The Lucky 13: Week Five: Horror Comedies

This week in The Lucky 13, we take a look at one of my personal favorite sub-categories, the horror comedy. There's just something about horror in general that will often provoke a perversely humorous response in us, sometimes even when not intended. Maybe that's why it's so much fun when a horror film overtly embraces the humor that seems paradoxically inherent in the genre.

There are countless great horror comedies worth remembering , and I'd just like to tip my hat to several that have not been represented either here or at Brutal as Hell--gems like Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein, An American Werewolf in London and Shaun of the Dead. So many great ones to choose from, but here's a look at our personal favorites...

B-Sol on The Return of the Living Dead

Believe it or not, the film that truly sparked my lifelong fascination with the horror genre was ROTLD. It was the first modern horror film I had ever watched from beginning to end, and as I watched it unfold, I was filled with a combination of revulsion and fascination.

Like most pre-teen boys, I suffered from an acute lack of irony, which naturally led me to take the film quite seriously as pure horror. Almost all the comedy was totally lost on me, which makes it all the more fun to watch it now and be able to laugh instead of shiver. It's amazing how much I didn't appreciate back then.

For me, The Return of the Living Dead was a gateway movie, opening the door to so much more. My next stop was the Evil Dead flicks; then came George Romero; and the rest, as they say, is history. Funny how I saw ROTLD before even having seen the Romero movies they were partially spoofing. It's also pretty amazing to think that a movie that easily could've been a throw-away '80s shlockfest merely aping great horror films has come to be considered a great horror film in its own right, even worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Romero's series.



Marilyn Merlot on Zombieland

So I have to admit when I first saw the preview for Zombieland, I wasn’t much of a fan, and already had decided I wouldn’t see it. I was never into spoofs of horror or horror movies trying to be comedies. Then I started to hear good reviews, and people saying how they really liked it. Now my interest was piqued. And in the end, it really was a perfect mix. Firstly, it had a great cast of characters, which is really what made the movie. A tough/bad ass guy; the nerd just trying to survive; and a pretty girl with edge to her.

What makes you laugh right from the beginning are the zombie rules you need to go by to survive. Those of us who have watched endless zombie movies know these really are important rules. Soon Columbus, played by Jesse Eisenberg, meets up with Tallahassee, played by Woody Harrelson. These two embark on a road journey, meeting up with two sisters, Witchita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). The group sets out together to try and survive the zombie holocaust. The ensuing hijinks include a notorious overnight stay at the Hollywood home of Bill Murray.

The whole thing winds up in an amusement park, which is the perfect setting to show off both the action and the humor that make the movie work so well. Columbus and Tallahassee's rescue attempt of Wichita and Little Rock is both very exciting and hysterically funny. By the end of the film, all these different characters come together as a dysfunctional family, Tallahassee finally gets his twinkie, and everyone hits the road together…



From Beyond Depraved's Joe Monster on Creepshow

It was within the darkened den of my uncle’s California house that I was first exposed to this film. The glow from the television set illuminated my terrified face. But no matter how great my fear was, I couldn’t keep my eyes from the screen. I jumped like a startled cat when the rotting hand of a corpse jutted from a grave. I shrunk back in terror as a pair of beastly eyes stared out from the darkness of a crate. I got goose bumps as I imagined an army of carnivorous cockroaches crawling up and down my arms. Despite all these feelings of anxiety and shivering fright, I couldn’t deny one thing… I was having an incredibly fun time.

The beauty of Creepshow lies in its ability to illicit both screams and laughs from the viewer’s mouth. In my belief it stands as a true definition of the term “horror comedy”; it contains terrifying scenes that genuinely scare you, but the entire time you sense that the film’s tongue is firmly planted in its rotting cheek. It’s gallows humor with the highest quality noose. You may squirm at the sight of a stinking cadaver trudging through a misty graveyard, but then you’re tickled pink the moment it opens its skeletal mouth and gurgles “I want my CAAAKE!” I’m giggling just reminiscing about it.

Creepshow is a work of deep-rooted love for the genre, a valentine to horror fans and readers of the four-color terrors of yesteryear. The set design and lighting, with its garish reds and blues, gives this awesome anthology the authentic feel of an issue from E.C. Comics taken straight from the newsstands of the 1950s. It includes all the common stories that used to adorn those pages: ironic vengeance from six feet under, evil doers getting their just desserts in the form of their greatest fears, and Adrienne Barbeau getting her bitch face munched off by a furry crate critter! The film also has a dream team of horror luminaries working behind it. George Romero directs the ghastly proceedings, Stephen King provides the highly entertaining tales (and a lunkheaded performance as a mutated farmer), and Tom Savini showcases some of his best makeup work, with reanimated corpses and cuddly monsters.

As the years go by, my respect and love for this film increases with every viewing. I can sit down and watch it, no matter what the time or occasion. It’s as infectious as a zombie bite, its demented glee spreading to the dark cockles of one’s heart almost as quickly as Jordy Verill’s unfortunate gardening problem. From the unforgettable opening piano score to the last frame of revenge by voodoo’s pin, you’ll feel like you’ve finally come home to the ghoulish hilarity that’s escaped you for so long. After all, it’s the most fun you’ll have being scared!



* * * * * * * * * *

Head over to Brutal as Hell to see what Marc Patterson and his crew have come up with. And if you're interested in taking part in the future, just give Marc or myself a holler.

Week 1: Grindhouse & Exploitation
Week 2: Creature Features & Monster Movies
Week 3: Demons, Witches & The Devil
Week 4: Gore!

Join us next week as we turn our attention to perhaps the most pervasive movie monsters of them all: Vampires!

Tweet

Meeting of the Minds: The Nightmare on Elm Street Remake

If I haven't already just come out and said it by now, I guess now is as good a time as any: Yes, I liked the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. And yes, I realize I seem to be in the minority on this (that's happening a lot lately, I must be getting soft in my old age.) Apparently most horror fans--or at least most over the age of 16--seem to have nothing but bile and vitriol for the latest Platinum Dunes product. One of the most bilious and vitriolic happens to be none other than VoH contributor Marilyn Merlot. So, as with our horror vs. thriller debate, I figured what better way to hash out the issue than another one-on-one discussion...

B-Sol: OK so, obviously you didn't care for it at all.

Marilyn Merlot: No, I didn't. It's ironic that the kids in the movie are trying not to fall asleep, because I think the audience was also trying to not fall asleep.

BS: Well, I have to say that your opinion seems to be the one most people have. I went in thinking I'd feel the same way, but I actually kind of liked it. I surprised myself! I mean, I wouldn't say I loved it or went nuts for it, but I thought it was fun, and not the disaster I was expecting.

MM: You thought it was fun... I'm perplexed to hear you say that.

BS: I thought it worked on its own merits. It's still a very cool concept, and even though it didn't pull it off as well as the original, I still thought it was an effective horror movie. The original is still much scarier, but I thought this one brought some interesting things to the table.

MM: I just don't see it. The plot and the characters all fell flat for me. Take nancy for example, someone who in the original carried the film and was a leading part. This new Nancy was not a strong character, and pale and way too skinny, with no power in her. I did not like the fact that they changed some characters. Like Katie Cassidy should have been Tina, not Kris. Don't get me going on the famous bed scene with her going up the wall and to the ceiling, and the major blood bath--that didn't happen. Granted, she did get knocked around pretty good, but thats it!

BS: Yes, they did turn Nancy emo, this is true. And the rest of the characters were pretty lame and annoying, especially Quentin, who seemed to be there to appeal to the Twilight crowd. I also thought it was weird that they carried over Nancy, but none of her friends from the original. That said, I really liked how they delved into the Freddy backstory, and gave Jackie Earle Haley a lot to do. The movie was basically more about Freddy than the kids, which is different from the original, but I thought it was a cool direction. I even liked how they make you think for a second that he might've been innocent!

MM: Yes, her friends were annoying, and I'm still upset over the fact that we had no Johnny Depp character. Another famous bed scene, and another blood bath that didn't happen. The fact that Freddy might have been innocent was a cool concept, but I didn't like the new Freddy... from the makeup to his voice. It just didn't sit right with me.

BS: OK, I'll agree with part of that. His look did nothing for me. They made him look like a realistic burn victim, which was the wrong way to go. He wound up looking like an alien, or a turtle or something. But other than his appearance, I think he himself did a pretty good job with the role. I was OK with the more normal-sounding voice.

MM: Granted, the guy does creep me out in real life ever since I saw him in Little Children starring Kate Winslet. He is a great actor. This was not the role for him!

BS: I kept thinking of the Little Children part while I was watching this, and how they also went fully into the territory of child molestation here, too. They always kind of stayed away from that in the old ones, I think on purpose.

MM: The whole thing about him molesting the children, but no one actually saying he did, was a little weird to me. The whole plot of the movie just didn't work. I did not find it scary or suspenseful. Are you actually telling me you did? Seriously B-Sol, I'm starting to question your judgment on movies!

BS: I bet you're not the only one! I may very well be getting soft lately, but I actually liked how a lot of it was presented. It might not have been as scary or suspenseful as the original, but the Freddy scenes were still very well done, when they weren't relying too heavily on CGI. I, for one, loved the part where they paid tribute to the Tina murder from the original, where she's floating in the air. That really worked for me.

MM: By that point, nothing worked for me.

BS: I did come away feeling the whole thing was kind of unnecessary--at least from a creative standpoint, I'm sure it's making a lot of money. But as remakes of horror classics go, this was definitely one of the more acceptable ones in recent memory. Yes, that's a lukewarm endorsement; I liked it, but not as strongly as you hated it, I think.

MM: There were so many key points in the original that they left out. I even had to laugh at some mistakes that I caught in the movie. For example, Nancy is watching this one kid blog on video about his Freddy dreams ,and we see him die on film. Who uploaded it for him after? Or the fact that when Kris is home alone she puts the alarm system on, but her boyfriend has no problem climbing through the bedroom window with no alarm going off--then when he goes outside to check on the dog that ran out... again, no alarm. Sorry, the movie was poorly done.

BS: Yes, it did have a slew of logic issues, no doubt about that, but those kinds of technicalities didn't put me off. I initially had high hopes for the movie, which came way down after reading a lot of responses. But then when i saw it, I think I wound up somewhere in the middle. I was hoping mainly for a solid, mainstream horror movie that was fun without being actively awful or offending my horror snob sensibilities. And I actually think that's what I got. Unlike, say, the Friday the 13th remake, which was so lame and pointless it actually made me angry. Almost as angry as this Nightmare remake has made you!

MM: I would watch the remake of Friday the 13th anyday!

BS: So that one you liked??

MM: I actually didn't mind that one, but then again, you never cared for the original, so for you to judge the remake isn't acceptable to me... With all due respect, of course!

BS: I am a died-in-the-wool F13 hater, and yes, I did find the remake to be very faithful to the old ones, which explains why I didn't like it.

MM: If you don't like the original, it's just not fair for you to judge a remake.

BS: Well, clearly we are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the Michael Bay-produced horror remakes. How about you stick with Friday the 13th, I stick with A Nightmare on Elm Street, and we call it a day?

MM: Agreed.... Now just don't fall asleep...

Tweet

Horror vs. Thriller: A Conversation

It's the eternal question: Is it a horror movie, or is it a thriller? What's the difference? Are they two distinct genres, or is there an overlap? Fans have been debating these issues since forever, and it's not likely to be settled anytime soon. Nevertheless, I recently had a long conversation on the subject with VoH contributor and self-professed girly-girl Marilyn Merlot, which I think touched on a lot of interesting points with regard to these questions. So in the interest of hopefully adding something to the debate, here's the transcript of that conversation:

B-Sol: I think the biggest thing that separates horror and thriller is the supernatural. If a movie has supernatural stuff in it, to me it's automatically horror. Even though there are horror movies that are reality-based and not supernatural. So it's tough.

Marilyn Merlot: I don't know if I would consider the supernatural automatically horror. Sometimes you can even have a mix of horror and thriller.

BS: So what makes you consider a movie a thriller and not horror? Like you've said Silence of the Lambs is not a horror movie, and I kind of agree.

MM: Yes, Silence of the Lambs is a thriller. To me, a thriller is a movie that has some kind of mystery to the story, and a creep factor. It may have some suspense to it, and some fast-paced action.

BS: Yeah, I think Silence of the Lambs and movies like that get more involved in the crime aspect of things, in the detective work and all that.

MM: Where horror is fear, and wanting to scare and terrorize viewers.

BS: Yes. The main purpose of a thriller is not to terrify you. It's to build suspense, but not necessarily to scare the shit out of you.

MM: For example, Jaws. The ocean at night is creepy, and when she jumps in the water at the beginning, you know that shark is coming. That's where it starts to get suspenseful. Jaws is also a thriller, not horror.

BS: Very interesting, because Jaws is another one that I've never found to be a horror movie. It's suspenseful, but not horrifying. Jaws, to me, is more about the adventure of killing the shark, than the fear it's instilling in people.

MM: It can also come down to someone's personal perception, what they find to be horror or thriller. You and I may not agree. I think it can also be different for men and women. Women are generally more scared, or creeped out easier. So what I might find terrifying, you may find laughable. I've got a great example, if you want to debate the movie with me... I know we dont agree. Let's talk Blair Witch Project.

BS: You know I hate it, right?

MM: Yes. You know it creeped me out, right?

BS: But even though I don't like it, I will definitely say it's a horror movie, and not a thriller.

MM: And I was going to say it's a thriller.

BS: Wow, really? Explain.

MM: First off, I have a tendency to over-think a little, and try to put myself in that moment. I guess you can say I'm a girly girl. Yes, I like horror, but I do get freaked out pretty easily. With that movie, think of being lost in the woods, with knowing the back story, and hearing all the creepy things at night. Anyone would be a little freaked out. Then again, i think it comes down to girls being more scared.

BS: But don't you feel like since the whole thing is about making you scared, that it's horror?

MM: The movie had its suspenseful moments and creep factor, but nothing compared to what horror is. Did I find it terrifying? No. The movie wasn't violent, nor did it have a villain--that we saw, anyway.

BS: It did have an evil spirit, though. See for me, that totally takes it into horror territory. Maybe if it was something human, i might think differently.

MM: Yes, but as I said, in my opinion a movie can be supernatural and still be more thriller than horror.

BS: Yes, we disagree there. I think if there's something unreal, something beyond reality that can't be explained rationally, it's automatically horror. You're saying some movies like that can still be thrillers. So let me turn it around this way. Give me an example of what you would consider definitely a horror movie, and not a thriller.

MM: OK, let me stick with the classics: Halloween.

BS: Great example, because that's a movie that is not supernatural. It's a human killer, so someone might say that makes it a thriller. But i would agree, it's totally horror. It's not like Silence of the Lambs, because in Halloween, we're not mainly focused on Dr. Loomis and the cops trying to stop Michael. We're mainly focused on watching Michael stalk and kill these kids.

MM: Well most people may disagree, but The Shining is not horror. I really like it, but it's not horror.
BS: Totally disagree. Maybe because I'm thinking thrillers always have to make sense somehow in the real world. And Shining totally doesn't, it's like a nightmare.

MM: He's a writer, taking care of a hotel. That's real-world.

BS: Yeah, but what happens to him? Unless you take the position that it was totally in his head. That might turn it around and make it a thriller...

MM: There are strange happenings, and you wonder about Jack and the other characters. He's losing his mind. He's not all there, that's basically it. I'm not terrified, sitting on the edge of my chair. Is it creepy? Yes, all children in these types of movies are creepy, so once again theres my "creep" factor. That, for me, makes it a thriller.

BS: I could totally see that one depending on how you interpret it. Because some people (like me) see it as him being influenced by spirits haunting the hotel. Although Nicholson plays it like a lunatic from the beginning, but that's just Jack.
Here's something I was reading recently [in Taschen's Horror Cinema] about this whole thing that makes sense to me. A thriller is all about the buildup, about the expectations, about the terror of wondering what's going to happen. The suspense. But horror is about actually having that terrible thing happen, seeing your worst fear actually happen, and the effect of it. It's all about absorbing the shock.

MM: I totally agree and again, I think it's going to come down the individual, and what people can and cannot handle.

BS: True. I do think, though, that sometimes filmmakers set out to make a horror movie that turns out to be more of a thriller to a lot of people, and vice versa. But here's something else about this whole thing that bothers me. I think sometimes people use the word thriller because they think it makes a movie more respectable than being a horror movie.

MM: Good point, I agree. A lot of people shun horror movies, they automatically think all that blood and guts and torture, it's awful, who wants to see that? I think a lot of people think that way once the title of horror is thrown in there.

BS: Right. Sometimes a studio will want to sell their movie as a "thriller" even if it isn't. Although I was afraid they were doing this with Shutter Island, and I was wrong. At first, it looked like a straight-up horror movie. But in the end, it did turn out to be a total psychological thriller. Once you learn the nature of what's really going on, instant thriller.

MM: It's a fine line and will always be--but it makes for good arguments!

BS: Yes. There will always be a fine line between the two genres. And it led us to this very intriguing debate, so hopefully we made some kind of sense on this tough issue. But in the end, it's up to the viewer to decide!

Tweet

Hump-Day Harangue: Bruce Campbell--What's the Big Deal?

Another guest-harangue from Marilyn Merlot, who dares to question the appeal of one of horror's most beloved thespians...

The more important question after this might be how many women are not going to be a fan of me? Yes, I’m putting it out there. I never saw the big appeal of Bruce Campbell.

I know he’s a big fan favorite with horror websites, blogs, etc. But when I started reading through the interviews for Ms. Horror Blogosphere that the handsome Mr. Solomon put together, I started to ask myself the same question that he was asking some of the lovely contestants. “So what is it about Campbell that you all like, anyway?”

So I thought about it, too. I started off like many other people, catching him as Ash in the Evil Dead movies. At first glance back then, I thought, not bad, easy on the eyes, nice body. Then I was like, okay, this is what everyone’s talking about? Here he’s supposed to be a “real man”--a hero, even. But instead, he’s this whiny little bitch who is just as scared as the girls, and screaming like one. So, if you were his girlfriend, he would be someone you cannot rely on. He would be more likely to throw you in front of himself in self-defense.

Then there is the disaster of Evil Dead II. He is fighting with a possessed hand--enough said. I’ll be honest, I actually had a hard time getting through that movie. I found it laughable at times. I understand that he is a B-movie guy and definitely a B. or maybe C-actor at best. Don’t get me wrong, I like my B-horror movies, but with Bruce and his movies it’s just the same old thing after a while.

For instance, let’s jump ahead to My Name is Bruce. Here, he is still trying to capitalize on the character of Ash from The Evil Dead. Seriously, Bruce? Ash is long gone and done with, let him go. Even Corey Feldman knew he made a mistake when he went back to make Lost Boys: The Tribe. Then, to see someone in his 50s still chasing young starlets around who may be just turning 20 is a little creepy.

When all is said and done, you have a huge fan following, Bruce Campbell, and have made a fine living out of your movies. So until the next Evil Dead movie, I will continue to laugh at your expense.

Tweet

Hump-Day Harangue: Cannibal Holocaust--What's the Big Deal?

Going along with the Cannibal Holocaust theme today, I bring you a special guest HDH from Vault contributor Marilyn Merlot, who was less than impressed with the notorious film, and clearly has a much stronger constitution than poor little me (except when it comes to turtles)...

So, after so much hype surrounding this movie, and so many people asking me if I’d ever seen it, I really felt like Cannibal Holocaust must be the movie to see. I was also hoping it was going to leave a lasting impression on me. I guess in some ways it did, because I still can't get over what a letdown it was!

The movie is concerned with a documentary team of three young men and a young woman. They are heading for the South American jungle to search for real cannibals. But did anybody else feel this movie was more about torturing and killing animals than humans? Cannibalism is the act or practice of humans eating the flesh of other human beings. Granted, don’t get me wrong, this movie did have its graphic, violent rape and torture scenes (though not nearly enough).

I felt like for the most part these people were running around lost in the rain forest and killing animals. Maybe this is why I was let down. When you have the word CANNIBAL in the title, I’m thinking the movie is going to have more to do with violence against humans than animals. Also--and this has happened to me before--I think I may have watched it way past its prime. Maybe it would have had more of an effect on me if I had watched it when it was first released in the U.S. in 1985, when I was only 10 years old.

Anyway, to end my little rant, for those of you who may have not seen it yet, I will leave you with the one thing that really got to me. I’m all for something gruesome and a little gory, but Holy Ninja Turtle, that scene with the giant river tortoise can almost make anyone vomit. So please watch with caution, and with a bucket or toilet nearby...

Tweet

Hump-Day Harangue: Calling Out the After Dark HorrorFest, Part 1

This week I bring you a guest harangue, from long-time Vault Dweller and comrade in the world of the macabre, the mysterious and marvelous Marilyn Merlot. Marilyn is, I confess, much more versed in the notorious "8 Films to Die For" phenomenon than I, having subjected herself to almost all of them over the years. So I figured, with the fourth edition of HorrorFest headed our way, who better to rant on this yearly affront to our horror sensibilities than she? Enjoy...

The After Dark HorrorFest is a weekend of horror films that are supposedly considered too graphic or too disturbing for general audiences. At least that's the company line, and I must say, they have some great marketing skills. Too bad I can’t say the same for their movies. When you hear about movies that are "too graphic", any horror lover like me will run to the nearest theater. They are shown in roughly 500 theaters in 35 cities (unfortunately, these numbers are growing). Nevertheless, if HorrorFest is not coming to a city near you, consider yourself lucky.

8 films that would make you want to die, batch number one (2006):

• Abandoned
• Unrest
• Penny Dreadful
• The Gravedancers
• The Hamiltons
• Reincarnation
• Dark Ride
• Wicked Little Things

Some of these movies have all the right ingredients to make a good film, but fall completely flat, and fast. I like my B horror movies just like the next person, but these were far worse than that. Bad acting, no creep factor, very predictable, no nudity. If your film is going to be that bad, at least have someone get naked to keep my attention.

I think what kills me the most is how they market these movies as being too graphic and too disturbing, which is allegedly why they weren’t released to theaters. When in actuality, they were not released because they SUCK, in plain English. They went straight to DVD. Don’t worry folks, you don’t even need to go out and rent them if you want to try and prove me wrong. Because now, they're going straight to the Sci-Fi channel. Oh wait, I’m sorry, SyFy (don’t get me started on that one).

So out of all eight movies, which one do I think is the worst? My vote goes to Unrest. The "best" movie out of this list, if I had to pick, would be Penny Dreadful. To those who have watched these films, or those curious to do so, feel free to challenge me. I dare you.

Stay tuned for my take on the second installment of HorrorFest, as I bring you 8 more movies that would make you want to die!

Tweet