Previously, on Facebook, I updated my status to read:
First of all, welcome to the club. Second, what took you so long? And third ...
There are so, so many really horrible "horror" movies out there, and it's really easy to get suckered into watching something awful at the expense of seeing something awesome. I put "horror" in quotes, because all too often these films are "boo! scary" (relying on someone jumping out of a closet at a predictable time, for instance) rather than actual suspenseful "oh crap, here it comes!" scary, or genuinely "wow, that's creepy and disturbing" scary. It's all to easy to forget that you're supposed to care about the characters you're watching in most modern horror movies (say, since the mid 1980s), since we've seen the plot devices time and again. The characters become disposable.
Fortunately, there are some truly excellent works in the genre that I heartily recommend. Mostly, this list is for my ex-coworker, but if you're looking for a good scare, maybe I can turn you on to something good (or vice-versa! I'll give almost anything a try, as long as I'm in the right mood).
Classic slasher horror:
The original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is one of the greatest horror movies of all time, in my estimation. We didn't know Freddy Krueger's full backstory yet, so he was a mystery. Adding to the creepy factor is that, in this first film of the series, we never really get a good look at Freddy's face, just ominous shadows hidden in the dark under his hat. Like they say, sometimes what you don't see is scarier than what you do. The violence and bloodletting are unrelenting, and unlike the sequels, in which Freddy gets a clever (er, "clever" - it gets old, fast) one-liner in after every kill, the action is not played for dark comedy. Freddy's a bad-ass, he will do bad things to you without thinking twice. And that scene toward the beginning, when he comes down the alley and his arms are about 10 feet long? Still creeps me out to this day. Awesomeness.
I'd also recommend "Wes Craven's New Nightmare", which is, I suppose, considered part of the series ... but it isn't, really. Heather Langenkamp, the heroine of the first film, returns to play ... Heather Langenkamp, the actress who portrays the heroine of the first film. Something evil has taken shape in the "real" world (not the Freddy-verse), but it has taken the form of the fictional character Freddy Krueger. Robert Englund, who played Freddy, plays Robert Englund, the actor who played Freddy. (He also plays the new incarnation of Freddy, who isn't really Freddy.) It's a pretty clever twist on the series, and definitely worth a shot if you're up on the rest of the series.
The rest of the series is utterly forgettable, though. You could do worse, but if you skip them, you're not missing out on a whole lot.
Also directed by Wes Craven, and an obvious choice for this list, is "Scream", which also plays with the concept of a horror movie acknowledging the important role of other horror movies. Very fun, very witty, and very clever, especially on one's first viewing. The two sequels are dreadful, though, and should be avoided at all cost. Neve Campbell is also the covergirl for "Big in the 90s, Honest!" magazine (along with Bridget Fonda). Though highly recommended, one should skip this one until after having viewed other slasher films from the 80s, otherwise the jokes will fall flat or seem confusing.
The scariest slasher film ever is John Carpenter's "Halloween", proof that the boogeyman is very real and very scary. Though just everyone knows who Michael Myers is at this point, it would be shameful of me to ruin any aspect of this film for those few who haven't seen this work of near-perfection, so I won't comment on any specifics. The soundtrack, written by Carpenter himself, deserved an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor. It's that important to the film (and that good).
Again, forget the rest of the series even exists and only watch this one. With the lights off. (And the door locked.)
(A side note: one of the problems I have with the horror genre is perfectly exemplified in this film, awesome as it may be. The eternally cute and perky PJ Soles was 28 years old when she played Lynda, who was supposed to be a high school student in the film. And she looks it. The miscasting of actors who are significantly older than the characters they portray is a major pet peeve for me. I know it's because you can't actually have 17 year olds getting naked on-screen just before they're offed, but still ... if you're relying on nudity to sell a horror movie, the movie probably isn't too great to begin with. Not to be a prude, of course. I love boobs as much as the next guy. And sure, sometimes in the context of a horror movie it's fine and somewhat expected. But if you're relying on it ... ehh, maybe not so much.)
One more from John Carpenter: "The Thing". Kurt Russell plays a scientist isolated with a small band of others in a frozen base in Antarctica when a shape-shifting alien starts to take the appearance of those it has killed. Nowhere to go, and limited resources with which to defend themselves. More "what ... the ... hell ..." moments than just about any other movie I can remember. There's so much disturbing and grotesque imagery, but there's a reason for it, unlike the "guts for guts' sake" nonsense of "Saw" or "Hostel", for instance. ("Saw" and "Hostel" are utter wastes of time, for the record. Terrible stories, bad filmmaking, and shameful excuses for "horror" movies.) Great stuff.
Two overlooked gems by director Neil Marshall:
"The Descent" is the story of a group of female friends who decide to enjoy a "girls' night out" in the form of a caving expedition. Bad things happen. Very bad things. I'm talking "bloodthirsty mutants" bad, with a side order of claustrophobia. The concept of the "strong female battling the evil villain" is not a new one, but it plays out in a fairly original and compelling way, and the story (despite the tacked-on Hollywood ending) is well crafted and intriguing. Not all of the characters are as sympathetic as you think they might be, and each has specific (and well-founded) motivations to justify their actions, unfortunate as they may occasionally turn out.
Also, and in all seriousness, to see this film properly you need to turn the lights off completely. So much of the action takes place in the dark that room lighting may make it difficult to see everything that's going on on the screen. You'll thank me later, I promise (and for once, I swear there's no "gotcha, the joke's on you" punchline. Not only is the subject matter dark, so is the actual film. They're in a cave, dude. Go with me on this.)
"Dog Soldiers" is the best werewolf movie since "An American Werewolf in London". It's also a pretty solid war movie, since it's about a group of British soldiers on a training mission in Scotland who find themselves trapped in a semi-abandoned house when the fit hits the shan. There's a fair amount of gallows humor, and plenty of blood and guts for the gore crowd. I didn't think about it until well after I'd seen the movie, but one of the aspects I really appreciated about this film is that it plays to an audience of adults so well because there are no dumb teenagers doing dumb teenage things and making dumb teenage mistakes in it. You've got hardnosed, tough-as-nails soldiers with a supply of weapons at their disposal, and they're still up shit creek. And hey, one of the characters is named Bruce Campbell, a nod to the man himself. Considering it's got no known "name" actors, a relatively low budget, and a virtually no expectations to live up to, I think it really stands up very well to many of its contemporaries. Also, I'm sure you can find a copy on DVD for less than $5 if you look hard enough. ($5 well spent.)
"28 Days Later" / "28 Weeks Later"
Danny Boyle made a handful of really solid movies before "Slumdog Millionaire", and one of them re-invented zombie films as we know them. "28 Days Later" is a personal favorite (as in "personal top 10 favorite movies of all time" favorite), redefining unrelenting horror in just less than two hours. Boyle insists that the unleashed hordes are "infected", not zombies, but that's all semantics. You get bitten, you turn. That's a zombie movie to me.
Nobody is safe. People you expect to stick around a while? Maybe you shouldn't get too attached to them. People you think you can trust? Perhaps that priest isn't all he's cracked up to be. Think there's nothing hiding around the corner? Don't be so sure. Because you're surrounded, and you're going to have to run. And you'll never be able to stop running or let your guard down, even if you're able to make it to the military outpost that's rumored to exist ...
The sequel, though not directed by Boyle, is also quite strong. The strength of the this film is that it doesn't try to live up to its predecessor (it realizes it would be an almost impossible task), instead taking the story of the outbreak in an entirely new direction. In the first film, you see the very early events that lead to the outbreak, but you're thrust into the story not entirely sure of what happened (though you do, in fact, know it happened to the entirety of London, if not all of England, as a result of science-gone-wrong, 28 days ago). In this film, you see the outbreak as it happens, from "patient zero" right through the re-destruction of London. The first scene, set at the same time but completely separate from the events of the first movie, sets the tone perfectly (and heartbreakingly), and asks you, the viewer, "well, what would YOU do in that situation?"
It's fair to say that you don't need to see "28 Days Later" prior to seeing "28 Weeks Later", but I'd strongly suggest it, just to be safe.
I'm a sucker for zombie movies, I'll be the first to admit. Any fan of the genre will wholeheartedly also recommend "Dawn of the Dead" (the Romero original is a classic, of course, and the 2004 remake by Zack "Watchmen/300" Snyder is surprisingly good - to this day, I think the opening credits are masterful) and the playful-yet-still-zombieriffic "Shaun of the Dead" (which is enjoyable enough on its own, but even better if you're familiar with the films that "Shaun" was influenced by).
You may be asking yourself, "where are the vampires?" I omit them, simply because I can't recall seeing any truly awesome/scary movies with vampires as the protagonists. "Blade" ain't horror. I refuse to watch whiny emo "Twilight" crap. It ain't horror, either. "Interview With The Vampire" wasn't scary.
That's not to say there aren't great vampire stories - they're just not horror the way I define it. I recently watched "Let The Right One In", which was an absolutely gorgeous gem of a movie (soon to be ruined with an American re-make!), and which deserves its own post. It was fantastic. And to my surprise, I've found "True Blood" to be a lot of fun, too. I didn't expect to like it at first, and now I can't wait for new episodes.
So there you go ... a handful of slasher flicks, some cool walking dead films, werewolves, a shapeshifter, and hungry cave mutants. A solid start, I think, for any horror newbie. Enjoy!
Remember when Michael found the dead dove in the bag marked "dead dove" in his fridge on Arrested Development and said "Well, I don't know what *I* was expecting"? That's how I felt watching the "Friday the 13th" remake the other night.A former co-worker responded that she had also just seen it, but that she was a relative newcomer to the "horror realm", and that she was "now addicted".
First of all, welcome to the club. Second, what took you so long? And third ...
There are so, so many really horrible "horror" movies out there, and it's really easy to get suckered into watching something awful at the expense of seeing something awesome. I put "horror" in quotes, because all too often these films are "boo! scary" (relying on someone jumping out of a closet at a predictable time, for instance) rather than actual suspenseful "oh crap, here it comes!" scary, or genuinely "wow, that's creepy and disturbing" scary. It's all to easy to forget that you're supposed to care about the characters you're watching in most modern horror movies (say, since the mid 1980s), since we've seen the plot devices time and again. The characters become disposable.
Fortunately, there are some truly excellent works in the genre that I heartily recommend. Mostly, this list is for my ex-coworker, but if you're looking for a good scare, maybe I can turn you on to something good (or vice-versa! I'll give almost anything a try, as long as I'm in the right mood).
Classic slasher horror:
The original "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is one of the greatest horror movies of all time, in my estimation. We didn't know Freddy Krueger's full backstory yet, so he was a mystery. Adding to the creepy factor is that, in this first film of the series, we never really get a good look at Freddy's face, just ominous shadows hidden in the dark under his hat. Like they say, sometimes what you don't see is scarier than what you do. The violence and bloodletting are unrelenting, and unlike the sequels, in which Freddy gets a clever (er, "clever" - it gets old, fast) one-liner in after every kill, the action is not played for dark comedy. Freddy's a bad-ass, he will do bad things to you without thinking twice. And that scene toward the beginning, when he comes down the alley and his arms are about 10 feet long? Still creeps me out to this day. Awesomeness.
I'd also recommend "Wes Craven's New Nightmare", which is, I suppose, considered part of the series ... but it isn't, really. Heather Langenkamp, the heroine of the first film, returns to play ... Heather Langenkamp, the actress who portrays the heroine of the first film. Something evil has taken shape in the "real" world (not the Freddy-verse), but it has taken the form of the fictional character Freddy Krueger. Robert Englund, who played Freddy, plays Robert Englund, the actor who played Freddy. (He also plays the new incarnation of Freddy, who isn't really Freddy.) It's a pretty clever twist on the series, and definitely worth a shot if you're up on the rest of the series.
The rest of the series is utterly forgettable, though. You could do worse, but if you skip them, you're not missing out on a whole lot.
Also directed by Wes Craven, and an obvious choice for this list, is "Scream", which also plays with the concept of a horror movie acknowledging the important role of other horror movies. Very fun, very witty, and very clever, especially on one's first viewing. The two sequels are dreadful, though, and should be avoided at all cost. Neve Campbell is also the covergirl for "Big in the 90s, Honest!" magazine (along with Bridget Fonda). Though highly recommended, one should skip this one until after having viewed other slasher films from the 80s, otherwise the jokes will fall flat or seem confusing.
The scariest slasher film ever is John Carpenter's "Halloween", proof that the boogeyman is very real and very scary. Though just everyone knows who Michael Myers is at this point, it would be shameful of me to ruin any aspect of this film for those few who haven't seen this work of near-perfection, so I won't comment on any specifics. The soundtrack, written by Carpenter himself, deserved an Oscar nomination for best supporting actor. It's that important to the film (and that good).
Again, forget the rest of the series even exists and only watch this one. With the lights off. (And the door locked.)
(A side note: one of the problems I have with the horror genre is perfectly exemplified in this film, awesome as it may be. The eternally cute and perky PJ Soles was 28 years old when she played Lynda, who was supposed to be a high school student in the film. And she looks it. The miscasting of actors who are significantly older than the characters they portray is a major pet peeve for me. I know it's because you can't actually have 17 year olds getting naked on-screen just before they're offed, but still ... if you're relying on nudity to sell a horror movie, the movie probably isn't too great to begin with. Not to be a prude, of course. I love boobs as much as the next guy. And sure, sometimes in the context of a horror movie it's fine and somewhat expected. But if you're relying on it ... ehh, maybe not so much.)
One more from John Carpenter: "The Thing". Kurt Russell plays a scientist isolated with a small band of others in a frozen base in Antarctica when a shape-shifting alien starts to take the appearance of those it has killed. Nowhere to go, and limited resources with which to defend themselves. More "what ... the ... hell ..." moments than just about any other movie I can remember. There's so much disturbing and grotesque imagery, but there's a reason for it, unlike the "guts for guts' sake" nonsense of "Saw" or "Hostel", for instance. ("Saw" and "Hostel" are utter wastes of time, for the record. Terrible stories, bad filmmaking, and shameful excuses for "horror" movies.) Great stuff.
Two overlooked gems by director Neil Marshall:
"The Descent" is the story of a group of female friends who decide to enjoy a "girls' night out" in the form of a caving expedition. Bad things happen. Very bad things. I'm talking "bloodthirsty mutants" bad, with a side order of claustrophobia. The concept of the "strong female battling the evil villain" is not a new one, but it plays out in a fairly original and compelling way, and the story (despite the tacked-on Hollywood ending) is well crafted and intriguing. Not all of the characters are as sympathetic as you think they might be, and each has specific (and well-founded) motivations to justify their actions, unfortunate as they may occasionally turn out.
Also, and in all seriousness, to see this film properly you need to turn the lights off completely. So much of the action takes place in the dark that room lighting may make it difficult to see everything that's going on on the screen. You'll thank me later, I promise (and for once, I swear there's no "gotcha, the joke's on you" punchline. Not only is the subject matter dark, so is the actual film. They're in a cave, dude. Go with me on this.)
"Dog Soldiers" is the best werewolf movie since "An American Werewolf in London". It's also a pretty solid war movie, since it's about a group of British soldiers on a training mission in Scotland who find themselves trapped in a semi-abandoned house when the fit hits the shan. There's a fair amount of gallows humor, and plenty of blood and guts for the gore crowd. I didn't think about it until well after I'd seen the movie, but one of the aspects I really appreciated about this film is that it plays to an audience of adults so well because there are no dumb teenagers doing dumb teenage things and making dumb teenage mistakes in it. You've got hardnosed, tough-as-nails soldiers with a supply of weapons at their disposal, and they're still up shit creek. And hey, one of the characters is named Bruce Campbell, a nod to the man himself. Considering it's got no known "name" actors, a relatively low budget, and a virtually no expectations to live up to, I think it really stands up very well to many of its contemporaries. Also, I'm sure you can find a copy on DVD for less than $5 if you look hard enough. ($5 well spent.)
"28 Days Later" / "28 Weeks Later"
Danny Boyle made a handful of really solid movies before "Slumdog Millionaire", and one of them re-invented zombie films as we know them. "28 Days Later" is a personal favorite (as in "personal top 10 favorite movies of all time" favorite), redefining unrelenting horror in just less than two hours. Boyle insists that the unleashed hordes are "infected", not zombies, but that's all semantics. You get bitten, you turn. That's a zombie movie to me.
Nobody is safe. People you expect to stick around a while? Maybe you shouldn't get too attached to them. People you think you can trust? Perhaps that priest isn't all he's cracked up to be. Think there's nothing hiding around the corner? Don't be so sure. Because you're surrounded, and you're going to have to run. And you'll never be able to stop running or let your guard down, even if you're able to make it to the military outpost that's rumored to exist ...
The sequel, though not directed by Boyle, is also quite strong. The strength of the this film is that it doesn't try to live up to its predecessor (it realizes it would be an almost impossible task), instead taking the story of the outbreak in an entirely new direction. In the first film, you see the very early events that lead to the outbreak, but you're thrust into the story not entirely sure of what happened (though you do, in fact, know it happened to the entirety of London, if not all of England, as a result of science-gone-wrong, 28 days ago). In this film, you see the outbreak as it happens, from "patient zero" right through the re-destruction of London. The first scene, set at the same time but completely separate from the events of the first movie, sets the tone perfectly (and heartbreakingly), and asks you, the viewer, "well, what would YOU do in that situation?"
It's fair to say that you don't need to see "28 Days Later" prior to seeing "28 Weeks Later", but I'd strongly suggest it, just to be safe.
I'm a sucker for zombie movies, I'll be the first to admit. Any fan of the genre will wholeheartedly also recommend "Dawn of the Dead" (the Romero original is a classic, of course, and the 2004 remake by Zack "Watchmen/300" Snyder is surprisingly good - to this day, I think the opening credits are masterful) and the playful-yet-still-zombieriffic "Shaun of the Dead" (which is enjoyable enough on its own, but even better if you're familiar with the films that "Shaun" was influenced by).
You may be asking yourself, "where are the vampires?" I omit them, simply because I can't recall seeing any truly awesome/scary movies with vampires as the protagonists. "Blade" ain't horror. I refuse to watch whiny emo "Twilight" crap. It ain't horror, either. "Interview With The Vampire" wasn't scary.
That's not to say there aren't great vampire stories - they're just not horror the way I define it. I recently watched "Let The Right One In", which was an absolutely gorgeous gem of a movie (soon to be ruined with an American re-make!), and which deserves its own post. It was fantastic. And to my surprise, I've found "True Blood" to be a lot of fun, too. I didn't expect to like it at first, and now I can't wait for new episodes.
So there you go ... a handful of slasher flicks, some cool walking dead films, werewolves, a shapeshifter, and hungry cave mutants. A solid start, I think, for any horror newbie. Enjoy!
1 comment:
Well, I have been dabbling in the horror genre since I told you I somehow became hooked. But after your post, I went out and rented even more movies and got a good flood of more this weekend. Amazingly, this only wetted my appetite for more. I honestly never thought I’d be the girl who was purposely watching horror films. And to answer your question, I have no idea what took me so long. I guess I never saw the fun in them until I actually watched one.
Ok, here’s my look into the horror world so far…..
Friday the Thirteenth, 2009: First one of the horror films. Lots of unnecessary boobs and I hate almost all the characters. But most of the people I didn’t like died and had some pretty awesome deaths. I did literally burst out laughing in the theatre though when the jock dude screamed like a girl. AWESOME! But overall, I found Jason a terrifying yet sympathetic killer.
Friday the Thirteenth, the original: I knew a lot about that movie and how it ended due to Nic (boyfriend who introduced me to the new addiction) having to explain the back story to the new movie. Knowing what was going on and what was going to happen, I was still utterly terrified. But I like Jason. He’s semi-sympathetic………until he hacks your head off.
The Descent: Freaky freaky little creatures! Seriously, not ok with those little things, whatever the hell they were. Nasty. The characters were mostly unlikable and annoying though. It makes it difficult to care when or how they die. Still a freaky movie though.
Freddy vs. Jason: Definitely don’t like Freddy Krueger. Nothing even remotely likeable about him and the entire movie I was on edge trying to figure how in the world you kill someone in your dream. I ended up heavily on Jason’s side. He’s like a big kid who doesn’t really understand that he’s killing people. But I was rather unsympathetic to most of the characters accept the first guy who says “One, Two, Freddy’s coming for you”. Overall, decent movie.
Nightmare on Elm Street: I think the idea of Freddy Krueger is absolutely terrifying. The term “It’s just a bad dream” no longer applies. You have to sleep and eventually he’s going to get you. And, like I said before, there is nothing remotely likeable about his character. He is pure freaking evil. However, I did find the movies little more humorous at times than I wanted to. I know the chase scene down the alley with his long arms is supposed to be scary, and if it happened to me I’d be terrified, but his run with long arms was so hilarious to me I laughed. I still keep mimicking it because it was funny. And the way some of them died was a little weird. Ok, just the way the one kid got sucked into the bed. Instead of being sad or freaked out, I was like “Um….that’s just weird”. But overall, the movie was descent and I’d watch it again.
Prom Night: The first one with Jamie Lee Curtis is what Nic calls “classic slasher”. I guess that makes sense since you really didn’t get to know many of the characters before the killing started and I really didn’t like many of them. And what was with the 7 minute random dance scene?? Overall though, I kinda liked it. Just simple, basic killings, and it has you asking “what is going on?” through a lot of the movie. I’m a fan of yelling “Run stupid girl!” and that is made easy with this film.
Halloween: I think I’m going to be a Michael Myers fan. Sympathetic character yet absolutely terrifying and you really just want someone to kill him. Some irritating characters, but I think that is the point. I loved Laurie in the movie. She was easy to like and care about. John Carpenter did an EXCELLENT job of the music. It makes you feel uneasy and is perfect. Plus I love the simplicity of the way Michael Myers shows up. No bloody mess, or jumping out of a closet. Just standing there. So freaking creepy!
Wolf Creek: WTF?! Apparently I did not need to sleep tonight. That movie scared the crap out of me and now I refuse to ever go to Australia!
Next on the list….Carrie and The Thing.
Post a Comment