Moved: The 100 Greatest Contemporary Horror Films (I've Ever Seen)

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

The first Friday the 13th along with pretty much every single one of them that I've seen (though to be honest I don't quite know which sequels I've seen by chronological number), have not aged well. I'd give them some more props as early slasher films if Halloween hadn't already nailed down the formula before them, which it did. And I'm not saying that Halloween is absolutely perfect film (it also hasn't aged as gracefully as some might say, IMO), but on the whole I feel like it just did a better job of setting up and following the popular slasher formula that was all too present throughout the 80's and early 90's, and the film just holds up much better for me than any of its contemporaries or follow-ups. Of course, as No-Personality mentioned in one of his write-ups, even Halloween suffered from really shallow supporting characters (like the couple that was basically just there to get killed off), but it still manages to hold my interest thanks to the more complex Dr. Loomis and his relation to Michael.

Anyways, as for your write-ups, they were indeed very interesting and it was nice to see your insite on this iconic horror franchise. While I don't think that the movies themselves are any good, your analysis of them certainly is.

[talonmalon333]

The reason the Friday the 13th franchise has been the most successful might be because the sequels have been much better than Halloween's sequels. Or rather, not as bad.

Still, as far as slasher films go, in my opinion...

Halloween > Black Christmas > The Rest

This doesn't count Psycho (if I were to count it, no other slashers would have a chance at being the best, at all). Despite kind of being the beginning of the slasher genre, I don't see it as actually being one.

So other than that, and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Black Christmas was the first slasher. Or at least, the first noteworthy one. I know opinions on the movie itself are pretty mixed, and I can wholly understand why. But I think it was great. I also think that Halloween was the only slasher that truly built on and surpassed it, and wasn't just a gorefest ripoff.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

The first Halloween didn't even have any gore. It had some blood, and barely even any of that. It didn't have the budget for such grotesque special effects. Its a prime example of most of the horror coming from what you don't see.

[gunswordfist]

Hmm, I need to watch Black Christmas myself. Will put that on my Halloween night list.

[No-Personality]

I saw the frist Friday the 13th a little whiles ago and didn't really care for it. Would I prefer the 8th if I gave it a chance?

I didn't really explain the tone of the film at all or the feeling you get when you watch it, which just might be what makes it the most hated film in the franchise. You'll feel damp when you watch it. That sounds funny because it takes place on a boat, but it's true. It's very successful in making you feel what it shows you. In terms of moist, steam (lots of smoke eminating from heated water), rain, smoke, dark skies. And there's never a happy moment until the end. So, it's not a joyous movie. But I've always loved it for that reason. I think it treats characters intelligently. But, it's also very brutal with them in terms of the fact it's still a slasher film. It has the series' highest bodycount (if you do the proper thing and knock numbers of Part V's list because of dream sequences). I've always thought it was an exciting film. Moreso than the others it's the most serious. And knowing that early on lets me (but I guess I'm in the minority) get involved and care about what happens to the characters.

Also, it was an interesting choice to see you rank an entire series in a slot. Is this the last time we're going to see you do this?

Yep.

[talonmalon333]

The first Halloween didn't even have any gore. It had some blood, and barely even any of that. It didn't have the budget for such grotesque special effects. Its a prime example of most of the horror coming from what you don't see.

Pretty much sums it up. So many slashers, including Halloween's own sequels, try to rip off of it while not realizing what actually worked in it. They basically strip it down to the bare backbones, all the while dumbing it down even further by loading up on the gore.

Hmm, I need to watch Black Christmas myself. Will put that on my Halloween night list.

I did even better than that last year. I put it on my Christmas night list. 8)

[gunswordfist]

Hahahahaha.

[Spark Of Spirit]

The one on the boat... is that the one where Jason punches off that guys head?

[gunswordfist]

The one on the boat... is that the one where Jason punches off that guys head?

The black guy on the building?

[Spark Of Spirit]

The one on the boat... is that the one where Jason punches off that guys head?

The black guy on the building?

His head rolls off the roof, so I think that's the one.

[No-Personality]

#66. Hardware (1990, directed by Richard Stanley)

For all the films of all the decades noteworthy in horror history, none have ever pressed a gun to your head and said, "Welcome to the" (in this case, 90's) nearly as effectively as Hardware (within minute 1, there are harsh laser flashes and flames roasting the opening title). This is another case of a filmmaker who saw the oncoming decade a little differently than it turned out - he imagined it as a wasteland, ala: Night of the Comet's red planet of dust and desolation meets The Terminator's psycho cyborgs and tacky, overloaded heavy artillery - but he also managed to get quite a bit of what would be absorbed by the culture correctly. Mainly in the aesthetic of music videos over the next 7 years. There's no mistaking how far ahead of its' time this was. Far more than the movie's chosen (at that time, paranoid) subject matter, it's fascinating to see the film predict so much of what Hollywood would later shove down our throats (and on a mere fraction of their budgets) in the likes of the Super Mario Bros and Mortal Kombat movies, to name a couple. The film also has a gift for junky mouthfuls of dialogue combined with an outrageous visual style (I call this the Gregg Araki genre, which I love, and he gave us his first violence-laden offering in 1992), and is patient to the point of lethargy yet with breezy and lush pacing. This is actually rare for Hollywood. The film is full of action yet it really takes its' time getting there. As a whole, it most resembles David Cronenberg's Naked Lunch. Another film which came later and cost a small fortune, though an example of a serious experiment for Hollywood with something hardly commercial. What really makes the film work is its' final third. Speaking for me, what makes this such a powerful horror film is the dread you feel watching the killer robot assemble itself. Wires crawl like bugs, only faster. Dismembered torsos crawl too, and it's much creepier than the rebirth scene in Hellraiser without an ounce of monster goop. After that, it becomes a beautiful orgasm of stylistic terror. A typical home-invasion slasher film on techno overdrive. Which adds a little fear of your own home appliances as it expands on Demons 2's mechanical building as hyperlocked deathtrap. It yearns for the sensory wonder of Argento and it fails to imbue the film with the insight of his celluloid dreamscapes. But it does have some hope of crafting a compelling futuristic wasteland. One where the characters can't decide if they're jaded and wise or hopeful and ignorant. A government assassin in the form of a robot (a symbol of misunderstood embryonic humanity in the 80's) goes a long way in arguing the future isn't going to be progress.

#65. The Hunger (1983, directed by Tony Scott)

Every great vampire film of the 80's and 90's focused on an aspect of being a vampire that the movies before never really thought of. 1987 would see two classics, one dealing with the perks of extreme sensory enhancement and the other how fun it is to live it up as a vampire who will forever be young. Both films in my opinion are the definitive vampire films about these subjects. The early 80's was a time for werewolves but soon that trend wore out its' welcome and, when it became clear this was going to be a decade of flash and cheap plastic things, vampires moved in and didn't leave for almost 2 decades. Because they could adapt to changes in style. Because they were always more a reflection of our shared social behaviors. Whereas the werewolf subgenre was apparently so raw and primal, focusing on personal instinct, that it needed to hybernate for awhile. In the end, it never fully resurfaced as something highly marketable and vampires turned into a teen (and tween) cash farm. The road to bringing back the vampire in the 80's seems to start here. Though this film was hardly a success; it definitely bombed with critics. It also retains a checkered reputation to this day due to readings of the film's vampirism as a metaphor for AIDS. Any person may make this claim, though I doubt the filmmakers were thinking about it. The film focuses on monsters who look like humans and live forever. The horror is in the fact that they don't all stay young forever. Which, like the horror of the results of falling apart / aging / slowly dying to the characters in Blue Sunshine, is something difficult to show to audiences on film and make them afraid of it. The easy route is to exploit it for disgust. And it's possible viewers will have that reaction to David Bowie's incredible montage of rapid aging but the film also shows us characters reacting to him. Not explicitly revulsed, necessarily, as pitying and - in the case of an athletic looking young man who sees him watching him change in a mirror - thinking about trying not to think about it ever happening to them. It's not much of a social commentary or in-depth look at disease in the 80's or public attitudes about it. It's a film that shows you the characters have no heart and soul, so you manage to understand the way certain people operated at that time in certain places in America (the film takes place in New York City). You still get the effect of stonecold quiet, partially disinterested, fear of something horrible bringing about weakness without any worn-out ideas of crudely confronting you with violent frustration over dying due to blood poisoning or draining. In a turn that I'm sure will alienate many viewers, the film instead is extremely slow. Which only helps in making you feel the dark side of everlasting life- being hyper aware of loneliness, boredom, confusion, and a hollow world. This is valuable, I think, to combat the idea that the 80's was all one great big party or that living forever is a celebration of eternal youth.

#64. Bride of Chucky (1998, directed by Ronny Yu)

Is it some great form of irony or a big trick the world is playing on me- that the moment horror's silliest franchise (pre-Gingerdead Man) actually attempts some truly inspired character writing for a change, the fan community largely turns its' back on it and cries, "blasphemy!"? All because Chucky is now expected to share the spotlight with a fairly strong female character and the franchise finally brings the humor out of the closet? Well, people are crazy. And, for whatever reason, this film marked the start of a powerful fan backlash (to the point where it took writer Don Mancini 6 years to make another sequel with Tiffany and now 8 years after that, Universal doesn't seem to be sure what's coming next- the remake of the first film or another sequel). It's as though fans weren't aware that the mainstream have considered Chucky a joke for quite a long time. I thought he was scary as a kid. But, I'm not a kid anymore and even I stopped being scared of him before this sequel. Worse still, a lot of people actually think the previous two sequels were better because they attempted to be scarier. Although, really- that one's up for debate. Tonally, they were darker and nastier than this movie. And the first film, as a matter. But the character of Chucky was never interesting, novel, very much fun, or even the slightest bit threatening to begin with. The horror of the first film worked partially based on mystery. And because most of the movie didn't feature the doll cracking a stupid one-liner every 5 minutes. Same can't be said for the 2 films to follow. I can't wrap my head around the fan nostalgia that has seen to rating this lower on IMDb than Child's Play 2, my personal vote for weakest of the franchise. The acting, writing, and ideas of the previous 2 sequels were terrible. I don't know if studio interference is to blame or what but either something in the political and social climate of the mid-to-late 90's or the genre's meta twisting unlocked by 1996's Scream clearly brought out the genius of Mancini. Because this sequel is utterly on the verge of brilliance. Certainly, compared to the previous 3 films- there's no question this is a masterpiece, even if it is no Scream. In fact, what it is is a perfect marriage of Scream and, John Waters' happy homemaker satire of 90's serial killer culture, Serial Mom. While she may be no Kathleen Turner, Jennifer Tilly delivers the performance of her career here and shines in a role most horror actresses only wish they could land. The film's use of her misplaced idol worship of Martha Stewart - to influence her style of offing victims - turns the film into a hilarious skewering of domestic fantasy, giving Chucky the best lines he's ever uttered in retort. And yet, the film doesn't laugh at Tiffany. It laughs at what she's been led to believe in. But it genuinely cares about her hopes and dreams, and the fact that she put her heart and soul into trying to live with Chucky (and remember this relationship started in the 80's- there's a real Child's Play C10 thing going on here). The ending burns things out more than a little but, before that, the film was a perfectly oiled machine for a new kind of pure action-horror entertainment. Smart, funny, dark (enough), yet with heart. And guts... and liver and spleen.

#63. The Company of Wolves (1984, directed by Neil Jordan)

I've seen many difficult horror films in my life and most of them are not easy to appreciate after they've pounced and done their business on you. Nothing about or within the world of The Company of Wolves is simple or cleanly cut. Among other things, it's never completely accessible or easy to digest. It owes films like Suspiria for its' surreal atmosphere (and this is a great deal more dreamlike- defying logic several times) and viewers never exactly know what's going on, and Carrie because both really hold on to their horror and wait a long time before letting go. That's what makes this a film worth trying to respect, after it unloads a mountain of symbolic imagery and implies all sorts of potentially pointless sexual awakening and purity vs wild unknown / motherhood vs unbridled youth stuff on us. The ending, the very last scene, implies a sort of never-ending nightmare apart from the fairy tale center (majority) of the film, but it's also a fascinatingly anti-moral film (in that it doesn't relate a moral it believes has bearing on the female characters). It could be a blatantly judgmental story but instead it really welcomes discovery. It sets up a standard Little Red Riding Hood and has characters warn our Red about the dangers of "straying from the path." But she spends the film ignoring this advice, because through venturing out on her own she seems to learn how to take care of herself. Yet, because this is a horror film, she still comes face to face with danger. But it's not made obvious when to be afraid or what to be afraid of. No scene makes this clearer than when a boring (fancy?) French country wedding party is interrupted by a young pregnant woman who crashes it to curse them all for what happened to her, rather than just the husband. Typical fairy tale roles seem to be reassigned. Not a single character falls victim to simple naivety, no one needs to be rescued by a man. By coincidenece, it almost seems the "Huntsman" from Riding Hood is a wolf here. So the original protector is now a figure of intimidation. Meanwhile, the pool of town cottage-dwelling characters in period are old-fashioned, quiet mannered, and passive. Which I hope makes the audience want to see Red go exploring. I'd bet almost all the horror comes from stable-family complacency. Expecting kids to be automatically well-adjusted if the parents are otherwise content. The modern 80's family in the beginning shows sisterly squabbling at its' most annoying and casually resentful. But that's nothing compared to being shown a vision of family life in the ye olden days- where children slept in the same room as their parents while they fucked. That's something Cannon certainly never showed you in Hansel & Gretel. Again, some horror films are challenging. And hard to defend when the issue is how to derive actual enjoyment from them. Nevertheless, Company remains a thorough work of dark, unique fantasy with strong women, powerful and sometimes sensitive men, and at least one fearless child who makes for a compelling heroine. That's our Red. As a monster movie, it does deliver, albeit... sideways. Tonally, it's pretty creepy. In the right places. Both the greatest period horror film I've ever seen and the best Howling sequel never made.

[Avaitor]

Oh wow, great to see you return!

[No-Personality]

Thanks.   


#62. Squirm (1976, directed by Jeff Lieberman)

As you may or may not know, some people take Mystery Science Theatre 3000 much too seriously. I was warned against purchasing this film on DVD (a blind buy) by a couple of guys who told me this was one of the worst films ever made, would cause me an extraordinary amount of pain, and eventually- that the fact that it was featured on the MST3K program was hard proof that it was an irredeemably terrible film. Nothing good about it whatsoever. I should say it's neither here nor there that after I watched the film and found it to be one of the best bug horror films I've ever seen, I was literally attacked by these guys (online) and that no matter what I argued in the film's favor- they attempted to claim that it had been done before hundreds of times. And this: MST3K are never wrong (yes, I've seen the show- they don't review films, they just make jokes). But I can definitely say that when it comes to polarization on movies a lot of people either think are great or flat-out awful, people will use any critic with a name or following to hopefully justify their lynching. Fact is, without the incredibly bad acting from a large portion of the cast (namely, all but maybe 2 or 3 people)- there's no real leg to stand on in criticizing this film. As director who would go on to make at least 3 more horror films throughout his career (with Satan's Little Helper being the oddest and by far hardest to defend), Lieberman has proven to be a truly underrated talent. And his talent shows in this film at every turn. From (deciding a cheap little bug movie really needs) masterful camerawork and deeply eerie cinematography to... well, not making me care about how bad the acting is. I'll admit that this time around (unlike in Troll 2), it doesn't feel like there's a reason for the many town characters to be so yokel'y. Except perhaps to suggest that no one will miss them when the worms start attacking in large groups. And... I'd be the world's biggest charlatan if I didn't mention one of the biggest mistakes in a film I have ever seen: the board, thrown by Roger, which knocks Mick out in one scene is the thinnest, least heavy piece of wood used as a weapon in a movie that you'll ever see. It wouldn't render a flea unconscious. The director clearly decided anything heavier would be risking the actor's safety. Sitting here right now, I can think of a fool-proof way they could have fixed that problem. After that (which even bothers me a smidge), I remained entirely unphased in my utter impressed...ness at this movie. And it all stems from the director wisely thinking: we've had bug and killer animal movies before, what are they usually missing? A stalker subplot. Which isn't too interesting on its' own, until... this stalker is attacked by a few worms and undergoes a 2-part personality transformation. First, a monstrous-looking madman who attacks like a savage brute. Then later, after being engulfed by a sea of them, he tellingly becomes a kind of leader of slimy, underground creatures. Oh, and how about a spine-tinglingly creepy opening theme song. Sung by a child. A child either playing "the dark" of the lyrics' description or about to be killed by "it" (the dark, standing in for a murderous force; one in these lyrics which comes for the victim like a person). Get away from me, kid!!

#61. Def by Temptation (1990, directed by James Bond III)

Religious or not (when Samuel L. Jackson's character lectures "blessed is the man who endureth Temptation," it's implied that it's too late to save himself), intending any of itself to function as simplistic morality tale or not (and there are a lot of assumptions here on the filmmaker's part that could be drawn: all black men are horny dogs, homosexuality is evil, and that drinking alcohol is a one-way ticket to hell), it must be said that this is far more sophisticated than any other black horror film of its' time. And there were quite a few. The important hurtle to jump is to flesh out the characters beyond stereotypes. This proves to be a challenge with the movie's black Sex and the City, disastrous dating scene, perspective. Men too slick and smooth for their own good, gay guys who are petty and catty, and ultra-unapproachable women acting like royalty. Sweet-talking players bargaining their way into a Fatal Attraction situation, and the classic Come-On Guy, who is only there to strike out yet develops an attitude about it. Sure, this could be a call for responsibility among blacks to be better than the group of Worst Case Scenarios we're shown in the movie's singles bar. Or, it could be a stab at humor. I would say this didn't accomplish anything and the movie's a little better when it's serious, but Kadeem Hardison gets a couple chuckles and the ending gives us a little wink to say it's not all damnation and end-of-days kind of stuff. One very enlightening scene with Hardison gets into discussion of politics' involvement in forming how city people act and react according to how the world teaches them. There's even a "Land of Confusion"-approved rubber/plastic bust of Ronald Reagan which comes to life during the movie's freakiest death scene. Also one of the freakiest scenes I've ever seen in the genre (Troma's good at sniffing these things out). The director is likely blaming things getting so out of control on the irresponsible political climate of America at the time. And it was a good choice to add this argument with so many sex scenes, all of which could be taken as reinforcement of the Joel character's anti-fornication warning. Although, considering how stylishly, luridly, and with such detail the sex scenes and fantasies are shot, I think the movie would simply fail were it mere doctrine. It has an incredible hypnotic side to it. In the way even the most insignificant scene is shot (such as converations in an apartment, where the focus would apparently be the dialogue). In casting, obviously (the film's vampire seductress is the only goddess in the bar on any night). The intelligence with which the scares are delivered (for awhile, before the schlocky final half hour). And how they handle issues like STD's (when her 2nd victim is ready to walk away from their one night stand, she makes veiled references to having given him a disease), though this raises a few questions. How can a vampire give him a disease she doesn't suffer from? Or a demon host a human disease? The theme would appear to be: this is his worst nightmare. I've never seen sex in a film thematically translate into such an ethereal mood and style. From the beautifully haunting dream sequences of the then-unseen Temptation floating around graveyards and watching Joel's family from outside his bedroom window while dressed in flowing black funeral dress, scarf, and veil as they blow in the wind of dark days with overcast skies to the shots of houses and apartment buildings from extreme low angles from their corners, making them look distorted and jagged like a blade. With all that going on, I can forgive the film's few silly spots, such as the overloaded theme of Temptation-seeks-to-conquer all the men in Joel's family line. I don't believe there's anything wrong with being told to fear sex. So long as judgments about the person getting it are kept to a bare minimum.

#60. Phenomena (1984, directed by Dario Argento)

Even though, historically, Argento remains both a former superstar and a deeply respected director in Italy (from 1970 to the late 1990's), there remains a point in his filmography where it seems as though he wasn't always treated as such. It could be a freak incident of poor film preservation as a sign that producers / studio heads allowed his technical skills to hit a low point in the early-to-mid 80's but it would instead appear to be a matter of... budget. That after such an international smash hit like Suspiria, which looks and feels like it cost a fortune, it seems as though Argento was given much less money to turn in Inferno. Yet, for the next 5 years, Argento's films would get even cheaper. And, as a result- grittier, grimier, and nastier looking. Until the point where they begin to consequently feel... a lot like snuff films (it helps when the killer is introduced by being chained to the wall like King Kong and having to break free violently like a monster). Argento's artistry is still as sharp here as ever. But it can't be denied that the cheaper something is, the more it's often criticized. Though it also feels more immediate and sometimes more real. From the late 60's to the 80's, this was groundbreaking. And scared audiences fucking silly. Now- only the serious fans respect it anymore (because, of course, the majority of even lower budgeted international imports from the last decade are intentionally too slick and expensive looking despite their plots often being about torturing people in underground caverns- go figure). But, sadly, a warning is necessary. Because this film and Tenebre specifically have not been treated the same way as Argento's other films on DVD. Likely, again, due to original film budget (or lack thereof). It's nothing short of a shock to the system to put this disc in right after Deep Red or Suspiria given what full audio experiences those are, they really fill the room and everything (Suspiria was a real Fantasia of the 70's, to the point where it was shown mostly in theaters which could handle stereo soundtracks- though they were I believe incredibly rare). This film in comparison, thanks to its' technical restraints, feels like the world's most talented opera singer belting out A-grade work while someone holds a hand over their mouth. Yet, the story of the film's legacy has a mostly happy ending. Because while a lot of the people who worked on the film don't view it as great work (most unfortunately, Jennifer Connelly herself- who openly dissed the film on Conan a few years ago), it's actually experienced a large surge in popularity and upward opinion turn since Anchor Bay released it on DVD. It also remains for me personally, Argento's most fascinating film. Though I think there's plenty to dislike about it (for me, Connelly's character is literally a bit too childish- even for her age), paired with 1993's Trauma, it's the most bizarre motivation for a series of slasher killings in Argento's cinematic bible- a telepathic relationship with insects. But there's also the theory that the malicious winds beaming down upon the film's blackly gloomy girls' school from the Swiss Alps is known to inspire people to go insane. Which would be a natural phenomena in itself, though it's considered within the plot to be an obscure local superstition. The film is full of great ideas, many layered beneath the surface. One scene excised from the film (only to be seen in Michele Soavi's documentary, Dario Argento: An Eye for Horror) features Jennifer Connelly levitating in midair (which of course makes Dalila Di Lazzaro's reaction in the next scene make more sense). And, as something of a 2nd unofficial sequel to Suspiria (going so far as to feature another girls' school with girls the actual age Argento had intended the cast of that film to be), it's noteworthy for having a few of Argento's most enigmatic sequences ever put to film. With the added distinction that they take place in nature (unenhanced by a rainbow of Simon colors).

#59. There's Nothing Out There (1990, directed by Rolfe Kanefsky)

Some people who hate Scream are almost desperate in their attempt to paint that film as the Lady Gaga of horror (aka: an unoriginal rip-off con-artist). One being Thatguywiththeglasses.com's Brad Jones / The Cinema Snob, who ludicrously believes 1981's wretched Student Bodies to not only to be superior but actually a good spoof (I've seen it- it's shit). Others take a smarter path, point to There's Nothing Out There, and say writer Kevin Williamson had to've seen it to have even envisioned the character of Randy the movie geek. Cute theory. But my intuition tells me that a child of the 60's, college kid of the 80's, would not have had the same patience with the video rental era of horror and likely would have grown out of it somewhere around the time of Night of the Demons (when a lot of fans argue the fun began being sucked out of the genre; hell- The Terror Trap was formed on that exact basis). However, they also believe this film's self-reflexive / self-referential quality is superior to Scream's. Is it? No. Not even close. Exemplified by Nothing's movie geek, Mike, this film actually has nothing to say about horror film cliches or characters. It's really just a series of scenes of Mike, with absolutely no real-life motivation to do so, pointing out patterns in their situation that mirror horror film scenarios. Then he proceeds to aggressively berate and mock his friends for not listening to him, even though it makes zero sense for anyone to believe someone when they start screeching "we just passed a warning stage, so turn the car around now." Sure, things would be different if the movie had set up the dynamic of characters believing they might be in a movie. Instead, the movie almost does the opposite and goes for a Rosemary's Baby- is he just paranoid or could he be right(?) sort of thing. Meanwhile, his friends are having a totally understandable "shut the fuck up" reaction to Mike's relentless and kinda whiny ranting. And the movie even makes Mike's best friend a fellow horror junkie who has to pull him aside and tell him he's spoiling things for all fans by making us all look like jerks who want to ruin everyone's good time. And right there, you pretty much have the movie. Forget Mike. Even though he takes over the last 35 minutes (by that time- you've really become invested, find yourself thinking you've just got to see how this ends, and the movie cheats and starts forcing the other characters to make Movie Mistakes). By all accounts, this is a smart movie and knows what it's talking about. But making it work falls somewhere in between the audience siding with the other characters in being annoyed at Mike and knowing that Mike is right anyway even though no one else does. It would be a monumental task if it weren't for the fact that it's also one of the most endurably cheesy and entertaining horror films I've ever seen. It's been in my life for over 18 years (I recorded it when it premiered on Cinemax in summer, 1994- I was only 11) and it remains one of my favorite films. Call it nostalgia but I've seen this pattern in other movies. It requires energy to pull off, ingenuity in its' ideas to get attention, and when you consider it has a fairly strong reputation in general- you can tell it isn't about nostalgia with most other people who found it to be better than what is required given its' origins (direct to video, short of 1 L.A. theatrical showing- mostly for critics). It's another good example of a filmmaker who did my favorite thing and asked- what are most of these kinds of movies missing(?) The answers it came up with won me over.

[Lord Dalek]

Hey at least somebody in Japan was enough of a fan of Phenomena that we got the Clock Tower series out of it.

[No-Personality]

#58. Deranged (1973, directed by Alan Ormsby and Jeff Gillen)

Over the years, I've had an axe waiting to fall on the party responsible for influencing the worst recent trends in horror movies. But... who's going to get it? The Blair Witch Project, for stealing Cannibal Holocaust's "documentary of 3 people shooting a documentary" gimmick (it looks fake but it really happened; not!)? Or every single survival-horror movie borrowing The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's brutality toward its' victims? Or perhaps the fictional retellings of things that really happened- the allegedly / almost never-true story subgenre? Well, prior to Chainsaw, there were two films made in 1972 featuring the true-story angle and victims of killers in dispair and being tortured before they died fads. One of which is Canada's answer to Psycho, the Ed Gein-based story, Deranged. Here named Ezra Cobb, Gein was also the basis for Chainsaw's Leatherface. I don't care much for true stories; if they just happen to be true- so be it. This version of Gein is fascinatingly both played for humor and one of the compellingly creepy dolt characters in cinematic history. Roberts Blossom (Home Alone's kindly Old Man Marley) gives an incredible performance as retarded mama's boy Ezra with his bizarre gyrating lips, twisted mouth, and eyes always bulging out of his sockets- intensely fixated on trying to freeze the blood right in your veins as he stands there. The point of the movie is that Ezra doesn't need social skills to be good at what he does. Which is kill people. Though everyone at some point comments on how crazy (and they mean useless to himself) or ignorant he is (though they are slightly charmed by him), he is a lot more aware and dangerous than he lets on. The same as some people let their guard down with others when they're alone, Ezra shows his methodical, meticulous side with his victims. Where they underestimated him before as sweet and harmless, he turns out to be cunning and cold-blooded. Director Alan Ormsby was a varitable do-it-all guy in Canadian horror. He acted and wrote (his debut was in pal Bob Clark's Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things), did special makeup effects (especially in Clark's Deathdream and Children again, as well as 1977's Shock Waves), and produced, but as a director he didn't have much luck. After this movie, he started directing 1990's Popcorn but was replaced midway. I'm not sure if that was the end of a brilliant career in the genre, but this film shows remarkable promise. Clark saw it and was very unhappy (he said it was too gory) but in the early 70's, gore was a lot more taboo and the original cut of this film included a very graphic eyeball scooping scene (which was on YouTube at one point, then taken down). Deranged is a bitterly cold film, visually. Snow and dead trees, hard gray wooden boards, a lot of farm equipment (all sharp and hard-edged). With a very interesting music score. Unlike Carl Zittrer's almost invisible, wiry scores for Bob Clark's films which featured discordant, jabbing notes on the piano, this one has a real theme (like an echoing of the church organ that plays during the funeral scene) and in addition to the icy, atmospheric piano which makes its' way here too, some almost humorous woodwind instruments. Thematically, it's another fun example of the dangers of backwoods preaching. Ezra's dying, bedridden, bible-thumping mother warns him of people giving themselves over to hard liquor, sex, and gluttony. But after she's dead, he dives into forgetting her harsh words and breaking commandments until he's (unwittingly?) carrying out her dying wish that someone punish people for their vices. Meanwhile, the film offers a balance by showing us the seemingly healthy change in social attitudes of people around him. Deranged is the definitive creeper horror movie, tensely shot with heart-stopping moments of terror (the bear trap scene) and unsuspecting moments of hilarity; "I apologize for callin' you a hog, Mama."

#57. Sleepaway Camp (1983, directed by Robert Hiltzik)

How many times is a rip-off able to surpass the thing it owes its' existence to? Only two films come to mind (Piranha is the other). Friday the 13th had great pieces but as a singular film, never equaled a great whole (that's why the franchise exists). Sleepaway Camp aims lower but nontheless passes with sleaze honors. In the arena of so-bad-it's-good horror movies - bad acting, character stereotypes or costume choices that garner a reputation of their own, expository lines of dialogue that inspire riotous laughter ("Meet me at the waterfront after the social" has become this movie's "Nilbog! It's Goblin spelled backwards!") - this is the only film that comes close to giving 1990's epic Troll 2 a run for its money. It isn't nearly as point-and-laugh outrageous but it actually tries to incorporate more taboo subjects into its peculiar, eyebrow-raise inspiring framework. Gay parents, kids swearing like sailors, having sex, and doing drugs, a creepy fat pedophile (a character born to outshine that freak in Alice, Sweet Alice), full-frontal onscreen nudity with clear view of penis, a romance between a minor and a 50-something adult (not the fat guy), black and latino characters portrayed as cooks and janitors, a transvestite, kids murdering other kids, and pre-Clownhouse tween nudity (both male and female). Despite what's inherently over-the-top about that list of atrocities, it really is quite brilliant. Taking its gender-bending concept to the absolute height of both entertaining absurdity and genuine shock-ability. Part psychological thriller, part camp comedy (and I mean that in every sense), part grotesque slasher film, and part satire. It stages its confrontation scenes of Carrie-esque bickering and tween call-out sessions like an actual soap opera (as well as the inevitable image of two people lovingly petting each other in bed- and to my personal delight... it's two shirtless guys; how'd they ever get away with that in 1983?!). In fact... you might think Sleepaway Camp has Friday the 13th on the brain (as has everyone who's ever panned it). But instead, it takes most of what its inspiration from Carrie. Including a scene-stealing psycho woman performance to end them all (eat your heart out, Faye Dunaway!) from Desiree Gould as the amazing Aunt Martha. With a name that matches the over-the-top stuff she's doing with her swimmy eyes, she alone makes this worth a rental. In terms of "WtF?", she even puts Piper Laurie to shame. Her character has no control over her insanity and so she doesn't completely surpass Margaret White but she easily outcreeps her (and that's a feat in itself with her hiding behind doorways like a mad slasher waiting to strike). It's actually unfair to criticize this movie for bad acting, since unlike Troll 2 (which the director took seriously), that's actually the point. Hiltzik would have had to've been crazy to think he could match Carrie in this department. So, he didn't try.

He and the rest of the movie's characters find a lot of humor in this subject matter. Stereotypes expand like popcorn bags and the satirical possibilites bloom like baby bunnies. Which you can see the camp's vein-popping owner, Mel (B-actor extraordinaire Mike Kellin, known for quality low-budget horror fare like Just Before Dawn and God Told Me To), who is trying to keep the murders a secret to protect his career (his roof-reaching angry tantrums followed by frequent calm "there's no need to upset the other campers" is a good example of how funny his character is) instead of giving a damn about the campers- which he clearly doesn't. A metaphor for the Catholic church? And, the reason to really watch the movie, you have your batch of annoying, foul-mouthed kids acting like grown ups you just want to smack (treated with the utmost dire seriousness in such dramatic / "realistic" being-a-kid-is-being-a-mini-adult flicks like The Bad News Bears and Little Darlings) who all get exactly what's coming to them. The movie's greatest attribute is that, for a nasty and mean-spirited slasher film, there is no sense of tragedy like there was in Carrie. In that film, you were meant to feel sorry for both the killer and the victims. So, what happened in that film wasn't revenge- it was free-flowing wrath-of-God massacre-horror, where no one was spared. This film knows that true Movie Revenge must be sweet to be savored. And by golly, it sure is here!! The deaths are clever and original (only one gives in to cliche, the Psycho-styled shower murder, and that not only has the benefit of gushing blood- it's in color too; I'm not that big a Hitchcock fan anyway). Eventually, everyone who says or does anything morally bad or questionable gets at least beaten up (the most obvious red herring character) for having a pottymouth. So no matter who gets on your nerves, they're going to pay for it (pretty much everyone does anyway). This is also something unique to this one film- I've never found another slasher flick this willing to punish people for being annoying as you actually find them in your real life (methinks the director wrote all these characters based on kids he met in real life summer camp). Even when you like a character and they bite the dust, it's a blast. Which is easily the case for the movie's Mega Bitch- Judy (a girl so full of herself, she actually wears T-shirts with her name on them), whose "she's a real carpenter's dream" line is a freaking scream and one of horror's greatest quotes. Bar none. Then, with a theme song like Frank Vinci's "Angela (You're Just What I've Been Looking For)," as hauntingly beautiful as it is prime 80's ice-pop, Sleepaway Camp is one of the most underrated horror films I've come across. Nothing guilty about it. Miles ahead of its' competition (all the way from Prom Night to A Nightmare on Elm Street's many rip-offs). 

#56. Tales from the Hood (1995, directed by Rusty Cundieff)

HBO truly were a brilliant lot. They, as you probably know, were the company who produced the Tales from the Crypt television show. Through Universal, they managed to also make 2 official movies, Demon Knight and Bordello of Blood, which weren't very good. The first was poorly reviewed, the second bombed financially (and was poorly reviewed). So... entirely by coincidence (or not), they just happened to make 2 other morality-styled, twist oriented horror films in the same basic 3-year span. And they were drastic improvements on the official Tales movies. The latter was a Stephen King adaptation, The Night Flier (which I just acquired yesterday but remains out of print and is only reasonably affordable used). The former no one would mistake for being anything other than a cash-in, spin-off of Crypt- 1995's Tales from the Hood. And if it weren't for the policy that a product of the official series had to be based on something from the E.C. comics, this would be an ideal spokesmovie for arguing a film franchise is viable (instead of the disaster it clearly was and the joke it's been over the years). Spike Lee's involvement may be the reason this was pushed in such a smart, socially confrontational direction. But Lee, or the director chosen to helm the film- Rusty Cundieff, also need to be given credit for recognizing what Crypt wouldn't work without- a goofy but entertaining host (Clarence Williams III, playing a mortician who tells the film's tales through the dead bodies on display in his parlor) and plenty of gallows humor and wacky, over the top situations. The hard truth in each segment comes through despite the overacting or heavy-handed presentation of the serious issues. Then, the 4th segment turns this around and it becomes things like props and technical effects that are a little too Lawnmower Man (I wish I could say that means it's cheesy). But the movie remains fairly focused. The only section that caves completely to silliness is the wraparound, featuring a trio of neighborhood thugs trying to score drugs from a funeral home (the old guy working there just calls them up and says he has some- nothing off about that). From there, the movie wavers in seriousness. The first segment, a victim of police brutality gets revenge from beyond the grave, is rough and un-complex with character and the victim barely feels human. But some dark, macabre style and solid performances from everyone light it up. The second, about a boy tormented by an unseen monster after the death of his father (the twist there should be obvious), is the one that screams "clever." The climax slides into cartoonish violence and almost funny character anarchy (I hope they didn't expect us to be afraid of David Alan Grier) but the director playing the part of a sensitive, concerned teacher helps to anchor the subject matter a little. (And the comic booky image of a person's body twisted up like a pretzel while they continue making threats is something to see.) The third, racist politician takes up residence in former plantation and is attacked by the spirits of former slaves in the bodies of killer dolls, is stalled by Corbin Bernsen's goofily loose performance but remains the creepiest of the four (could be the dolls, or it could be the inhumanly cold supporting cast). The fourth is the best; a gang shooter is forced by government scientists and white psychos to admit to himself he's hateful of his own race. Racial conflict may be an easy button to press but this movie shows it has a skill with it. It can also boast one hell of a music score (by Christopher Young, whose work here is even better than in Hellraiser).

#55. Brain Damage (1988, directed by Frank Henenlotter)

Frank Henenlotter is one of the most unique directors to ever work in the horror genre. Very John Carpenter-esque in his "I don't give a fuck what other people think" attitude, he basically dropped by and then decided to stay in the subgenre most horror fans think Carpenter mastered; body-horror. Both also have the distinction of twice directing competing films finished the same years. And though I expect a great deal of flack for this, I think Henenlotter won both times- with 1982's Basket Case over Carpenter's hugely overrated The Thing (though I'm not saying it bothers me that much anymore that people disagree on this one) and in 1987 with this film over Carpenter's awful Prince of Darkness. However, the theatrical releases of Henenlotter's first 2 films suffered due to bad distribution deals. Those small movie companies of the 80's just didn't know what to do with his freaky stuff. Analysis actually chopped all the horror scenes out of Basket Case and originally marketed it as a comedy. Later, when they corrected this mistake and released it uncut, word-of-mouth spread and the film became a huge 42nd-Street hit as well as the first film to be sold new on videocasette by Media for $20. Guaranteeing Henenlotter a chance for a 2nd movie and later a 3rd. But things didn't get any easier the 2nd time around as the company who funded the movie, Cinema Group Pictures, was sold when the film was finished to Palisades Entertainment, who were very unhappy about owning this property, to say the least, and seemingly went out of their way to ensure it would flop. The reason for that is probably that the film is even more experimental and the market for low-budget film was being taken over by bigger companies. The branding of a name like Empire Pictures over a movie was a safer bet to getting your horror film seen than any of the tiny companies who were going out of business. But being experimental is what has made this something of a considerable blip on the cult horror radar. It doesn't just flash its' strange ideas at the front door- Henenlotter has a magnificent flair for expressing them. From dreamy, hallucinatory imagery to ugly waking-nightmare stuff, the film is part trippy dream-horror (the kind Wes Craven could only tap back into for a few fleeting minutes in 1989's Shocker, in another dream movie involving water) and part shocking return to the real world for gnarly reminders that this is essentially a monster movie about a little worm who burrows into people's foreheads and eats their brains. The film offers a sometimes uncomfortable balance between the visually stimulating sequences and crude humor. Though for being crude, this is about as refined as you're likely to get (presenting a nice break from the Troma routine). There's a Re-Animator-esque visual pun about oral sex, several recalls to Basket Case- mostly with the rundown crackhouse (I mean... "hotel") and people wandering the halls talking agitated gibberish, a strange would-be but-not homoerotic scene in a bathroom shower followed directly by the film's hardest-to-defend scene of a person killed on a toilet (let's face it, Ghoulies 2 mastered the horror toilet scene, didn't it?), and... an unexplainable scene involving a semi-incestuous menage-a-trois. To string this out further, there's another trademark-Henenlotter doomed romance between lead guy Brian and the kid-sister-ish Barbara. Though she doesn't have anywhere near the charisma of Basket Case's Terri Susan Smith, the movie keeps these scenes paced lively so they move along briskly. A rarity for low-budget late 80's horror. Night of the Creeps, Scarecrows... I shudder to say- Blood Diner. When you consider those were the films Brain Damage was competing with, this is exactly what the genre needed at the time. It's a shame it never got the exposure A Nightmare on Elm Street or Hellraiser did because it's that good.