in my new horror-themed blog, I figured I'd review the film that is mainly responsible for turning me into a horror buff, Brian De Palma's 1976 classic, Carrie. The film, is an adaptation of the Stephen King novel of the same name (his first published work as a matter of fact) about an outcast teenage girl who discovers that she has telekinetic powers. While I don't necessarily think it's THE best horror film ever made, I definitely consider it one of the best, and easily one of my personal favorites. What makes this little masterpiece so good? Let's take a look, shall we?

Sissy Spacek (in an Oscar nominated role) stars as the 16-year-old high school student Carrie White. She is a shy, quiet, and outcast teen picked on by her classmates and abused by her religious fanatic mother (Piper Laurie, who also received an Oscar nod). After a rather embarrassing incident in gym class, Carrie is taunted by her schoolmates, who harass her to a point making her so angry that she suddenly destroys a light with her mind. After discovering her newfound abilities, she researches telekinesis and learns to control her powers. Meanwhile, following the locker room incident, the gym teacher scolds the students who harassed poor Carrie and properly punishes them. A few of those students, who consider their punishment a major injustice, enact a scheme to take revenge on Carrie at the upcoming prom. Others, who feel guilty over the incident, approach Carrie in an effort to help her. One way or another, prom night will a night to remember... for everyone.

So what exactly is it that I love about this film? Well, not to be too general, but pretty much everything. I love the story, the characters, the actors, the drama, the thrills, the camerawork, and even the subtle comic relief... everything just kind of fits into place. Not only is it one of the best offerings of the horror genre, but I also think it's one of the most genuinely poignant high school movies. It's one of the few teen movies not written or directed by John Hughes to feature themes of teen angst, expectations, maturing, and most importantly, bullying. For all of it's over-the-top moments and not-so-subtle themes, the film surprisingly avoids becoming preachy and even 36 years later, still feels relevant.

The film's biggest accomplishment has to be the cast, namely Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. It's not every day that a horror film scores two Oscar nominations, especially in the acting categories. Spacek's famous performance as Carrie shows her as a victim of her peers, teachers, and mother, trapped in a hell from which she is helpless to escape. It's hard to watch this movie without having at least some sympathy for poor Carrie, and this mainly comes from the natural dramatic range of Spacek. Another thing I love about Spacek is her more homely appearance who, while very pretty, is not some teen pop-star or supermodel. A pet peeve of mine in so many high school films is when filmmakers will take so Maxim model or Playboy-like centerfold, put them in an off-color outfit, fit them with a pair of glasses, and tries to pass them off as their school's resident nerd/outcast. I always found that trope very distracting and typically would have a hard time buying the actor's performance. Spacek had just the right look for the movie, selling herself as an outcast but looked good enough in her prom dress to make the ending work.

As for the remainder of the cast, I've already mentioned how incredible Piper Laurie is in this, but I haven't exactly explained why. Her incredibly over-the-top performance as Carrie's religious zealot of mother, Margaret, is unforgettable. She's such a psychotic Bible pusher, that I think even someone like Mel Gibson would tell her to calm the hell down. That said, if there's ever been a role that needed some good old fashioned scenery-chewing, this is one! The film doesn't have any one villain per se, but Margaret White might be the closest. Her performance borders, and sometimes crosses, the line of camp, but there's no denying that she's an incredibly despicable character who contributes to much of the film's drama, and at the very least, Laurie is absolutely unforgettable. The rest of the cast serves the movie well. Nancy Allen and John Travolta (in one of his first films) have a few memorable scenes as two of the high school's nastier bullies, both adding some tension as well as a few moments of comic relief. Amy Irving shows some decent range as well as Sue Snell, one of the few teens who actually has some remorse for Carrie. Finally there's William Katt (and his awesome blond afro) as Tommy Ross, the good-natured and well-meaning high school jock and Carrie's prom date, who brings his much needed goofy charm to the flick. Overall, it's a pretty spot-on cast, and I don't have any major issues.

In terms of story, it's definitely one of the best the genre has to offer. As I mentioned, the movie is ultimately a character study, focusing on themes of teen angst and cruelty. If you disregard the film's supernatural elements, this story might be one of the most authentic and genuine portrayals of teen life that I've seen. Another issue I tend to have with most high school flicks is that they generally portray teen life via stereotypes and generalizations without ever feeling very authentic. The ones that bother me the most are those that show all teen guys to be borderline alcoholics who think of nothing but getting laid, girls who care about nothing other than fashion and popularity... that kind of thing. This movie, takes the time to actually develop their characters and give them some depth. Oh sure, some are just snobs and/or bullies, but the filmmakers' attempts to actually create a diverse crowd is definitely seen. Better yet, a good chunk of the teens are actually decent people, and not generic one-note jerks. Oddly enough, the adult characters are portrayed in kind of a negative light. While none are extensively "bad" or "evil" (Carrie's mother excluded), most are shown to have some significant character flaws. You have Carrie's mother of course, but in addition there is Miss Collins, the well-meaning if not somewhat tyrannical gym teacher, the smoking principal who forgets Carrie's name, the English teacher who is just as rude to Carrie as her classmates, and a few others. Overall, it's a simple though very well-written story that features good moments of scares, drama, thrills, and light comedy.

All of this goes hand in hand with Brian De Palma's stellar direction. His visual style is excellent, using his trademark eye for cinematography and lighting to deliver a very distinct look creating a believable world with stylistic dreamlike qualities. His ability to balance the film's pacing and mood is pitch perfect too. The film starts off as more of a drama with some light suspense here and there. As the film progresses, it's disturbing qualities slowly ascend, creating light scares and moody moments. The finale is with all hell breaks loose. Carrie's infamous prom scene is by far one of the most terrifying, disturbing, and exciting finales I've ever seen. It's made all the more tragic by the state of Carrie's character by that point (I won't spoil exactly what happens), making it one of the most memorable climaxes I've ever seen in a horror film. The film has a few bloody scenes here and there, but for the most part it's not exactly what you would call "gory." Personally I thought the use of blood and gore was actually pretty spot on. Also, while there aren't too many jump moments, there is one particular point (and I won't dare reveal when it happens) that nearly made me fall out of my seat, and even with repeat viewings when I know it's coming, it sometimes still gets me. A few of the cast members, namely William Katt, do bring some much needed comic bits too to ease some of the tension, fortunately they're not overplayed and usually are brought it at just the right times. It's hard to go wrong with Brian De Palma, and this is no exception.

So that's Carrie, the 1976 horror classic and one of the best offerings of the genre. While I wouldn't call the movie "perfect," since I do admit that the 70s vibes do make the movie seem a little dated. That said, while the retro setting might be a little distracting, I think the movie holds up magnificently thanks to it's poignant story. It's themes and messages still hold true even today, and as long as teens keep facing similar problems and issues, I think this movie will continue to be relevant. I related to it when I first saw it at age 15, and I know many others who have too. What else can I say, but that I just love this movie! If you haven't seen it, go do that!

My Score: 5 out of 5!

It's Alive!

Welcome to my new blog, Horror According To Chris Wyatt! This blog, which will be run alongside my other site, Films According To Chris Wyatt (which you should totally subscribe to at cwyattfilm.blogspot.com), will be dedicated to studying, reviewing, and honoring horror films along with analyzing common themes and tropes seen among the genre. As a passionate fan of all things horror, this is something I've been wanting to do for a while. I figured since it's October and that Halloween is right around the corner, it seemed like a great time to get it started. For my inaugural posting, I thought I'd answer some common questions I'm frequently asked about my thoughts and opinions of scary movies and what I expect to accomplish with this blog.

Why do you like horror films?
I've been asked this question so many times and I always struggle to come up with a simple answer... so here's a complicated one. I admire the genre for the passion typically on display. While it's not uncommon to see a studio throw together some assembly line horror film made for a quick buck, most horror flicks are made with low(ish) budgets and passionate individuals behind the camera pouring their heart and soul into creating a quality film. I also appreciate the way in which horror films can grab audiences attention and trigger a legitimate emotional reaction. Most people, one way or another, have very strong feelings toward horror flicks. Those who love them (like myself) are usually very passionate about the genre while those that dislike them (and there are plenty) often have an intense dislike or aversion to the genre. Both reactions intrigue me substantially. Finally, they're just fun to watch (a good deal of them anyways). Watching a scary movie can be similar to riding a roller coaster. They can be scary at first, kind of daunting even, but at the same time the thrills you experience can be loads of fun, and it's a good way to experience the same kind of thrills and excitement of a dangerous situation without actually being in any real danger. I could probably keep thinking of answers to this question, but that should do for now.

Have you always been a horror buff?
Not my whole life. Actually for most of my childhood, I was pretty terrified of anything even remotely scary. I didn't start getting into horror films until my junior year in high school. It was then that I read Carrie, the novel by Stephen King. I enjoyed it so much that afterward, I had to watch the movie. Needless to say, the film impressed me so much, that I suddenly became very intrigued by horror films and started checking out as many as I could.

What is your favorite scary movie?
I have a few... Rosemary's Baby, Carrie, and A Nightmare On Elm Street (the original) are three of my faves.

Do you have a preferred sub-genre?
Not really. I think the horror films that have made the biggest impact on me are those that kind of blend realistic and supernatural themes like Rosemary's Baby, Carrie, or The Exorcist. That said, I can find something to appreciate in each sub-genre.

What do you hope to accomplish with this blog?
A couple of things. One would be to introduce, or re-introduce, classic and well-made horror films to audiences who may not be familiar with them. I'm also going to be discuss certain perceptions, re-occurances, and stereotypes associated with the genre to either analyze or possibly attempt to debunk them (if I feel they are negative).

So stay tuned and subscribe to the site, I'll have more entries coming soon!