Three Decades of David: The Movie That Changed Werewolf Movies (And Horror!)

In 1981, the werewolf movie was dead in the water. Done and done. A curious relic of horror history. And then, along came John Landis' landmark An American Werewolf in London, and the game was immediately changed forever.

So much change was brought into being as a result of this movie, in fact, that we often may take it for granted and not fully appreciate the amount of evolution it lent the ailing subgenre. Let's take a look at just a few of the ways that An American Werewolf in London transformed lyncanthrope cinema--and along the way, the entire horror category.

FROM WOLF MAN TO MAN WOLF

Prior to AWIL, the movie werewolf was a curious creature, who was actually not very much of a wolf at all. Rather, as he was best described in the 1941 Lon Chaney Jr. classic, he was more of a "wolf man"--that is to say, a humanoid being with some of the more fearsome qualities of a wolf tacked on for horrific effect. This was not at all in line with the creature as described in traditional folklore, but it was necessitated by the level of makeup and special effects technology available in those early days of film.

It was a lot easier to take someone like Chaney or Henry Hull and add some lupine features--some fur and fangs, maybe a dog-like nose or ears. This is not to denigrate the work of such legends as Jack Pierce, but the fact remains that the werewolves depicted in movies prior to AWIL were much more man than wolf.

By the time we get to Landis' masterwork, and the contributions of that film's effects wizard, Rick Baker, we've got a whole different monster on our hands. For the first time, a werewolf was created that actually looked more like a monstrous wolf than a hairy dude in ripped clothes. The wolf we see here is not a true wolf like we would find in the natural world, but rather a demonic creature that is decidedly lupine in nature, but with a very cruelly human intellect behind its animalistic violence.

An American Werewolf in London stressed the wolf in werewolf, and set a trend that would be commonly followed in many other horror films. Sure, the "wolf man" template would still be replicated many times, but Baker demonstrated that it was possible for a human character to transform into a true wolf-like being.

DRAMATIC CHANGE... LITERALLY

Again, not to cast aspersions on the work of some of Hollywood's finest special effects geniuses, but what passed for a werewolf transformation on screen prior to An American Werewolf in London is very different from what audiences came to expect as a result of it. The time lapse photography work and other of Pierce's techniques seen in films like The Wolf Man and Werewolf of London were impressive for their time, and are still a hoot to watch, but remained within a boundary of what could be accomplished then--a boundary that would be shattered by Baker and company.

Starting with AWIL, the metamorphosis scene became something of a centerpiece of a werewolf film, the money shot that audiences waited for. It became a much more dramatic, intense, drawn out special effects extravaganza. David Naughton's transformation is an involved affair--a tense and nightmarish explosion of kinetic energy that is a far cry from Lon Chaney passively sitting in a chair as hair sprouted from his face.

It was also important to both Landis and Baker that the audience understand the pain involved in turning into a werewolf. Apparently, it hurts like hell to change into a monster--which would make sense, although it should be pointed out that the original folklore stresses the transformation as magical and not physical, thus no real pain. Still, thanks to the efforts of Landis and Baker, we get a sense of every cracking bone, popping sinew and contorting limb. The modern werewolf is thus a strange cross-breed of the enchanted and the biological.

WEREWOLVES AND POST-MODERNISM

From very early on, we understand that the characters in An American Werewolf London live in a world with all the same references we have. All the werewolf movies we know and love exist in this world; everyone knows the rules. References to movies such as The Wolf Man are made throughout the film, and in fact David explains how Larry Talbot had to be killed by his own father--someone who loved him--foreshadowing his own end at the hands of his girlfriend Alex.

A decade and a half before Scream, and nearly a quarter of a century before Shaun of the Dead, AWIL gave us post-modern irony in horror. We have characters who know the score--unlike characters from earlier horror flicks, who seem to live in a plastic bubble in which horror flicks don't exist. This self-referential style may be the single most influential contribution that An American Werewolf in London made to the history and development of the horror genre.

Not just one of the greatest horror movies ever made, An American Werewolf is smart horror. It turned its own subgenre and the entire genre on its head, and we've been feeling the effects ever since. It revived the werewolf for decades to come, giving it a whole new spin and a literal rebirth in the process. How fitting, that a concept based largely on the theme of transformation would be so profoundly transformed.

Tweet

The Shadow of Samhain: Putting the Christ in... Halloween?

Welcome back, Halloween-heads, to The Shadow of Samhain series here in The Vault of Horror. This time, I bring you the first of a series of special guest posts. Joining us for the initial one is one of the most fascinating and well-rounded horror bloggers you're likely to ever encounter, John W. Morehead of Theofantastique.

John is an avid student of both speculative fiction, as well as religion in popular culture, and always manages to combine the two areas in a most captivating fashion. This piece is no exception either, as Mr. Morehead dives headlong into the love-hate relationship between Christianity and Halloween, and how it dates back to the conversion of what was, for centuries, a pagan holiday...

The month of October has finally arrived and soon it will conclude with Halloween. For those of us who are huge fans of the holiday it couldn’t have come sooner. In fact, I’ve been hitting various store locations looking for decorations and memorabilia since late August. It may come as a surprise to many, but Halloween is very popular in my Utah cultural context, and it is not uncommon to find a few Halloween items shortly after the Fourth of July in select stores.

But this time of the year also provides an opportunity to probe this fascinating holiday in a little more depth. It is the second largest retail sales holiday in the country, second only to Christmas, and it is usually either loved or demonized depending upon the understanding of its background, history, and symbolism. With this post I will bring some historical and cultural considerations to bear on the evolution and development of this mutating festival as it has worked its way through various cultures. One of the areas that I am interested in is how the holiday has been influenced by Christianity. It is not uncommon to find many Christians opposed to Halloween due to concerns over its pagan origins, and during this time of year the rhetoric against the holiday ratchets up, particularly among Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists. But as I will touch on below, this has not always been the case as Christianity has embraced and influenced various elements that make up the history of Halloween in its diverse manifestations.

Halloween as we celebrate it in the modern period in the West is a popular derivative of All Hallow Even or the eve of All Saints’ Day celebrated on November 1 on the Christian calendar. It is celebrated together with All Souls’ Day on November 2. Its earliest origins, and those usually cited by Protestants, are found in the Celtic festival from Ireland of Samhain, pronounced “sow-in” and meaning “summer’s end.” It was a seasonal and agricultural festival associated with the transition from summer to fall. Concerned Protestants often claim that the Celtic festival was associated with animal or human sacrifice. Although this cannot be completely discounted since it appears that elements of this were featured in the festival as the Druids practiced it, the festival largely served as a festival of the dead (although not specifically), and as a time of supernatural intensity heralding the onset of winter. It was also a borderline festival that took place between the autumn equinox and the winter solstice. Celtic lore discusses it as a boundary between summer and winter, light and darkness. Understood in this way it functioned as a “liminal” festival, a moment of ritual transition.

As significant as the pagan origins are to what we celebrate as Halloween, there are also Christian elements that have played a part. These come initially from Catholicism in the British Isles and elsewhere through its festive rites. This included ritual practices that were developed with the medieval holy days of All Souls’ and All Saints’ Day. It was an important part of Christian year, marked by high masses and prayers. These activities honored the saints and martyrs of the church, and affirmed the collective claims that the dead had on the living. Various church rituals included the ringing of bells, using flowers to decorate the houses of the dead, visits by family and friends to the dead, clergy processions to graveyards, and devotional offerings of holy water, milk or food at gravesides. Other developments during this period were also important in contributing to our contemporary Halloween, including the significance of All Saints’ and All Soul’s Day to children and young adults, and that it served as the season of masking and impersonation. Of course, these practices are reflected in Halloween as a time of costuming by children in our time.

As the festival continued its journey through cultures in history it arrived in England and it became connected to the time of Hallowtide. Hallowtide involved various fire rituals, including torchlight ceremonies to honor the dead. In addition to fire rituals, “souling” was an important practice. This involved taking bread or soul cakes that were distributed to relatives and poor neighbors who offered to pray for souls in purgatory.

Souling is important in understanding Halloween in that it involved individuals moving door to door asking for food in return for prayers for the dead (they used hollowed-out turnip lanterns with a candle for light), and it is the practice of souling that enabled this English Hallowmass practice to survive the effects of the Protestant Reformation.

It is at this juncture that Protestants would do well to engage in some self-reflection at this time of year. Although Hallowtide was practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, it came under attack in England with the Protestant Reformation. Protestants had concerns about the inclusion of purgatory in their celebration of dead saints, and they took exception to its ritualism. After the Reformation there was no common set of ritual practices that marked this seasonal event.

But given this slice of history, and the influence and participation of certain branches of Christendom in the development of what we know today as Halloween, it is curious that many Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists find the holiday so objectionable. Here a little historical amnesia seems to be operative. As the historian Ronald Hutton has stated, for Protestants one of the arguments against Halloweeen is

"that it is essentially unchristian ... a Christian feast of the dead is thoroughly embedded in the history of Hallowe'en and that its legacy is usually impossible to distnguish from that of paganism in the practices and associations of the night. It is of course maintained by what is still by far the largest of the world's churches, the Roman Catholic. To describe the feast as fundamentally unchristian is therefore either ill-informed or disingenuous."

I keep hoping that one year Protestants might dig a little deeper on the history of this holiday, and that they might recognize the influence of their own religious tradition in its development. It would also be nice to see an embrace of a feast of the dead within Protestantism, but that might be asking too much. But that won’t stop some of us from enjoying this rich holiday whatever its origins and influences.

Tweet

21st Century Terrors, Part 9: 2008

Welcome back, after quite a long hiatus, to the Vault's rather exhaustive look back at the decade of horror cinema that ended last December. It's probably for the best anyway, since the more distance that accumulates, the easier it is to properly judge exactly what it was that went down, and exactly what it all meant. When last we left off, we found ourselves smack dab in the middle of the late '00s, right at the moment when the remake craze had truly strapped the horror genre to the speedboat like Fonzie...

One of the decade's most egregious remake offenses occurred this year, when American filmmakers took what had been one of the most talked about foreign films of the previous year, [REC], and turned it into Quarantine, a virtual scene-for-scene English translation of the Spanish original, with Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter in the lead role. It was a very cynical affair, too, with the Spanish version being purposely withheld from home video or theatrical release in America until the inferior remake had had a chance to run its course with a public who generally believed it to be an original work.

Quarantine may have been the most obvious and most cynical of the bunch, but it was far from the only. Alexandre Aja, who had previously given us the admittedly well-made redo of Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes, this time dished up the Keifer-Sutherland vehicle Mirrors, a remake of the 2003 South Korean film Into the Mirror. Jessica Alba headlined The Eye, a vastly inferior rehash of a 2002 flick out of Hong Kong. And the utterly inane One Missed Call, taken from a 2003 Japanese movie, assaulted our senses as well. The bankruptcy of ideas was reaching epic proportions.

But it didn't end there. Cult classics and long-time favorites of American horror cinema continued to be liberally raped, as well. Take the PG-13 version of Prom Night, which took an enjoyable little Jamie Lee Curtis slasher of the early 1980s and turned it into something that could've aired in prime time on Nickelodeon. And then, although it pains me to even bring it up, there was the tragically wrong-headed remake of George Romero's Day of the Dead, undertaken by '80s veteran Steve Miner, who should've known better. The less said about that abortion, the better.

But although the heyday of the early-to-mid portion of the decade was decidedly over, there was still enough original, engaging material out there to keep the die-hard fans entertained, even while the masses were being spoon-fed Hollywood's easily digestible pap. For example, for those savvy enough to seek it out, there was The Midnight Meat Train, a grim and unrelenting adaptation of one of Clive Barker's classic short stories that stands as possibly the finest Barker screen adaptation since Hellraiser (superior in fact, if you ask this blogger.)

And although they divided fans--as most horror films of the recent past always seem to do--films like The Strangers and The Ruins were fresh and interesting enough to provide some relief from the onslaught of garbage. The former, borrowing liberally from the grand tradition of home invasion cinema, was a taut psychological thriller that threw in a sprinkling of torture porn sensibility for good measure. And the latter, an adaptation of the wildly successful 2006 novel by Scott B. Smith (author of A Simple Plan, brilliantly adapted by Sam Raimi in 1998), took the painfully trite teen horror sub-genre and gave it a much-needed supernatural kick in the ass.

On its last legs, the zombie subgenre offered up Dance of the Dead, an endearing take on some well-worn territory that managed to succeed by grafting familiar tropes into a high school setting, resulting in something like a John Hughes-esque response to Shaun of the Dead. And although nowhere even approaching the sublimity that rom-zom-com achieved, this one at least gave us some hot zombie sex, and cemented Pat Benatar's "Shadows of the Night" as one of the most memorable rock songs ever featured in a horror film.

But of course, no discussion of horror film in 2008 would be complete without bringing up Darren Lynn Bousman's Repo! The Genetic Opera, one of the most unique, confounding, and possibly ingenious movies to hit the genre in some time. A bold rock opera with a star-studded cast, it scores major points for effort and originality, even if the finished product is admittedly not without significant flaws. Most impressively of all, however, is the way the film managed to become more of a cultural event than most horror films do these days--even if that status was achieved in a much more carefully orchestrated and less organic manner than with such films as The Rocky Horror Picture Show, for example.

And then, there was Let the Right One In. The film, which for my money, was the most memorable, best-made and most evocative the horror genre gave us for the entire decade. Yes, it was not entirely a horror movie, but whatever it was, this unique Swedish adaptation of the vampire novel of the same name was a damn fine motion picture. Standing out head and shoulders in the crowd of mediocrity that was 2008, Let the Right One In was the kind of film that reminded many--this blogger included--of not only why they love horror film in the first place, but why they love film, period.

The touching tale of Oskar and Eli, the young mortal boy and the otherwordly vampire girl with whom he falls charmingly and platonically in love, LTROI was the finest of all the foreign horror that washed ashore during this period. It may also very well be one of, if not the best vampire film ever made. If the 2000s in horror is remembered for nothing else at all, it will always be remembered for giving us Let the Right One In.

With the decade creaking to a close, the horror genre was stumbling toward the '10s with all the grace of an unraveling mummy. There were gems to be found, no question--it was just taking more and more effort to look for them. But for those willing to trudge through the muck spewed forth by the remake machine, it was still a pretty decent time to be a horror fan. And fans certainly had more than enough movies over to which argue vociferously--and if that's not what being a fanboy is all about, I don't know what is.

Also in 2008:

• Saw V
• Shutter
• Splinter
• Teeth
• Zombie Strippers

Part 1: 2000
Part 2: 2001
Part 3: 2002
Part 4: 2003
Part 5: 2004
Part 6: 2005
Part 7: 2006
Part 8: 2007

Tweet

Hump-Day Harangue: Whither the Horror Movie Icon?

Vault dwellers, allow me to take you back to an earlier time in the history of our fair genre. Go ahead and hop in the Delorean--just watch your head on the door, I don't know what genius designed it that way, but what are you gonna do? Anyway, we're headed back to a simpler, more innocent time, when horror was dominated my living legends, by giants who walked among us and filled our minds with delicious nightmares, fusing their very personae with the essence of the genre itself. This is the age of the horror icon.

Our first stop is the 1920s, when a brilliant actor and makeup artist by the name of Lon Chaney became horror's first bona fide movie star. After his star faded and the industry entered the age of sound, Universal gave us the likes of Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Lon's baby boy to continue the tradition, populating the terror landscape with a platoon of unforgettable movie monsters. In later decades, the likes of Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and of course, the one and only Vincent Price ensured that the cult of the horror icon remained undead and well.

But then something happened. Something changed with the onset of what we now call the "modern era" of horror. For the benefit of creating a handy cutoff point, let's say that from the 1980s onward, the phenomenon of the horror movie icon suffered a swift decline. Sure, there were still actors making their living in the horror genre. But icons? In the sense of the folks mentioned above? Hardly.

Who have we been given over the course of the past 30 years to match the majesty of the likes of Karloff, Price, Cushing, et al? I ask this as an honest question. Am I, as I have sometimes been a accused of being, a horror snob? Forgive me if the Kane Hodders of the world just don't do it for me. I'll never get tired of looking at pictures of him pretending to choke people at horror conventions, but honestly, he's a stuntman in a hockey mask. A buoy with arms could've played Jason Voorhees. Robert Englund? A delight as Freddy Krueger, to be sure, but beyond that? A merely amusing character actor who would've remained best known as the "good alien" on V had it not been for that hat-wearing son of 100 maniacs.

Who else do we have? Doug Bradley? Tony Todd? Linda Blair? Maybe Brad Dourif comes close... I may be off-base here, but while these are all actors who have done a fine job crafting specific characters, I think even they would agree that they don't quite belong ranked in the category of the immortal legends of yesteryear mentioned earlier. Quite literally, they don't seem to make 'em like that anymore.

So what happened? What is it about modern horror that seems to inherently discourage the notion of the horror icon? Perhaps it is the stress on realism, the need to downplay the more obvious elements of showmanship and bombast that once played a larger role in genre entertainment. I firmly believe that horror films of the golden and silver ages of the 1920s-1960s were more "personality"-driven then they are today. Hell, I'd say that movies in general were more personality-driven back then, for better or for worse. Those larger-than-life figures have a hard time carving out their niches when the funner, "Famous Monsters of Filmland" approach to horror has come to be considered passe.

Quite frankly, these days, when we talk about horror film icons, it's easier to use the term to refer to directors than actors. After all, the true visionaries of horror these days, the names and personalities most closely linked to the genre in the minds of fans, are those of the likes of Dario Argento, John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, Wes Craven, George Romero, et al, rather than the actors who appear in front of the camera. This is a shift that has certainly occurred within the past 40 years, no question about it. But unfortunately, directors are more visionaries than personalities for the most part, so in the end it's a very different dynamic.

I'm not trying to say that the supernatural horror film has completely given way in the face of reality-based horror--far from it. There still remains more than enough room for monsters and entities of all shape and form, but whether we're talking serial killer flicks or zombie movies, there's a greater stress on realism, and I feel that realism, while it has its pluses, is decidedly the enemy of the horror film icon. There are standout characters, but for the most part, the actors who play them are linked pretty much 90% to one role alone. For the most part, Gunnar Hansen is Leatherface. Warwick Davis is Leprechaun. Clint Howard is the Ice Cream Man. Ahem, ok that one was a stretch, but you get the point.

They may have been before my time for the most part, but I miss those genuine, transcendent icons. Those individuals who literally embodied horror, and who in many ways towered over it. I hope we get to see more rise to that level one day. If they're out there, and I'm just not giving them their due, please put me in my place, by all means...

Tweet

Psycho Semi-Centennial: The Movie That Changed Everything

Last week marked the actual 50th anniversary of the release of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho to theaters. Yes, I know I missed it. Having a feature entitled "Psycho Semi-Centennial" and missing the actual semi-centennial week, I should really be ashamed of myself. And so, to make up for such an egregious lapse, I'm bringing you the return of this year-long feature with a look at the many important ways that Hitchcock's landmark film changed the landscape of cinema forever. Better late than never, I always say...

Starting at the Beginning
As bizarre as it always seems to me, up until Psycho it was common practice for moviegoers to enter at any point during the movie, and stay into the next showing until they got up to the part they walked in on. This disjointed practice went out the window thanks to Hitchcock's vehement insistence that people come in at the start of the movie for the full effect. When they did so, resulting in lines around the block thanks to everyone arriving at the same time, they understood why.

First Flush
This may seem like a trivial matter to many post-modern viewers, but Psycho was the first American film in history to depict a toilet being flushed. Granted, it was only Marion disposing of her note, and not dropping a deuce, but this was a historic moment nonetheless, and encapsulated the frank, realistic tone Hitchcock and his screenwriter Joseph Stefano were going for. In fact, Stefano was adamant that a flushing toilet be shown for this very reason, and wrote the scene specifically so it would be integral to the plot.

Skin
Following, as it did, on the heels of the somewhat conservative (on the surface, at least) 1950s, Psycho's shower scene was shocking not just because of the violence, but because of the sheer amount of bare flesh on display. Both Janet Leigh and her body double show off quite a bit for the time, and it reportedly put censors--and more dour film-goers--into a tizzy. While still nothing beyond a PG-13 by today's standards, it was certainly pushing the envelope for a mainstream American film, and to this day viewers argue over how much was actually shown--a testament to the editing skills of George Tomasini.

No One Is Safe
Psycho sees its central protagonist, the character is which the audience has invested all its attention and interest, killed off roughly halfway into the movie. This was unheard of, and literally threw all traditional standards of cinematic storytelling out the window. If the main character could die so soon, all bets were off. Anything could happen. Viewers knew they were experiencing something truly new.

Let's Talk About Sex
To give you an idea of the level of censorship common at the time, the MPAA took issue with the word "transvestite" being used in the film's epilogue scene. Psycho deals with sexual subject matter in a manner that was very frank and open. Even from its opening scene, showing Marion and Sam enjoying a nooner in their little love nest, Psycho pushes the boundaries. Then you have an antaganist--Norman--whose entire character revolves around psycho-sexual issues. The whole speech given by Dr. Richmond at the end, though admittedly a bit forced and tacked-on, was a somewhat shocking explanation which took some of the more sheltered moviegoers of 1960 into territory they would have been far less familiar with than the average viewer of today.

Mother, Blood!
Hammer Films may have popularized blood in horror with their technicolor '50s spectacles, but Psycho was a mainstream Hollywood A-movie showing it, which was something entirely different. One of Hitchcock's reasons for filming in black and white was to make the gore of the shower scene more acceptable. But the sight of that Bosco syrup pouring down the shower drain helped prepare American audiences for the copious showers of red stuff to come in the future of the horror genre.

Musical Minimalism
The score of Psycho is one of the movies' most memorable thanks to the genius of Bernard Herrmann. Up to then, most Hollywood productions featured epic scores performed by vast studio orchestras, but Hermmann insisted on a pared-down, strings-only score performed by a small group of musicians. And although the John Williams-era of the late '70s brought back the epic score to a degree, the Psycho influence is still felt.

Big Screen/Little Screen
During the '50s, the movie biz did everything it could to compete with the introduction of TV. This usually involved going as big and bold as possible with things like widescreen and 3-D, showing all the things that TV didn't do. Hitch's genius was to go in the other direction. Thanks to his own TV show, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, the director gained an appreciation for the sparse, basic, low-budget style of TV film-making, and adapted that to the silver screen, bringing a bare-bones sensibility to Hollywood.

The Monster Next Door
Though not the first horror movie to feature a non-supernatural villain, Psycho certainly set the standard to come, and changed the course of the genre in the process with its depiction of a "real" human being as the threat. Monsters were the order of the day up to that point in time, but Psycho showed that reality-based horror could work--that the creepy guy next door could potentially be far scarier than vampires or werewolves. And although Psycho may not technically be a slasher film (debatable), it certainly set the stage.

Tweet

21st Century Terrors, Part 8: 2007

The year 2007 is a special one here in the Vault, because it was the year this blog first got off the ground. And boy, did I pick an interesting year to get things started. There was a lot going on in 2007 in the world of fright flicks, and I was definitely fortunate to have some of these films around to write about at the very beginning.

The remake and sequel craze was in full swing by this point, but luckily there was also a lot of fascinating and original material being put out on the market as well. Interestingly enough at the time, a great deal of it was coming from overseas.

In particular, the one movie that will always come to mind for many when 2007 is brought up is Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza's [REC], which many would consider among the most downright terrifying films of the entire decade, if not the most terrifying. From Spain came this unique, mockumentary take on the zombie subgenre, featuring a team of TV reporters and firemen trapped inside a quarantined apartment building during an outbreak of some sort of disease which turns the living into bloodthirsty undead.

Visceral, straightforward and extremely realistic in its presentation, [REC] became an instant sensation. People from all over the world clamored to see this (formerly) little movie that had emerged from Spain, a country many hadn't thought of as much of a horror haven since the heyday of Paul Naschy. It also managed to keep the zombie resurgence going strong roughly half a decade after it first exploded.

Spain also produced a very different kind of horror film that same year in Juan Antonio Bayona's The Orphanage (El Orfanato), a movie that was helped along in its overseas exposure by the blessing of Guillermo del Toro, who was understandably taken with it. A very unorthodox combination of ghost story and psychological thriller, The Orphanage takes its place amongst the likes of The Uninvited, The Haunting and The Changeling as one of the finest motion pictures of its kind.

Meanwhile, from just a few miles to the northeast in France, came Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury's Inside (À l'intérieur), a deeply disturbing and shockingly violent motion picture that became another international sensation and immediate film festival darling. The 2000s gave us quite a few depraved horror films, but Inside has to be very near to the top of the pile in terms of subject matter and the unflinching portrayal of said subject matter.

Following a nine-months-pregnant widow on the eve of her induction, as she fends off a psychopathic intruder bent on stealing the unborn child from her body, the film struck a nerve with even the most jaded horror viewers. As dead serious as the genre gets, Inside delivered extreme tension and extreme violence in equal doses, resulting in one of the most unsettling viewing experiences imaginable, and a movie that literally challenges the definition of entertainment.

And yet, while in most any other year, Inside would win hands down as most disturbing French movie, in 2007 it was a toss-up! There must have been something in the water in France that year, because the French also gave us the equally grim and harrowing Frontière(s). Xavier Gens' story of fugitive thieves held prisoner by demented neo-Nazis is another film that helped propel France to the cutting edge of international horror cinema.

But the Americans certainly weren't sitting on their hands while the Europeans had all the fun, either. Rather, some of the best and brightest filmmakers around were delving deep into the genre. Tim Burton took a crack at the beloved Stephen Sondheim splatter musical Sweeney Todd, putting his go-to star Johnny Depp in the lead, and adding wife Helena Bonham Carter to the mix to produce a typically sumptuous and subversive slice of cinema reminiscent of some of his best work.

Genre junkies Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez joined forces to create Grindhouse, a one-of-a-kind 21st century double feature that paid homage to the sticky-floor movies of old. Though greatly hyped, it did not quite live up to box-office or critical expectations--nevertheless, Rodriguez' contribution to the effort, Planet Terror, is a balls-to-the-wall, over-the-top zombie trash epic that certainly has its fair share of avid supporters. If anything, RR has to at least be recognized for having a great deal of fun with the subgenre, in the grand tradition of Dan O'Bannon. Plus, we also got the infamous line, "I'm gonna eat your brains and gain your knowledge..."

Steve Niles' acclaimed 30 Days of Night vampire graphic novels were adapted by director David Slade in highly bloody fashion--and although the slickly stylized film divided many fans, its unapologetically brutal approach to the bloodsucker mythos was at least an effective alternative to the Twilight-mania just tightening its grip on popular culture. Another film which divided fans was The Mist, in which Frank Darabont, director of The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, turned his attention to his first Stephen King horror story. A monster movie in the tradition of classic 1950s fare, with a modern twist and a gut-punch ending, it may not have pleased all the King fans out there, but it had to be considered better than the other King adaptation of 2007, Mikael Håfström's 1408.

As alluded to previously however, we were also bombarded with more than our fair share of remakes and sequels in 2007. And although remakes and sequels are not necessarily bad by definition, looking at the catalog of releases from that year, one could not be blamed for coming to that conclusion.

With long-time favorites like Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Hitcher served up in tepid "re-imagined" form, it was a tough year for some long-time horror fans. Most egregious of all would have to be Rob Zombie's Halloween, a film which managed to enrage the legions of fans of John Carpenter's 1978 original, with its post-modern deconstruction of the Michael Myers character, and less-than-creative regurgitation of much of the material of its predecessor. Although the extensive Myers' backstory added depth and was appreciated by some, in the end, the film sometimes unaffectionately termed "Zombieween" came off as a largely unnecessary affair.

On the sequel front, it seemed like every notable film/franchise of the decade was being pumped for all it was worth by the studios desperate for the next fix of genre-derived revenue. There was Saw IV, Hostel 2, and The Hills Have Eyes 2, each of which either killed off, or should've killed off, their respective series.

George Romero followed up 2005's Land of the Dead with Diary of the Dead, a fresh, cinema verite approach to his zombie series which unfortunately came off poorly thanks to being released in the wake of [REC] and, to a lesser extent, Cloverfield. Although this blogger enjoyed the film, most felt it to be the nadir of Romero's revered zombie cycle to date. As far as zombie sequels go, 28 Weeks Later was received a bit better, with some (including yours truly) finding it to be superior to Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. Once again, it seemed that Uncle George had been beaten at his own game--a game which, in 2007, also gave us such less-than-memorable fare as Resident Evil: Extinction and Flight of the Living Dead.

An erratic year of highs and lows, and perhaps a bit of a comedown from the heady days of the mid-2000s, 2007 was still a very good year to be a horror fan, with lots of quirky, soon-to-be cult classics emerging as well, such as the vagina dentata chestnut Teeth, the Australian giant crocodile picture Rogue, and the cheesy send-up Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer. One could certainly never say that there wasn't a little bit of something for everyone, and all in all, I'd have to say that The Vault of Horror picked a pretty cool time to be born!

Also in 2007:

• Dead Silence
• The Deaths of Ian Stone
• I Know Who Killed Me
• Mother of Tears
• Primeval
• The Signal
• Vacancy

Part 1: 2000
Part 2: 2001
Part 3: 2002
Part 4: 2003
Part 5: 2004
Part 6: 2005
Part 7: 2006

Tweet

21st Century Terrors, Part 7: 2006

If the early to mid '00s can be seen as a period of growth, rebirth and renewal for horror films, then it's entirely possible that 2006 was the year the horror bubble burst.

The media and the masses had witnessed the ascendancy of the genre into the mainstream, and Hollywood was apparently watching as well. As with many things, everybody wanted to jump on the bandwagon, and this, dear readers, is when things tend to get run into the ground. Seeing the success of horror at the box office, lots of people wanted, to quote Vic Tayback, a piece of the action.

Naturally, the conclusion lots of folks jump to when a phenomenon like this occurs is that what worked before will work again, and to an even greater level. But this discounts the law of diminished returns, and what tends to happen is that an initial good idea gets beaten to death (sort of like the point I've been making in the past three paragraphs).

To put an even finer point on things, 2006 was the year the infamous remake craze really went off the rails. What started as a semi-interesting concept, taking classic horror flicks of recent decades and retooling them for today's horror audience, suddenly became an exercise in extreme banality. I give you, for example, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning--a prequel to a remake, and the movie that let us know that the only reason Leatherface likes to dress in women's clothes and eat people is that he was picked on in the schoolyard.

We had films like When a Stranger Calls, The Omen and Black Christmas, slick redos of '70s horror fare tweaked for the YouTube generation, in the process completely missing the point of what made the originals work. Critically/commercially successful remakes of recent years, things like Dawn of the Dead, for example, seemed to have opened the floodgates for those who believed that just about any horror property of the past was fair game. And as the ensuing years wore on--and right into the present day--the practice continues, much to the consternation of genre die-hards everywhere.

But chief among all of these, and more than deserving of being singled out, would be the poster movie for horrifically bad remakes--The Wicker Man. This unintentionally perversely funny disaster of a film seemed to be the distillation of everything that was going wrong regarding Hollywood's new obsession with remaking horror movies. Every ounce of what made the immortal original film work so well seemed to have been scientifically removed, with the gripping Edward Woodward replaced by Nic Cage doing a caricature of himself, and the austere and foreboding Chris Lee replaced by a granola-crunching Ellen Burstyn.

On the positive side, the movie became a kind of camp classic in the MST3K mode, an instant cult fave for those who simply can't get enough of really bad movies. But the sad thing was that it was intended to be a serious, modern revision of a thriller revered by filmgoers for years. In other words, it was the product of folks completely out of touch with the genre they were representing, and the audience they were aiming it at.

That said, one particular remake of 2006, in all fairness, did stand out from the rest, gaining a bit more of a fan following, and that was Alexandre Aja's intense retelling of the Wes Craven chestnut The Hills Have Eyes. Some--this blogger included--even declared that one to be superior to the original. But sadly, Hills Have Eyes would prove to be part of a dwindling exception.

And if remakes weren't derivative enough, the sequel engine continued to churn 'em out, as well. Saw and Final Destination, two of the decade's chief horror franchises, put out their third chapters in 2006. The Grudge (in itself an American remake of an Asian film), also put out a sequel as well, one which was poorly received, to say the least.

But don't let it be said that 2006 didn't nevertheless offer some worthwhile stuff in the way of actual, original (or reasonably original) material and ideas. After all, 2006 was also the year of the deviantly funny Slither, and Poultrygeist. Love them or hate them, there were plenty of fans who would take them any day of the week over another dull remake/sequel.

A few of these non-remake/sequels particularly stand out. One of these is Hatchet. Putting my own personal preferences aside, Adam Green's Hatchet was a direct response to the glut of unimaginative stuff being foisted upon the populace, and admittedly tried to do something new--a fresh take on the horror movie sensibilities of the 1980s. Part Scream, part Rob Zombie. The buzz on the film was tremendous, and even though fans were divided between those who dug the film's quirky approach and those who found it a rather overhyped affair, it certainly got fans talking.

Another of these was Fido, a Canadian export which proved that despite the well-worn path carved by the likes of Return of the Living Dead and Shaun of the Dead, there was still great stuff to be mined in the subgenre of zombie comedy. Grafting the Romero mythos onto a retro-1950s aesthetic, Fido was somehow able to take a bunch of derivative sources and synthesize them into a truly fun and original idea. In a year in which horror seemed to be losing its creative way to a degree, Fido was a glimmer of hope.

And thirdly, from across the Pacific came The Host, a powerful reinvention of the old-school kaiji subgenre from South Korea. The most fascinating giant monster picture to come along in years, The Host managed to pack a terrific punch without becoming self-referential or relying on nostalgia for or knowledge of the lengthy tradition of Asian monster movies that had come before. It also pretty much directly led to the American marketing barrage known as Cloverfield.

Responding to the need for originality, albeit ignoring the need for quality, the After Dark Horrorfest series would also kick off in 2006. Yes, 2006 was the year that gave us "8 Films to Die For". The most widely distributed "filmfest" package of its kind, After Dark Horrorfest would assemble eight films from independent filmmakers, and grant them wide distribution across America.

It was a testament to the box office clout of horror that such a distribution deal was able to be struck, but with films like Penny Dreadful, The Gravedancers and Wicked Little Things, it became clear that for the most part they were typical direct-to-video specials. Nevertheless, the After Dark Horrorfest continues to this day, and is a viable conduit for B-horror flicks to still reach the public in a theatrical format.

The horror movie business may have begun to eat itself in 2006, but it was far from out of steam. Complaining or not, fans continued to turn out in droves, and the sheer number of projects was staggering. Although the horror bubble may arguably have burst, there would still be some major twists and turns in store before the end of the decade.

Also in 2006:

• Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon
• Black Sheep
• Night of the Living Dead: 3-D
• See No Evil
• Silent Hill
• Snoop Dogg's Hood of Horror
• Turistas

Part 1: 2000
Part 2: 2001
Part 3: 2002
Part 4: 2003
Part 5: 2004
Part 6: 2005

Tweet

21st Century Terrors, Part 6: 2005

The first decade of the new century was half over, and right in the heart of it, horror hounds were being treated to arguably the greatest bumper crop of gruesome greatness since the heyday of the 1980s. There can be no doubt about it--a golden age was upon us. It was the year we got a new subgenre with a naughty sounding name, Rob Zombie got serious, some English broads went down a well, and even good old Uncle George had to get into the act. This was 2005.

The previous year had given some indications of where we were headed. For example, viewers who went to the movies to see Saw were given just a taste of the sickness and depravity that would come to full bloom this year, when Eli Roth, late of the offbeat horror comedy Cabin Fever, would turn out a film that would divide fans, start a new movement, and definitely get everyone talking.

Hostel was a film that literally pushed the boundary of what fans would consider to be entertainment. Revolving around a series of torture-filled set pieces, it drew the nickname of "torture porn"--a name derived from accusations that it sought primarily to titillate through the depiction of gratuitous scenes of methodical violence. Some would find it distasteful; others believed it gave the genre a much-needed visceral shot in the arm.

Whatever the case, Hostel was a touchstone, the kind of movie that sets the tone for much of what came after it. And we're still feeling the aftereffects of it to this day, for better or worse.

As much as the movies of the '70s and '80s pushed the envelope for violence in film, and the '90s reigned things in a bit, by this point in the new decade, the pendulum had swung completely back the other way. Thanks to Hostel and others, we were now seeing films arguably more graphic than just about anything we had witnessed before. Another filmmaker at the forefront of this movement was Rob Zombie.

If his previous House of 1,000 Corpses had caught some flak for being campy and cheesy, Mr. Zombie remedied the situation with a much bleaker, more serious sequel in The Devil's Rejects. The Firefly family, with Sid Haig's Capt. Spaulding at the lead, was more iconic than ever, and horror fans by and large embraced this film with open arms.

Zombie's grindhouse aesthetic and appreciation for the grittiness of '70s horror brought to the genre what guys like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez were doing with more mainstream cinema. As a result, The Devil's Rejects would become one of the most popular horror films of the decade with actual horror fans, as opposed to the mainstream audience that was eating up confections of a very different variety.

Those confections consisted of the near-endless stream of remakes Hollywood was (and is) churning out with breakneck speed. This might very well have been the year we all stood back for a second and said to ourselves, "Damn, there sure are a lot of remakes coming out!" We got House of Wax, in which Vincent Price was replaced with Paris Hilton; The Amityville Horror, which proved just as mediocre as its originator; The Fog, starring Superboy...

And in case you were looking more for sequels rather than remakes, we also got the disappointing The Ring Two, and the vastly more disappointing back-to-back direct-to-SyFy Channel atrocities, Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis, and Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave. The less said, the better. Peter Coyote, how could you? To think, I trusted you in E.T.

But sequels weren't by definition a bad thing, and in fact, 2005 gave us two very interesting ones in particular, which continued two venerable horror franchises. One of these was Dominion: Prequel to Exorcist, the original Paul Schrader version of the film that had been released the previous year as The Exorcist: The Beginning (directed by Renny Harlin). The result was flawed yet provocative, and definitely more daring than the previous studio-approved version.

The other long-awaited sequel was something that had previously seemed as if it would never happen: George Romero got back in the saddle and made another zombie movie, his first in 20 years. With the zombie movie craze raging for a few years, everyone was wondering if the man who invented the whole movement would ever get his chance to do what he does best once more. And thanks to Universal, he did.

Land of the Dead was the most mainstream of Romero's efforts, with actual marketable movie stars (namely john Leguizamo, Dennis Hopper and an almost-famous Simon Baker); it was also the first to be released with an MPAA rating, and the first to use CGI effects. It was definitely a new era, but fans were delirious with joy that their hero would finally be getting the opportunity to pick up where he left off with Day of the Dead in 1985.

In the end, there were folks who thought Uncle George lost his touch a bit, and that the years had put some ring rust on the old master. Just as the original Return of the Living Dead, a zombie comedy, had overshadowed Day of the Dead, many felt that Shaun of the Dead had overshadowed Land of the Dead and made it feel a bit obsolete.

Nevertheless, I think history will look kindly on Land of the Dead, just as it did on Day of the Dead eventually. It was a welcome return for one of horror's most beloved directors, exploring the territory he first pioneered. And in a project that had been high on everyone's ultimate fantasy lists for many years.

But if original concepts were still what you craved, then English director Neil Marshall, who had previously turned heads in 2oo2 with Dog Soldiers, really gave you something to write home about with the film that many consider to be the finest horror film of the contemporary era--including the amalgamation of horror bloggers who voted it the number-one horror movie of the past 20 years, right here in The Vault of Horror. I'm talking about The Descent.

Whether or not it's the very best is, of course, open to debate, but there can be no question that The Descent is one of the most highly regarded horror films of the past decade. Original, powerful, and downright terrifying, it is a 21st century horror film that will undoubtedly be added to the "canon" of classics moving forward into the future. Not to mention the fact that it's all-female cast of protagonists in and of itself makes the film highly intriguing, and one-of-a-kind.

There's a reason why horror fans have generally preferred the past decade to the one which came before it, and a glance through the body of material released in 2005 helps crystallize that perception. Thanks to the likes of Marshall, Zombie, Roth, Romero and many others, it was a banner year for the genre.

Also from 2005:

• An American Haunting
• Boogeyman
• Constantine
• Dark Water
• The Exorcism of Emily Rose
• Feast
• The Gravedancers
• Santa's Slay
• The Skeleton Key
• 2001 Maniacs
• White Noise

Part 1: 2000
Part 2: 2001
Part 3: 2002
Part 4: 2003
Part 5: 2004

Tweet

21st Century Terrors, Part 5: 2004

By the middle of the first decade of the century, the horror genre renaissance was in full effect. And perhaps no other single year was more indicative of this than 2004. A few specific movies were at the heart of it, and for various different reasons they all made a major impact on fans and critics alike. To a certain extent, we're still talking about them today as if they just came out, which is more indicative of their influence than anything.

Perhaps most ironically of all, the most beloved of these--and perhaps the most beloved horror film of the entire decade--was actually a horror comedy. Birthed from the minds of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg via their obsessive love of all things Romero, Shaun of the Dead was more than a movie--it was a movement. The zombie fad had been cooking for a couple of years already, but SOTD distilled it into a single, transcendent experience--a film that celebrated not only the zombie genre, but zombie fandom as well.

The misadventures of Shaun and Ed have since become iconic in a relatively short period of time. They were perhaps horror's finest comedy duo since Abbott & Costello tangled with the Frankenstein Monster. And the brilliance of the film was that it managed to be so genuinely funny while still being true to the genre it so blatantly worshiped. The movie works equally well as a zombie picture and as a romantic comedy, hence the now famous subgenre title, "rom-zom-com".

Shaun of the Dead was the kind of film that defines a generation of fandom, and without question represents horror in the 2000s for many people. Yet there is also another film which does that for others, and that's James Wan's Saw, the film that, for all intents and purposes, thrust the "torture porn" subgenre into the limelight (along with Hostel a bit later).

Yet ironically, the film itself doesn't quite conform to the stereotype of that subgenre, not having the trademark explicit depictions of graphic violence and sadism for the ostensible purpose of audience titillation. The original Saw, taken apart from its never-ending stream of sequels, is actually an imaginative, psychologically based thriller, which manages to put a unique spin on the slasher motif and packs one hell of a punch with its rollercoaster of a storyline.

Jigsaw is a character very much of his time, just as Dracula, Norman Bates and Freddy Krueger were of theirs. And his sinister m.o. of byzantine traps and warped morality--inspired strongly by the previous decade's Seven--definitely touched a nerve with audiences. Saw would go on to become one of the most successful franchises of the decade, becoming almost what Friday the 13th was for the 1980s--for better or worse.

The two giants of Shaun of the Dead and Saw gave horror a relatively high profile in 2004, but there was even more going on. For one thing, in addition to the Romero zombie parody, there was also a Romero zombie remake, in Zak Snyder's Dawn of the Dead. For a film that had a lot of ill will pointed toward it, Snyder's film made the most of it, and shut a lot of people's mouths in the process.

James Gunn's script upset many purists with its fast-moving zombies and the ejecting of most of Romero's social commentary, but the finished product can nevertheless stand on its own merits. It's an effective, energetic horror film with characters we can get behind, and quite possibly one of the most impressive opening sequences of all time. For a movie that seemed doomed to fail, Dawn of the Dead stands as one of the decade's triumphs.

Beyond the big triumphs, zombie cinema continued full speed ahead with no end in sight. We got the first sequel to the movie that arguably kicked off the whole craze, with Resident Evil: Apocalypse. And in addition to SOTD, there was another foreign zombie comedy, Night of the Living Dorks, which although far less inspired and extremely overrated, was another testament to the subgenre's worldwide staying power.

Sequels were also in full effect, as they always seem to be in our beloved genre. Yet just as with everything else in 2004, even the sequels seemed to stand out--although not always for the best reasons. Case in point: Aliens vs. Predator, a clunker of a film that managed to murder two adored franchises in one fell swoop. Although long followed enthusiastically by comic book fans, the battle of everyone's two favorite space monsters just didn't add up to cinematic magic.

It seemed like studios were anxious to bring back successful series and characters amidst the burgeoning interest in horror that was going on at the box office. The Child's Play franchise puttered on with Seed of Chucky, a subversive little flick that admittedly went in a completely bizarre and unique direction, delivering laughs as well as scares. Blade hit the wall with Blade: Trinity, a movie that proved that even horror comics aren't immune to the "third movie curse" of comic book franchises. Even the classic Universal monsters got back into the mix with Van Helsing, a poorly received action vehicle from Stephen Sommers, the same guy who resurrected the Mummy in similar fashion the 1990s.

And then there was the infamous Exorcist: The Beginning, the granddaddy of all troubled horror sequel/prequels. Looking to reap more financial rewards from the most successful horror film of all time, Warner Bros. commissioned a new film that would explore the origins of Father Merrin's relationship with the demon. Unfortunately, when Paul Schrader's version was a little too artsy for them, they brought in Hollywood mercenary Renny Harlin and created a whole different picture, which was a notorious disaster. In an unprecedented maneuver, Schrader's version would see the light of day the following year.

Leading the pack of foreign remakes was The Grudge, an American version of the acclaimed J-horror thriller of two years earlier. It seemed like a logical follow-up to the highly successful The Ring, yet failed to similarly capture the power of the original.

Yet don't let that mediocre final note fool you. The year 2004 was a banner one for horror films, and in some ways, it can be argued that it was highpoint of the decade.

Also from 2004:

• Dead and Breakfast
• Ginger Snaps Back
• Ginger Snaps Unleashed
• Satan's Little Helper
• The Village

Part 1: 2000
Part 2: 2001
Part 3: 2002
Part 4: 2003

Tweet

The 25 Most Notoriously Awful Horror Movies of the Decade

I really tried hard not to get sucked into this whole list mania. I did. But with this big end of the year/end of the decade thing going on, the temptation has proven too great (and yes, all you decade purists, I said "end of the decade"--perception equals reality, deal with it.)

If you're looking for the greatest movies of the past decade, look elsewhere. You can find some handy lists to that effect at blogs like Horror-Movie-a-Day, Dollar Bin Horror, The Spooky Brew and of course, The Vault's own sister blog, Day of the Woman. That's not what I'm here for tonight. I'm here to celebrate and commemorate the terrible, the atrocious, the near-unwatchable.

Just as in any given time period, there have been a near-limitless number of really bad horror movies made in the 2000s. In order to keep it to a neat list of 25, I'm focusing on the most notoriously bad--the turkeys that we recognize the most for being the worst, spanning the years 2000 to 2009. In many cases, these are the flicks we love to watch because they're so bad; in others cases, these are flicks so bad we really have no desire to watch them at all.

So take it for what it's worth: The Vault of Horror's 25 Most Notoriously Awful Horror Movies of the Decade...

25. Ghost Ship (2002)
This one gets the enviable spot of being the lowest ranked among the worst movies, by virtue of the unforgettably implausible-yet-awesome opening scene. Unfortunately, it was completely downhill from there, and it's almost unfathomable to believe the same guy who starred in Miller's Crossing starred in this abomination.

24. Bruiser (2000)
Sorry, George Romero. I love you and all, and your Living Dead movies are part of the reason I--and many of us--are horror fanatics on the first place. But this...well, it just wasn't exactly your shining hour. And this is coming from a defender of both Land and Diary of the Dead. Maybe this is why the guy feels the need to stick to the undead.

23. See No Evil (2006)
Yeah, I worked for WWE, so what? Sour grapes, you say? Well yeah, but that's besides the point. If you think it's just due to bitterness, then you obviously never saw this sorry, derivative excuse for a slasher flick (derivative slasher flick--redundant? You be the judge.) I had the "privilege" of reading the script beforehand, and knew even then that it wouldn't even be worthy of the dollar bin.

22. Man-Thing (2005)
You can point to Ang Lee's Hulk as the "jump the shark" moment of Marvel movies--I point to this actively painful affair. I have adored this character since I was a little kid--way cooler than that other guy at DC--and so wanted this to be awesome. Yet it skipped a theatrical or even direct-to-vid release and went straight to the mother-lovin' Sci-Fi Channel. A sad day, True Believers...

21. The Gingerdead Man (2005)
Most decidedly in the "so bad it's good" category, but still, I'd be remiss if I didn't include this epitome of the lame horror concept movie. File it right next to Jack Frost and Uncle Sam in the "We've run out of ideas" section.

20. Halloween: Resurrection (2002)
Yeah, let's pit Michael Myers against... Busta Rhymes! And while we're at it, throw Tyra into the mix! Oh yeah, and let's kill off that pesky Laurie Strode character in the first ten minutes--who needs her, anyway? They just couldn't leave well enough alone with the far-better-than-it-should-have-been H20, could they?

19. Queen of the Damned (2002)
Yeah, Aaliyah's dead, I know. That was a decade ago, so trashing this movie is fair game. Hell, people were even doing it then, that's how god-awful this thing is. What a classic missed opportunity to make good on Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles after that woefully miscast 1994 essay in mediocrity. I didn't think anyone could make a worse Lestat than Tom Cruise until I saw Stuart "Fired from the role of Aragorn in Lord of the Rings" Townsend.

18. Hood of Horror (2006)
A blatantly racist and hamfisted attempt to cash in on the "Ooooh girrrll--don't go in that room!!" segment of the horror audience--hosted by the one guy I think of when I think horror. That's right--Snoop Dogg! The only thing scary about this guy is the concept of his children getting old enough to understand the lyrics of his songs.

17. Mother of Tears (2007)
If I live 100 years, I don't know if I'll be able to wrap my brain around the notion that the same guy who made Suspiria, Tenebre and Deep Red also made this colossal strunzo. I had the extreme displeasure of coming across it one late night on cable and literally had to pinch myself to make sure I wasn't simply dreaming I lived in a world in which Dario Argento was an unbearable hack.

16. Shark in Venice (2008)
See: "Gingerdead Man". But seriously, how did it take this damn long for someone to come up with a movie about a shark rampaging through Venice, the world's only floating city?? A guilty pleasure if ever there was one, but let's not get so euphoric that we forget this is actually really, reeaally bad.

15. One Missed Call (2008)
Forget worst horror movies of the decade, I've actually come across a few worst movies of the decade, period, that included this one. Now that's an accomplishment! Plus it also has the distinction of having one of the worst movie posters of the decade as well.

14. Night of the Living Dead 3-D (2006)
I'll admit, I was fooled by this one. A NOTLD remake starring Sid Haig? Count me in! Plus, the zombies looked really bad-ass. But wow. This actually made the infamous John Russo "special edition" of the original NOTLD look like Casablanca. Take that, Captain Spaulding fans who thought this was gonna be great!

13. Flight of the Living Dead (2007)
More zombie awfulness! Hmmm... We had Snakes on a Plane, plus we have a cool title that sounds kind of like Night of the Living Dead--let's build a whole movie around it! Of course, if they had actually paid attention to the Snakes on a Plane phenomenon, they'd have seen that all the hip and edgy internet hype in the world will not save a movie that is that bad--guess what, all you irony-loving millennials: No one gave a crap! So why anyone would actually want to emulate it is beyond me.

12. Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis/Rave to the Grave (2005)
Yes, I'm cheating a bit here. But these two ripe stools are basically one extended project, filmed back-to-back, if I'm not mistaken. That's right, kids, it's the 4th and 5th chapters in the ROTLD series, the ones we wish we could all forget ever happened. Trioxin-as-Exctacy... Tarman-as-comic-relief... Plus, the worst crime Peter Coyote's committed since he almost killed E.T.

11. Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
The most wrong-headed of all prequels, made by the patron saint of soulless mercenary directors, Renny Harlin, after the studio rejected the version made by Paul Schrader that actually showed signs of, ya know, being interesting and original and stuff. At least Exorcist II was fun to watch, if only to hear Richard Burton say "Pazuzu". But this is just no fun at all...

10. Mansquito (2005)
Yes, this was a TV movie and I'm bending the rules again. But this was so very famously bad, how could I ever leave it out? Can you imagine the size of the balls on someone who could actually bring themselves to write a script and actually type the title "Mansquito" at the top of it? Breathtaking.

9. Alien vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)
The original Alien vs. Predator was bad, but nothing even remotely close to this. The sheer enormity of so profoundly screwing up two such beloved franchises in one fell swoop is not something I think anyone fully appreciates yet, but rest assured that history will commemorate this colossal entry in the annals of stupidity. Whoever thought a movie in which Aliens fight Predators could be so utterly impossible to enjoy in any way?

8. Halloween 2 (2009)
Sitting there in the dark as Rob Zombie's sweeping ode to the pitfalls of pretentious self-indulgence unspooled before my eyes, I had to ask myself that ominous question: "Is this supposed to be a joke?" But alas, it was not. It appears Mr. Zombie actually intended for this to be taken seriously as a horror film. But as Alex Trebek might say, "Oh... Sorry, so sorry." I don't even know where to begin, so I won't.

7. I Know Who Killed Me (2007)
Without a doubt, the Glitter of horror movies. Lindsay Lohan is bad even by Lindsay Lohan standards in a role that justly earned her the coveted Razzie Award. Take watered-down torture porn, cross it with the plot of an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie--if Arnold was an anorexic stripper--then fold in a generous helping of suck, and you have this crime against humanity.

6. FeardotCom (2002)
And speaking of crimes against humanity... Would you ever think a movie starring Stephen Dorff, Udo Kier, Stephen Rea and Jeffrey Combs could be unwatchably bad? You would if you ever saw this one. And as a bonus, we get the worst horror movie tagline of the decade: "Want to see a really killer website? It's the last site you'll ever see." Douche chills.

5. Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)
One of the most infamous "dropping the ball" moments in recent movie history... Someone apparently thought that doing a straightforward, traditional horror flick sequel to The Blair Witch Project would somehow be a good idea. This person could probably be categorized with George Custer's military strategist, and the guy who designed the Titanic.

4. The Happening (2008)
While I will say that there are several films ranked lower on this list that are a lot worse than this one, what makes The Happening so egregious is that it was touted as such an amazing movie, and thus the letdown when watching Mark Wahlberg and Zooey Deschanel wander aimlessly for 90 minutes was the equivalent of falling off the top of the Empire State Building. When you rent Shark in Venice, you know what you're in for--but this? Although after Lady in the Water, perhaps we should've known.

3. Day of the Dead (2008)
If Wikipedia were wise, then on their entry for "Horrendous", they would include a link to this movie's IMDB page. Steve Miner should most likely be incarcerated for taking such a blood-tinged piss upon the legacy of George Romero. Mena Suvari as a Marine; the complete neutering of Rhodes, one of the great horror villains of all time; and of course Bub morphing into Bob, the vegetarian zombie--what more evidence do I need, your honor?

2. House of the Dead (2003)
I had a tough time picking a definitive number-one, because this certainly is a doozy, and if you had it as your own personal number-one, I certainly wouldn't blame you. So much abuse has been heaped on Uwe Boll at this point that it's like beating up a little kid in a schoolyard, who also happens to have no limbs and be in a coma. Yet to paraphrase Amadeus, when one sees such sights, what can one say but, "Uwe Boll"?

1. The Wicker Man (2006)
"NOT THE BEES!!" I can honestly say, without reservation, that this remake of the 1973 unassailable British classic is the most notoriously awful horror movie of the 2000s. In fact, I would probably rank it among the 10 worst movies of the past decade, of any kind. If you can get past the utter raping of one of horror's most sublimely brilliant films, it's worth seeing for a really good laugh, and Nicolas Cage's performance alone is proof that there is no God--or least that He has given up on us completely.

DISHONORABLE MENTION:

• An American Haunting
• Doom
• Dracula 2000
• Eight-Legged Freaks
• Primeval
• The Eye
• The Ring 2

Tweet