VAULTCAST! Conversations in the Dark: Kevin Maher

I've been an admirer of the work of Kevin Maher for some time now. His well-regarded genre video clip show series, Kevin Geeks Out, was an eye-opener for me, and if you've been reading the Vault for a while, you may have seen my reviews of several of those events. Simply put, Kevin is a kindred spirit, a fellow unabashed geek--and so I'd been eager to have him as a guest on Conversations in the Dark for a while.

Thankfully, it finally happened, and it was worth the wait. Having just come off a first-time viewing of Stephen King's Maximum Orverdrive, Mr. Maher was pretty jazzed to wax rhapsodic on the topic of killer machines. Which is pretty ambitious, since this is probably not one of the most high-profile of horror subgenres. But we went for it, and with an assist from Captain Cruella, put together a little something I think you'll enjoy. So listen in as I'm joined by a brilliant TV comedy writer and movie nerd for a discussion of murderous vending machines and homicidal laundry folders.

Take a listen on the embedded player below, or proceed to the Vaultcast page and download it for listening at your leisure...



Blog: http://ThisKevin.blogspot.com

Tweet

Fear in Four Colors: American Vampire #1

By Paige MacGregor

Despite the recent Twilight phenomenon, the most influential vampire lore has traditionally originated in Europe. From F.W. Murnau’s silent film Nosferatu to Bram Stoker’s classic novel Dracula, the most enduring vampire tales have come straight out of places like Germany and England. Now, however, New York Times bestselling author Stephen King joins Scott Snyder and Rafael Albuquerque to create a monthly comic series that revolves around a new, distinctly American breed of vampire.

Well-known short story writer Scott Snyder’s contribution to American Vampire #1 tells the tale of a Jazz Age starlet-wannabe named Pearl and her roommate, Hattie. The two girls spend their days as extras on Hollywood sets, and nights working second and third jobs in order to make rent. When Pearl catches a lucky break on set and is asked to stand in for a light reading for the film’s leading lady, she finds herself swept into a world of decadence, invited to a ritzy party with the film’s elite cast members and other high society individuals. Unfortunately, what Pearl and Hattie discover among the Hollywood hotshots is something far more sinister than expected.

American Vampire #1 features Stephen King’s first comic book writing based on original material. King’s story, titled “Bad Blood”, tells the tale of an 1880 bank robber and murderer called Skinner Sweet. After being taken into custody, Sweet runs into an old enemy while being transferred. The scuffle that ensues gives birth to the first American vampire—perhaps one of the very same creatures that Pearl and her roommate have the misfortune of meeting years later.

The vampires in American Vampire #1 are a unique breed: stronger and faster than their European ancestors, American vampires are also more muscular and vicious than their predecessors as well. Although the first issue of the series leaves the recently bitten Skinner Sweet a bloody heap in the middle of the desert, we already know that he will make a formidable blood-drinker if his personality traits carry over during the transformation.

American Vampire #1 sets the stage for what will undoubtedly be a very interesting vampire story. Assuming that vampires have successfully infiltrated at least part of America (and an influential part, at that) by the time Scott Snyder’s story takes place, the comic series appears to be asserting that a single man could be entirely responsible for the proliferation of vampires in the continental United States. Had the goal of the vampire who turns Skinner been to create a strong, clever creature capable of surviving and even thriving, he couldn’t have chosen a better candidate. After all, the same qualities that made Skinner such a renowned criminal and allowed him to evade capture for such a long time will allow him to survive as a vampire.

When combined with a compelling storyline, the beautiful visual style of American Vampire #1 makes this a must-read title, especially for Stephen King fans. We have a feeling that the king of terror has more than a few tricks up his sleeve for the remainder of the series.

Tweet

TRAILER TRASH: Stephen King Edition!

Tweet

The Horror of the Printed Page

[Tonight I bring you a special contribution from award-winning book blogger Katiebabs of Babbling About Books, and More. So let's shut off the DVD players for a minute and think about the books that really scare us, shall we?]

The horror! The horror! Quick, can anyone tell me where that line is from? And no, I’m not talking about one of the most famous movie lines muttered from Marlon Brando in the Francis Ford Coppola classic, Apocalypse Now.

It may seem unfortunate that most of the screams and thrills people find are in movies. I’m a true horror movie buff and I love having the ever loving shit scared out of me as I watch some poor sap die a horrible death from some maniac or supernatural monster. But it may come as a surprise that you can feel these same emotions in books. One of my favorite genres is horror. There has been many times where I have been sitting in my bedroom late at night all alone and scare myself to death by what I am reading.

There are hundreds of books I could recommend that can send chills up and down your spine but since I have limited space, I will give you some of my all time favorite tales of terror. You may find yourself surprised that these books will give you nightmares.

Many of the horror stories I have love are short tales of murder, mayhem and death. One of my all time favorite horror authors is Edgar Allen Poe. My appreciation for Poe began when I watched Vincent Price starring in many screen adaptations of Poe’s work. Two Poe stories that always give me the willies are The Tell-Tale Heart and The Masque of the Red Death. The Tell-Tale Heart is a chilling telling by the narrator as he tells about a murder he committed and how he got rid of the body. The police come to him to ask him questions about the missing person. They have no clue that he is the killer, and he is about to get away with the murder. But as the police interview him, he begins to hear a noise, a sound that won’t go away. The sound becomes louder to his ears, till he is near insanity, wanting it to stop:

"Villains!" I shrieked, "dissemble no more! I admit the deed! --tear up the planks! here, here! --It is the beating of his hideous heart!"

The Masque of the Red Death takes place during a masquerade ball where the guests are murdered by some unknown killer. The question is, who is this killer and why is he targeting these people? The ways they die are very gruesome. But no one is safe because the Red Death is actually a terrible plague that has swept across the land.

Don’t Look Now by Daphne de Maurier is another short story that was made into a cult classic movie in 1973 with Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie. A married couple are on vacation, trying to get pass their grief over the death of their little girl who drowned. The husband begins to see a little blonde girl in a red coat everywhere. He starts to believe she is his daughter because his daughter had drowned in the same type of coat this strange little girl is wearing. When he finally catches up to the little girl, the twist will shock the ever loving crap out of you. The ending to the story gave me nightmares for weeks. And if you decide to see the movie, don’t be surprised if the last two minutes makes you piss your pants from fright.

The one type of creature, that makes me want to hide in a closet and pray for a quick death if they find me are zombies. I blame George Romero for that lifelong fear. But without Richard Matheson there would be no Night of the Living Dead. Matheson wrote a story in 1954 that has influenced many horror authors and Hollywood filmmakers. I Am Legend helped develop the vampire and zombie genre by building upon the idea of an apocalypse of disease that will destroy the world. This story is the reason Stephen King wanted to write horror and responsible for flesh eating zombies becoming such a cultural phenomenon in movies and literature. It is about the one soul survivor left on Earth after a virus has turned humans into undead mindless zombies. The reader goes through the experience alongside Robert as he tries not to go crazy because every night he is stalked by these creatures. Imagine if you were the last person on Earth with no where to turn to for help, only you own thoughts to keep you company as you try to stay alive or become food.

Speaking of Stephen King, he is my idol, my reason for reading and wanting to write like he does. He has shaped the horror, science fiction and fantasy genre alike. It is so hard to choose his best work. The three that come to mind are The Stand, It and The Shining. With The Shining, King is able to tap into a person’s inner demons and the eventual break down of a person’s mind because of those demons. Part psychological thriller, part ghost story, this is one of the finest books I have ever read. It gave me an intense dislike of clowns and the underground sewage system, and The Stand is my number one favorite book of all time. The Stand taps into the desolation and fear in people of what is right and wrong and how one would survive if an epidemic such as a virus wiping out the world did occur.

Many of the books I have listed are classics. There is one final book I would like to mention that was just released this year and you may come as a surprise because it is a Young Adult book written for the teen audience. The Forest of Hand and Teeth by Carrie Ryan is such a book that in my past twenty odd years of reading scared me to the point I was looking over my shoulder as I read, expecting the monsters from the book to be standing there. The Forest of Hands and Teeth is a cross between M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village and George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead. This book has tapped deep into my fears and psyche. Imagine the world filled with zombies who want to eat you. You have no where to turn, for they are all around you, crying in hunger, waiting for the right moment to attack. Imagine the only thing that keeps you from being infected by them and becoming one of them or becoming zombie food is a fence that keeps them out. What if that fence was breached and they were able to come through? This is a book not for the faint of heart. There is death and destruction, filled with violence and fear. The fear is not surviving from the monsters whose only goal is to consume the living. But is this truly surviving? (For more on The Forest of Hands and Teeth, you can read my review here: http://kbgbabbles.blogspot.com/2009/03/forest-of-hands-and-teeth-book-review.html)

I thank B-Sol for giving me this opportunity to talk about my favorite horror reads. What are some of your favorite horror books or authors you can recommend to fellow horror fans?

Katiebabs from Babbling About Books and More! http://kbgbabbles.blogspot.com/ Twitter: @Katiebabs

Tweet

In Defense of THE MIST

Far be it from a curmudgeon like me to say this, but I think it's entirely possible that we as horror fans run the risk of occasionally becoming a bit too cynical for our own good. Case in point: Why is it that a movie like Frank Darabont's The Mist, a solid, enjoyable horror flick, has been so roundly pummeled by the online horror community? This morning I'm taking a stand and saying it's damn fine little fright film.

I had caught it a while back on cable and not given it my full attention, mainly due to all the mediocre feedback I had read about it on the web. The main thing that struck me then was Marcia Gay Harden's amazing performance, but other than that, I didn't really watch it closely enough to make an informed decision. But just last night, I had the pleasure of sitting down with my dad, my Obi-Wan Kenobi of horror, to watch it, since he had just purchased the double-disc deluxe edition.

Now, he may have been a horror fan since the days when Vincent Price was a hot new prospect, but even still, Dad and I haven't always agreed (his adoration of Wrong Turn 2, for example). So I was a little skeptical. But nearly two hours later, and I was scratching my head wondering why everyone had been so damn hard on this movie.

I mean, look, it's not anything that's going to change your life. We're not talking something in a category with the likes of [REC], Inside, Drag Me to Hell or Let the Right One In here. But this movie deserves a lot more praise than it got. It's a well made, very well acted horror film, which I'd put on a par with something like 30 Days of Night, another highly enjoyable flick that I felt was far too strongly maligned.

You would think that with the endless barrage of mind-numbing remakes, sequels and garbage aimed at high school moviegoers, that we would be able to better appreciate a decent movie when we got one. Am I lowering my standards? I don't think so. Rather, I think everyone else's may be just a bit too high.

Maybe we expect too much of our movie experiences sometimes, I don't know. Maybe it's the very low expectations I had going into this movie. Whatever the case, I had fun with it. As he has in the past, Darabont has a fine handle on Stephen King's material. Does it pack the emotional punch of something like The Shawshank Redemption or The Green Mile? Hell no, but that's a shortcoming of the vast majority of horror movies in general--they are so bound up in evoking fear that they don't have much left for stirring up other emotions (that's a subject for another post). This was Darabont's first crack at a King horror story, and I think he did a fine job.

Thomas Jane, one of the most underrated actors around, is terrific in the lead role, knowing just when to underplay it, and when to turn on the teeth-rattling emotion. I've already praised Harden, but I'll do it again. What's funny is I had just seen her 20 years younger (and infinitely hotter) in Miller's Crossing the night before, so I've kind of been discovering what a killer actress she is this week. There are also impressive supporting performances from Toby Jones (Karl Rove in W.) as a pistol-packing grocer, William "I can be a friend to you" Sadler as an unstable good ol' boy, Frances Sternhagen (a veteran of King's Misery and Golden Years) as a badass schoolmarm, and Brian Libby (a Darabont regular) as a biker with some of the best lines in the movie.

As for the effects, much has been made of the supposedly unconvincing CGI creatures, and I've got to take a stand here as well. There's nothing that annoys me more than bad/lazy CGI. But this isn't it. Does it look 100% real? No. But when did we all become such special effects snobs? Granted, there are a lot of times in film when practical effects would be much more convincing than CGI. But creature effects in particular have always been tough to pull off, since the dawn of cinema.

I mean, as much as we all drool over the work of Ray Harryhausen, Willis O'Brien and the like, are any of us going to say that their creations looked 100% real? Heck, no! Rather, it was their engaging, "pseudo-reality" that endeared them to us--their "cool factor", for lack of a better term. So why, all of a sudden, do we all demand 100% perfect reality from our special effects in this age of CGI? Why have our expectations changed? Maybe it's all the bad CGI out there that has soured us on the practice as a whole. For my money, the creature work in The Mist is highly effective and did NOT commit that one mortal sin of bad effects, which is to take me out of the movie.

The sense of dread is well-represented, as is the social breakdown that occurs within the group--in fact, that element reminded me in parts of Romero at his best. The gore is suitably shocking. And the ending, although different from King's novella, packs a hell of an emotional wallop, thanks largely to Jane. I'll go on the record as saying that the revised ending is one of the things that makes the movie, since so often King's downfall is that he doesn't know how to wrap things up. And although I wasn't a fan of the unnecessary explanation given for the creatures, I did enjoy the Lovecraftian nod, especially that gigantic Cthulhu-like thing that makes a brief cameo.

In short, The Mist is an enjoyable monster movie. It's got Darabont's polish, and King's sinister world view. And considering the batting average of most horror films based on King's work, I think we all need to ease up on it just a bit. It may not be earthshattering or anything, but I could think of far worse ways to spend an average weeknight.

Tweet

Retro Review: The Shining

This review might cause some waves, since for whatever reason, this movie seems to have somewhat divided the horror fan community. Not so much the mainstream audience, which views it as an unquestioned classic, but rather the Stephen King die-hards, some of whom embrace it, and others who--like the author himself--reject it utterly.

Well, I fall in the camp of those who worship at the altar of the great Stanley Kubrick, and this film is just about his finest hour, along with the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove and A Clockwork Orange. In this blogger's humble opinion, Kubrick's The Shining holds a very special place as perhaps the finest-made horror film of all time, right up there with The Bride of Frankenstein, Psycho and The Exorcist.

Comparing this cinematic diamond with a TV movie starring one of the guys from Wings is like comparing Morton's Steakhouse to Jack in the Box. Yes, I get that the '90s TV version is far more faithful to the book, but that's not finally the point. What's the point of being more faithful if the movie is inferior? Let's face it, Kubrick was a cinematic mastermind, and he knew better how Stephen King's epic novel would work on film than King himself did. Plain and simple.

Take a look at what we have here. A film that's brilliantly shot, thanks in part to cinematographer John Alcott, who had previously worked with Kubrick on A Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon (and, incidentally, shot Terror Train right after this). With a sense of light and color that achieves a level of perfection few films ever do. The scene with Jack and Grady in the men's room is a thing of beauty, that can be watched with the sound off and you still wouldn't be able to take your eyes off it. Its a classic example of the Kubrick style.

It's been said that most of Kubrick's films deal with two main themes: The first being dehumanization, and the other being the complete and utter collapse of what seemed to be a perfect scenario. And in The Shining, we certainly see both themes in full display, explored as only Kubrick could, both visually and contextually. It may be true that Jack Nicholson comes off as a little crazy right from the very beginning, as opposed to the perfectly normal Jack Torrance of the book, but nevertheless, his transformation to murderous psychopath is breathtaking to behold.

Some accuse the film of glacial pacing. I think these are the same people who complain that baseball is a slow sport. It's all about what goes on inside your head, the expectation. I find the film to be perfectly paced, drawing you in slowly with an unmatched sense of foreboding--aided in no small part by Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind's unforgettable score.

Jack Nicholson does what he does best in the lead role. Say what you will about his deviation from the character in the novel, but you can't stop watching him for a second when he's on screen. The bar scene... the typewriter scene... and of course, "Here's Johnny!" Whether playing it over-the-top or subtle--and yes, there is a lot of subtlety to his performance here--it's arguably the greatest role of Nicholson's legendary career.

Also terrific in a supporting part is the charismatic Scatman Crothers as the ill-fated Dick Hallorann. And of course my personal favorite, the menacing Delbert Grady, played with relish by Philip Stone, who had previously played Malcolm McDowell's dad in A Clockwork Orange. Little Danny Lloyd gives one of the great child performances as Danny Torrance, and it's good that he does, since the film sort of hinges on his dread being believable. The weakest link in the chain may very well be Shelley Duvall, who seems somehow out of place as Jack's wife, perhaps owing in part to her reported on-set animosity with Kubrick. Still, I've always felt that her hysterical panic in the famous axe scene is utterly authentic and suitably chilling.

The imagery is pure Kubrick, presenting the viewer with visuals that stay in the brain long after the movie is over. The barely glimpsed shot of the hacked-up Grady twins; the old lady in the bathtub; that creepy dude in the bear suit--this is surreal, nightmarish horror at its very best.

I take nothing away from Stephen King, who is undoubtedly one of the finest, and possibly the most important, writer of horror fiction in the 20th century, and today. But the track record for movie versions of his novels is not the best. For whatever reason, something often seems to get lost in the translation, and this is why I humbly submit that maybe King doesn't quite understand how best to transfer his ideas from the page to the screen.

And even though he bashed Kubrick to anyone who would listen, nevertheless the fact remains that King was blessed by having a filmmaker of Kubrick's calibre take on his work. In the process, he created what is easily one of the greatest horror movies ever made, and definitely the greatest adaptation of King's horror-related work ever mounted, with Carrie being a close second. Is it faithful to King's book? Not really--Kubrick, egomaniac that he was, took the source material and ran with it, twisting it into his own unique vision. And for that I say, thank goodness.

Tweet

Madonna Compared to Pennywise?

My loyal readers know that I never choose to take the sleazy celeb gossip route, but this one was just to good to pass up, and oh-so-relevant!

Could it be that Madonna is a huge fan of Stephen King's It? Unlikely. My fellow Blogspot blogger Perez Hilton is reporting that someone has shipped 100 DVDs of the fan-favorite TV miniseries, as well as 50 copies of King's original novel, to all of her various assorted homes. Rumor has it that the most likely sender is her ex-husband, director Guy Ritchie--who, according to sources close to the former couple, took to calling her "It" towards the end of their tumultuous marriage, apparently comparing her to the evil, monstrous clown Pennywise.

Whoever pulled the prank would have to be someone who knows all of the pop icon's personal addresses, which also points to Ritchie. Madonna is apparently furious over it.

Through a spokesperson, she had this to say: "We all float down here."

OK, just kidding about that last bit...

Tweet

What Goes Bump In the Night…….?

Recently, my co-contributor Karl Hungus posted a great piece on what turns the screws of his fears. I could not help myself, and have decided to return the favor.

My earliest fears - that is, the first movie to really scare the bejeezuz out of me – was a mixture of The Hand with Michael Cane, and Sasquatch. I can recall these movies being on a television when I was very young, and I was not able to understand them. They may have been playing on what would by now be an antique movie player, either an early VHS or maybe some sort of laserdisc system (anyone recall “Selectivision??”). In fact, for a long time (whatever a long time is to a 4 year old) I conflated these two movies together. But what was it that scared me? The autonomous hand? The concept of some monster named ‘Sasquatch’ roaming the dark woods? I think that it was just that these movies were scary, and therefore I was scared by them.

Not too long after the Hand/Sasquatch caper there was a television showing of the first true fear I would experience on film. This was different than the abstract experience from above. Rather, this was something I perceived could happen to me, and it continues to affect me. The movie was Spielberg’s “Jaws” and I am still afraid to swim in any body of water alone, much less swim in any body of water, alone or otherwise, at night. This includes shallow, above ground swimming pools.

What was it about Jaws? Well, it did have the advantage of at least being essentially plausible – people had really been attacked and eaten by sharks, most gruesomely by the infamous white shark. That both the robot shark and the real life versions are so awesomely built to inspire human fear they border on a parody of the form – huge mouths in a dreadful smiley-face, with mandibles that can diabolically disengage for larger bites, filled with row about row of symmetrically triangular razors – it is almost too much, like a child’s drawing. Further, it was not unusual for me and mine to spend a good deal of time in the water, as we loved swimming and beaches (still do).

Well, I can chalk a lot of the fear about Jaws, in addition to the plausiblilty, up to that there was a) the prospect of being eaten alive – which has got to be painful in the extreme, and b) that it came from nowhere. That is, you never saw it coming until it wanted you to see it coming. While the shark does reveal itself at times by the fin, whenever it went in for a kill, it came from underneath. I think that the two most terrifying “kills” are the opening scene, where the shark essentially comes out of nowhere to take the skinny-dipping girl, and the later scene, when the boy on the raft is killed.

The first – the girl killed at night, gets to me because she cannot possibly see the shark, and was trusting of the ocean to not send something wicked her way. And there she is, a fragile human full of the belief nothing can go wrong, until suddenly she is without a leg. Oh, the horror. And you pretty much don’t see the shark, either. In the end there is barely enough of her left to fill a bedpan.

In the second scene, where the boy is killed in broad daylight, you again don’t really see the shark, except as it completes a “death roll” as the rest of the swimmers run for it. Now, this scene got to me young because that could have been me on that raft. But, as I have gotten older, it has turned more into the instinctual “protect the young" fear. While I am not a parent yet, I am the oldest in my family, and have a very developed protective streak, and the idea of being unable to prevent a child in my charge from harm, much less becoming a snack for a giant fish, is unconscionable. When the camera closes in on the poor mother in her sun hat searching the surf for her son, it is almost unwatchable for me now.

Finally, there is a third scene, which is the death of the character of Quint. He is an implacable foe of the shark, bent on vengeance, clearly cast as a latter day Ahab. But in his final scene, when the shark has breached the transom and all but sunk his Orca, he is kicking and squealing like a baby, all for naught. Even the toughest succumb to the Leviathan is the unspoken moral.

Notwithstanding that I was already damaged goods from Jaws, my good ol’ Uncle Pat decided it would be a great idea to take me and my cousin, Jenn, to see the brand new adventure film at the local drive-in in New Jersey. We had gone to this drive-in before, having seen both The Muppet Movie and The Empire Strikes Back there. This time, though, with Raiders of the Lost Ark, we were in for fare a little more suited for adults. Frankly, the only scene that got to me was the melting faces. It didn’t get to me at the time, only later, when I tried to go to sleep after an extremely satisfying movie going experience. I closed my eyes and all I saw was the wire rimmed spectacles falling from the disintegrating face of Major Arnold Toht, over and over again. As for Jenn, to this day she never got over the chamber of the serpents.

I am unsure why, beyond the obvious, this got to me. I suppose it had a lot to do with the idea of the pain of a melting face, coupled with the idea of being so bad that God is that mad at you. It’s worse than the Devil being mad at you, I guess.

I appreciated Mr. Hungus’ inclusion of the film “Pet Semetary” in his piece. Being a precocious child, as well as always trying to prove myself to the adults in my family, I read the novel as a 3rd grader (it took me a long time to get through, though – most of a year, if I recall). I was blessed with the type of parents that would permit me to read just about anything, including Stephen King, and this one looked good. Well, let me tell you…………

Pet Semetary might be the all around scariest King book, and was by far the scariest King I ever read. As a kid it was mind-bendingly terrifying. It had it all – reanimated zombie cats, ghosts coming without warnings, children’s deaths, reanimated zombie children, and a twisted sister locked in the attic. There was a blackness in the horror of Pet Semetary that most horror books lack. And somehow this blackness translated into the film.

I suppose, at the outset, Pet Semetary has an advantage of being scary as it threatened the well being of children. As can be seen by what I related above, in addition to my own safety, as I got older there developed in me the fear of harm to the helpless. To be unable to save Gage from the truck is unimaginable; the fear of being a parent and losing a child is only moreso.

In addition to this, though, is that the dead return to life rather surly. They aren’t slothful, moaning zombies, but actually motivated agents of great evil. Churchill the cat was not pleasant after his stint in the Micmac burial ground, and Gage literally brings the voices of Hell. Mr. Hungus had it nailed with his analysis of the showdown between Gage and the old man, Jud. It was scary in the book, and this was faithfully translated into the film version. And while the Achilles severing was awful, the part that got me was when Gage swipes the corners of Jud’s mouth with the scalpel. (Fans of Asian cinema might see shades of this in the character Kakihara from the incredible Ichii the Killer.)

To be continued.....................

Tweet

Pat Hingle 1924-2009

We start off the year with the loss of a prolific character actor, best known for playing Commissioner Gordon in the PolyGram Pictures Batman movie series of 1989-97. In fact, he was one of only two actors to play their roles in all four movies. But Pat Hingle's resume included roles in countless other films and TV shows, including several notable horror appearances.

Most notably of all, he starred in the 1963 Twilight Zone episode, "The Incredible World of Horace Ford". He also played in Stephen King's Maximum Overdrive, and the 1997 TV remake of The Shining.

In addition to his work in horror and B-flicks, Hingle co-starred in a plethora of major motion pictures, spanning the 1950s right up to recent years, including On the Waterfront, Splendor in the Grass, Hang 'Em High, Sudden Impact, Brewster's Millions, The Grifters, The Quick and the Dead, and Talladega Nights. He had a recurring role on Gunsmoke, and was Col. Parker in John Carpenter's 1979 TV movie Elvis.

Tweet

Stephen King Picks His Ten Favorite Movies of 2008

The ever-eccentric and mind-bogglingly prolific Stephen King has selected his suitably eccentric ten best film picks for the past year. As part of his regular column for Entertainment Weekly, Maine's master of the macabre has selected a batch of flicks ranging from the expected to the... well, unexpected, to say the least:

1. The Dark Knight
2. Slumdog Millionaire
3. WALL-E
4. Tropic Thunder
5. Funny Games
6. The Bank Job
7. Lakeview Terrace
8. The Ruins
9. Redbelt
10. Death Race

Not that he's expected to only like horror movies, but for the record, it's worth noting that King chose Funny Games and The Ruins as his only two horror picks. His top four are solid, and I'd agree, for the most part (although I haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire yet). From there it gets... kind of... quirky...?

Anyway, if you'd like to read the author's own explanations for his choices, check it out on EW.com.

Tweet

Triumph of the Tube: A History of Horror TV, Part 5

It becomes more difficult to judge a certain period in history the closer one actually is to it, which is why covering the recent history of horror on television can present something of a challenge. Nevertheless, most observers would agree that the past several years have seen a promising resurgence of the genre on the small screen, as it has proven more resilient against the competition of the movies than was previously thought possible. In fact, an argument can be made that horror TV over the past dozen or so years has been superior to horror film.

In part, this has been due to the innovations permitted by cable, but ironically, the most popular horror TV show of the past dozen years was to be found on plain old broadcast TV. And a third-rate network, at that.

Based on a somewhat forgettable theatrical teen comedy, Buffy the Vampire Slayer certainly didn't premiere in 1997 to a lot of elevated expectations. It didn't help that it was one of the tentpole shows of the brand-new WB Network, Time-Warner's low-rent black sheep of the broadcast dial. Yet it soon became a show that defied all expectation. Leaving the memory of its cinematic inspiration in the dust, it quickly built a rabid following using a more serious tone and a slick hipness that appealed to a young audience in a way few horror series ever had.

Sarah Michelle Gellar became the genre's next great female star, and an unlikely action hero in the title role. With the still-young internet hitting its stride, Buffy became an early favorite amongst online fans, who debated its every twist and turn in chatrooms, on messageboards, and everywhere in between. In some ways, it was the fan base of Buffy that helped set the standard of genre fandom in the internet age.

An unfortunate switch to the even more low-rent UPN contributed to the show's eventual demise, but it ran for seven solid seasons, and maintained such a hardcore following that show creator Joss Whedon recently brought about an eighth season in comic book form. In 1999, Buffy even spawned a nearly as successful spin-off, Angel, which itself ran for six seasons on the WB.

Buffy and Angel helped bring horror into the homes of a whole new generation of fans, and also proved that network TV could still deliver a tried-and-true genre phenomenon. A whole new sub-genre of teen-oriented (and even more specifically, teen girl-oriented) horror cropped up, as typified by another WB hit, Charmed (1998-2006)--a show about a coven of young, nubile witches that ran for an impressive eight seasons and boasted high-profile actresses like Alyssa Milano, Shannon Doherty and Rose McGowan.

Stephen King, that old warhorse of made-for-TV horror, certainly continued to be a presence in the network realm, bringing his controversial new adaptation of The Shining to ABC in 1997. Purporting to be far more faithful to the novel than Stanley Kubrick's 1980 theatrical version, which King was unhappy with, the movie divided the fanbase between King loyalists and those who felt that despite its creative licenses, the Kubrick film was a far superior work. Two years later, King would also pen his own original screenplay, The Storm of the Century, which was filmed as a mini-series for ABC as well.

With the turn of the century, however, cable TV programming was kicking off what many consider to be something of a golden age--one that is still going on, as a matter of fact. Originally cable programming like HBO's The Larry Sanders Show, Oz and The Sopranos was demonstrating what was truly possible outside the bounds of traditional TV. And before long, the trickle-down effect began to reach genre programming as well.

In 1999, Universal made waves with the introduction of a quirky, hip show called G vs. E (later changed to Good vs. Evil). Inspired by the edgy material of people like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, the show proved to be more of a landmark than its lack of ratings success would indicate. It didn't last more than a season, switching from USA Network to the Sci-Fi Channel along the way, but the show's smart writing and clever premise led to bigger and better things down the road for cable horror.

Before long, cable channels were cranking out more and more home-grown horror and sci-fi productions. Naturally, with the good came some bad, as well. Sci-Fi Channel began devoting itself more and more to original programming, including an Invisible Man series, as well as the never-ending stream of generally basement-quality made-for-cable movies (Mansquito, anyone?) which continues to this day.

There was a lot of experimenting going on, and fans were benefiting. Sci-Fi gave us a series based on the horror comedy Tremors (2003). TNT produced the interesting if short-lived Nightmares and Dreamscapes, a series based on the short stories of Stephen King. USA cast Anthony Michael Hall in the role made famous by Christopher Walken for a successful series version of King's The Dead Zone (2002-07). Bravo even put together the very enjoyable 100 Scariest Movie Moments (2004), a very popular mini-series in the format of shows like VH1's I Love the '80s, which continues to be re-shown every year.

In response, network TV put out the likes of a weak Twilight Zone retread (2002-03), the lackluster ABC movie Kingdom Hospital (2004), and Invasion (2005-06), an ill-fated X-Files knock-off which failed to benefit from having the smash hit Lost as a lead-in. By far, the most successful horror-themed network series to come out of the past few years would have to be the CW's Supernatural (2005-), which has managed to capture the same type of audience that made hits out of Buffy, Angel and Charmed.

But even that moderate success couldn't compete with what the folks at Showtime were cooking up, unfettered as they were with the concerns of sponsors. How best to capitalize on what fans loved the most about theatrical horror movies? Simple: Recruit some of the greatest creators in the business to make their own one-hour mini-movies that gave them everything a cinematic horror experience would.

The result was Masters of Horror (2005-07), a series of short films that featured A-level horror directors such as Tobe Hooper, Dario Argento, Stuart Gordon, John Carpenter and John Landis, as well as writers like Clive Barker and Richard Matheson. Highlights included Gordon's adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's Dreams in the Witch House, Argento's Jenifer, Carpenter's Cigarette Burns, Takashi Miike's Imprint and Hooper's adaptation of Ambrose Bierce's The Damned Thing.

Although the quality was occasionally erratic, the series was the classic example of the possibilities of cable horror. An attempted network TV version of the show, NBC's Fear Itself (2008-09), has only accentuated the difference--with tame, uninspired content that would ensure the show wouldn't outlast its first season.

After Masters of Horror, the floodgates were opened. Showtime followed up with an even-better project, the serial killer series Dexter (2006-), which has proven just as excellent as any highly regarded premium cable dramatic series out there. Not to be outdone, this season HBO unleashed its first genre series in many years with True Blood (2008-), the sleek and sexy tale of vampire-human relations in the Deep South that's steadily and quietly becoming one of the year's sleeper hits.

And beyond the traditional approaches to programming, cable/satellite has taken TV horror in directions previously undreamt of. In 2007, NBC Universal unveiled Chiller, the first major 24-hour horror television channel. The high-definition channel MonstersHD also offers around-the-clock terrors with crystal clear sound and picture. And FEARnet makes use of on-demand technology to offer its subscribers the ability to watch the horror movies they want, whenever they want.

In this day and age of tired torture porn and endless remakes, there are many who would suggest that TV horror has indeed become superior to its silver-screen cousin. With a combination of intelligent, quality programming and network willingness to provide for a voracious and often underfed fanbase, it's pretty hard not to agree. When it come to horror, the boob tube has certainly come a long way--from struggling out of the shadow of radio, to overshadowing its theatrical predecessor.

So the next time you're scouring the listings for a horror flick that's actually worthy of your $11, why bother? With the options available to lucky horror fans today right in their own homes, let them keep their Japanese retreads and PG-13 slashers. Stay home and enjoy!

Other major shows:

• Spawn (1997-99)
• Brimstone (1998-99)
• Blade: The Series (2006)
• Witchblade (2006-)
• Moonlight (2007-08)

Part 1: Fear Invades the Living Room
Part 2: Terror Comes of Age
Part 3: How to Scare Without Losing Sponsors
Part 4: Small-Screen Revolution

Tweet

Stephen King, By Way of Lucio Fulci

I confess that up until recently, the only Lucio Fulci film of which I was closely familiar was the infamous Zombi 2, undoubtedly the closest thing to a mainstream horror movie the Italian splatter maestro ever produced. I had yet to really delve into his even more greatly revered trilogy of terrors: The Gates of Hell, The Beyond and House by the Cemetery. 

Well, I did something about that several weeks ago when I received House by the Cemetery in the mail from the fine folks at Netflix--whom I still love, even if this is the only one of the trilogy they currently offer. Now, there's nothing I love more than a good, down-and-dirty 1970s exploitation horror flick, and House by the Cemetery delivered the goods. I was mucho impressed, and pleased as I always am at discovering a horror gem for the first time. That happens less and less these days.

But there was something about the movie I immediately noticed, and after viewing it, I jumped on the internet, only to find that nearly no one else seems to have made much of it at all. But it hit me like a water-logged boxing glove, so I thought I'd share it and see who among you shares my opinion. Simply put, it seems very obvious to me that, as enjoyable as House by the Cemetery is, it's basically Lucio Fulci's attempt to ride on the coattails of The Shining.

Just as he had done in 1979 when he put out the misleadingly titled Zombi 2 to capitalize on the success of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead the previous year, so too, it appears to me, did he crank out HBTC in 1981, a year after Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of Stephen King's novel, as a direct reaction to it.

Let's take a look at this, shall we? Both films focus on families moving into houses that are in the possession of some kind of malevolent force. In both cases, the man is moving in for professional reasons, and has a very young son who is contacted/befriended by an otherworldy spirit. The parents are aware of this, but believe it only to be their sons' imaginary friend. Both stories focus on the father of the family, and his journey of discovery as to the nature of the house and its evil presence. Both also showcase a distraught, put-upon wife who grows more and more terrified as she witnesses bizarre events unfold in the house. The Shining ends with a time-paradox twist involving the father and the earlier period in which the disturbance originated. At the end of HBTC, the son finds himself transported somehow back to an earlier time as well.

Where King/Kubrick and Fulci deviate is that in The Shining the force is far less tangible, and eventually imposes an evil influence on the father, turning him into a killer, while in House by the Cemetery, the entity is much more corporeal in nature, dispatching of its hapless victims directly.

Essentially, HBTC is a haunted house story, with a decidedly Fulcian twist. That twist has to do with Fulci's fascination with the physical, and the horrors of the flesh. Whereas most ghost stories are atmospheric in nature, frightening viewers on a psychological level, Fulci's aesthetic requires that the antagonist be much more of a physical being, able to perpetrate acts of graphic violence to showcase his beloved gore effects for the purpose of causing revulsion. This makes the movie a rare hybrid of the haunted house story and splatter flick.

My observation of Fulci's aping of The Shining may be fairly obvious to some of you, but the fact remains that I've been able to find hardly any mention online of any observed connection between the two movies. Yet for me, it was one of the first things I noticed. The film marks such a departure for Fulci, content-wise, that one cannot help but conclude that he had beheld the enormous success of Kubrick's pic and felt that maybe the writing was on the wall, that horror was returning to its more gothic roots. And so he attempted to get on board the bandwagon, albeit not without leaving his own bloody handprints so no one forgot whose movie it was.

The result makes for a surprisingly entertaining movie, particularly for those with a good old-fashioned attention span, who appreciate having their patience rewarded with properly paced and placed payoffs. Despite the hack editing and flaws of logic inherent in any Fulci picture, it works on several levels, producing more purely atmospheric terror than Fulci was customarily known for, while also punctuating the proceedings with a healthy dose of gut-wrenching grue. Despite its derivative nature, Fulci somehow manages to make it into a fairly unique movie--a paradox if ever there was one.

Tweet

Small-Screen Revolution: A History of Horror TV, Part 4

With the onset of cable television over the course of the 1980s, horror TV underwent something of a transformation. For some time, the increasing brutality on the big screen had posed a challenge to those working on the little screen, who were bound to far more stringent restrictions. But cable, free of the censoring influences of sponsors, would allow them at last to compete on an even playing field.

As it would a decade later in the area of straight drama, HBO led the way. They had given the public a taste of what they could do with The Hitchhiker (1983), an intriguing cross between Twilight Zone and Hitchcock, but even that wasn't enough to prepare audiences for what they were about to unleash at the end of the decade. While the networks continued to churn out popular yet tame material like the vampire cop series Forever Knight (1989-96), HBO took a gamble by infusing sinister new life into a potent old horror franchise.

With Tales from the Crypt (1989-96), horror fans finally got everything they loved about modern theatrical fright films, right in the comfort of their own homes. Using stories--many taken from the legendary EC comic book of 30 years prior--introduced each week by the grisly Crypt Keeper, the show took full advantage of HBO's wide berth, never skimping on the violence and gore, and relishing every minute of it with typical Gaines-ian glee. It was everything the old anthology series of the past had been, taken to a bold and horrifying new level. Plus, it was funny as hell, which made it HBO's first smash hit series.

There was still horror to be found on traditional channels, to be sure, but the old guard almost seemed to have given up trying to keep up, knowing their hands were tied. Instead, the focus switched to the juvenile, and a mini-phenomenon of horror shows for kids emerged. With series like Are You Afraid of the Dark? (1991-96), Eerie, Indiana (1991-92) and the animated Beetlejuice (1989-91), producers no longer had to worry about pleasing an adult horror audience that had grown tired of TV's limitations. Perhaps the best example of all was the wildly successful Goosebumps (1995-98), based on a line of kids' novels by R.L. Stine that were huge back when J.K. Rowling was still a schoolteacher.

When it did try and deal with more grown-up horror, it seemed like broadcast TV was still stuck in the rut of tried-and-true formulas. You had attempts to feed of the success of the past, such as the ill-fated relaunch of Dark Shadows (1990), as well as made-for-TV sequels like Psycho IV (1990) and The Omen IV (1991).

A spate of Stephen King adaptations made the best of network restrictions with mixed results. While some, like The Tommyknockers (1993), proved largely forgettable, others, like the miniseries It (1990) and The Stand (1994) proved quite chilling, if flawed. Some have even argued that the first of the two, featuring the nightmarish clown Pennywise portrayed by Tim Curry, could be one of the finest adaptations of King's work shown on screens of any size.

After spending years taking a beating against the ropes, conventional broadcast TV finally rebounded in 1993 with its first mega-hit in years. Inspired by Kolchak: The Night Stalker of two decades prior, Fox's The X-Files became a hit of massive proportions, helping to propel the fledgling network to major status, and creating a passionate, loyal fan base. The cryptic, supernatural adventures of Agents Scully and Mulder captivated, with their hints of alien invasions, vast government conspiracy and the thin veil of normalcy that protected the regular world from the perils of the unknown.

The series ran for 10 seasons, and attained a popularity rivaled among sci-fi/horror TV only by the likes of Star Trek and The Twilight Zone (and like them, it also made the leap to the big screen). Best of all, it was intelligently written, providing the genre's first breath of fresh air in decades. Nevertheless, for the most part, it would prove to be the exception.

When it came to boob tube scares, the cutting edge continued to be on the pay channels. Showtime threw its hat in the ring in 1993 by teaming directors Tobe Hooper and John Carpenter for the anthology movie Body Bags, and later by reintroducing audiences to an old property with the vastly underrated New Outer Limits (1995-02), as well as Poltergeist: The Legacy (1996-99). Even a commercial cable channel like TNT was able to get into the act, bringing beloved genre commentator Joe Bob Briggs on board to host a series of theatrical horror films packaged as "Monstervision" (1993-00). Nothing like that had been attempted on regular TV since the heyday of the "horror hosts".

By the middle of the 1990s, the entire continental United States was wired for cable. The rules had changed. But that didn't mean that the lower channels on the dial were ready to give up the ghost, if you'll pardon the pun. Although the future of televised horror clearly lay in pay TV, another one of those fledgling broadcast networks was about to pull off just what Fox had done with The X-Files. But this time it would be a show set even more firmly within the scare genre, and as such would become arguably the most successful and beloved "pure horror" TV series of all time.

Other major shows:

• Jeckyll & Hyde (1990)
• Sometimes They Come Back (1991)
• The Langoliers (1995)
• Kindred: The Embraced (1996)

Soon to come: Part 5 - Triumph of the Tube

Part 1: Fear Invades the Living Room
Part 2: Terror Comes of Age
Part 3: How to Scare Without Losing Sponsors

Tweet

Stephen King and Marvel Make History

I'll admit that I fell off the Stephen King bandwagon a long time ago--somewhere around Four Past Midnight, if memory serves. Too many obsessively repeated catchphrases, too many dangling plot threads and fizzling climaxes. Yet the Boston Red Sox' most famous fan is up to something rather ingenious these days, which I thought I'd share with you guys.

King's newest short story anthology, Just After Sunset, hits bookstores November 11. One of the tales included is called "N", and is a very Lovecraftian little yarn about the thin veil between reality and...something else. In order to both promote the book and delve deeper into the story, King and Marvel Comics have teamed up to create something quite unique and interesting. It's a series of webisodes based on King's original story and illustrated by Alex Maleev, the guy who does all those nifty drawings seen on Heroes.

It's kind of a hybrid between an online comic and a series of short films. I'll let Mr. King explain it a little better:

Exclusive interview: Stephen King talks about “N.”


The series wrapped up at the end of last month, and because I'm such a nice guy, I'm making all the episodes available right here. Enjoy, if so inclined:



Marvel will also be producing a comic book limited series version of "N" printed on good old-fashioned paper, sometime next year. Maybe King is on the way back to the cutting edge of the genre, after all. This is definitely the coolest thing he's done since that time he bought the minivan that hit him and announced he would destroy it with a sledgehammer. I'm not the only that remember that, am I?

Tweet

Sneak Peek at Marvel's Adaptation of Stephen King's The Stand

Ain't It Cool News isn't usually a place that breaks comic book-related news, but in this case they have something very cool, indeed. It's some finished artwork from Marvel Comics' upcoming adaptation of Stephen King's 1978 end-of-the-world novel The Stand. Here's a look at the cover of issue #2, by series artist Mike Perkins:


King's original tale is being adapted by Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, who recently revamped the Man-Thing for Marvel with the superb Dead of Night limited series. Aguirre-Sacasa and Perkins promise to play up the horrific aspects of the novel, as can be glimpsed in this little panel which depicts the effects of "Captain Trips", the devastating epidemic that wipes out much of Earth's population:



Pretty grody stuff. Personally, I could do without the baby--what with Robert Kirkman's notorious infanticide in The Walking Dead and now this, there seems to be a weird trend going on in horror comics. Anyway, Marvel's The Stand hits stores in September, dead babies and all!

Tweet

Blood & Guts: A History of Horror Movies, Part 5

In the wake of the turbulent 1960s, the horror genre had been dramatically and permanenently altered. One taboo after another was being torn down, and it would be in the following two decades--viewed by some as the genre's second golden age--that the doors would be completely blown off.
In many ways, the 1970s represent an era in horror flicks which has yet to be equalled in terms of shocking themes, graphic violence and unflinchingly grim outlook. The demise of the restrictive Hays Code spawned two branches: one in which top-flight films began to be made with horror subject matter, and the other in which blood-soaked low-budget exploitation material meant easy money.
The success of Rosemary's Baby led to 1973's The Exorcist, often hailed as the most frightening horror film ever made. Whether or not it was, The Exorcist was a mainstream American film dealing with demonic possession--something that would've been unheard of just several years before. A series of occult and Satanic-themed pictures would follow, including Alice, Sweet Alice (1976) and The Omen (1976). All dealt frankly with matters of religion, and contained powerful dramatic performances.
On the other end of the spectrum, American audiences were confronted with a type of horror they were thoroughly unprepared for, and in the process some of horror's finest directors would make their names. Wes Craven emerged on the scene in 1972 with The Last House on the Left, featuring brutal scenes of rape and disembowelment. Two years later, Tobe Hooper created what was arguably the pinnacle of the subgenre, the nightmarish Texas Chainsaw Massacre. And in 1978, George Romero followed up his seminal '60s masterpiece Night of the Living Dead with Dawn of the Dead, this time ratcheting up both the gore quotient and the social commentary.
This explosion of explicit gore content was unheard of in the history of cinema, particularly American cinema--and it didn't go unnoticed outside U.S. boundaries. Other countries, most notably Italy, soon followed suit. Italian filmmakers such as Dario Argento, Mario Bava and Lucio Fulci churned out films that in many ways surpassed their American counterparts in terms of their power to both disturb and revolt.
Popular horror fiction writer Stephen King would become a force to be reckoned with in the movie world, as well. Beginning with 1976's Carrie, his novels and short stories would prove a fertile source of film material. Perhaps the greatest of them all would be Stanley Kubrick's The Shining (1980), quite possibly the best-made fright film ever.
By the end of the 1970s, the new style of horror was firmly in place, and even some of the old subgenres would begin to be reinvigorated by it. Ridley Scott gave us Alien in 1979, capitalizing on the success of Star Wars to bring back the horror/sci-fi movie. And it was the year before that John Carpenter produced a film that would take the territory first mined by Psycho to a whole new level, defining 1980s horror in the process.
Halloween was a new kind of horror flick, specifically, it was a slasher flick, portraying a superhuman, stalker/killer (in this case, Michael Myers) who systemically murders a series of hopeless victims over the course of 90 minutes. Although most still regard it as the high watermark of slasher movies, it spawned literally countless followers.
Chief among them would be Friday the 13th (1980) and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984), the franchises which gave the world Jason Voorhess and Freddy Kreuger, respectively. The 1980s would be dominated by these types of horror movies and their limitless sequels. And although today a generation of fans who grew up on them look back with fondness and nostalgia, at the time they were viewed by critics and older fans as the genre's all-time nadir.
Nevertheless, by the early 1980s horror had begun to struggle again at the box office. Some point to the advent of VHS home video, with most low-budget flicks in general having trouble competing for audience dollars with massive Hollywood productions. Horror would find a new home in the video market, with releases such as The Evil Dead (1981), The Fly (1986) and Re-Animator (1985) becoming run-away hits with audiences that found it easier to pay less and watch in their own homes. In the U.K., this led to the phenomenon of the so-called "video nasties"--movies deemed by British censors to be unacceptable due to home video's availability to children. Naturally, these pictures would become the most sought-after for British horror fans.
The 1980s' other major contribution would be the proliferation of horror comedy. Although humor had always had a place in the genre, never before had gut-wrenching violence been so deftly meshed with black comedy as it was in such pictures as Sam Raimi's Evil Dead II (1987), Dan O'Bannon's The Return of the Living Dead (1985) or Peter Jackson's Bad Taste (1987). With the almost mind-numbing level horror movie violence had achieved, it was a natural reaction to spoof it.
The 1970s and 1980s produced some of the most powerful and disturbing horror movies ever seen. Some would even argue the genre hasn't reached similar heights since. Yet despite changing times, the standard set during those years would become a benchmark to inspire and motivate every horror filmmaker who came after.
Other major releases:

• Black Christmas (1974)
• The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
• Suspiria (1977)
• Phantasm (1979)
• The Brood (1979)
• Zombi 2 (1979)
• Scanners (1981)
• Creepshow (1982)
• The Thing (1982)
• Basket Case (1982)
• Poltergeist (1982)
• Day of the Dead (1985)
• Hellraiser (1987)
• Child's Play (1988)
  

Part 1: The Silent Dead
Part 2: Gods & Monsters
Part 3: It Came from Hollywood
Part 4: The Times, They Are a-Changin'
Soon to come - Part 6: From Post Mortem to Postmodern

Tweet