Since Sports Are Now On - What Are You Watching?

Halloween, The Wicker Man, Alien, Carrie, The Omen - some really terrific work in horror that decade. And that’s not even mentioning the non-horror classics produced in that time period. Probably the best decade ever for film - that or the 50s.

I don't think the 50s were particularly special.

The one where they doubled the actress with a contortionist?

That's the one.  It's.....unpleasant to watch. 

Yes it's very effective, and in ways completely different than the first movie.

If there were more versions of Suspiria I might do a whole long post painfully detailing each one like it's The Crow. 

And I know Argento made his loose 'mothers' trilogy, but that's not the same thing, and then I'd have to watch Mother of Tears again.

I know watched The Crow: Wicked Prayer multiple times to write about it here a few pages back, but even I have my limits. 

Watched this last night and we enjoyed it, though it does feel like a very truncated version of the story.  I didn't think the final product was bad, only that pretty much every element could've been explored a little more.  Like you said, it did capture that smalltown in the 70s feel, and it had some decent visuals. 

The pared down, FF pacing of the story, particularly early on, almost gives it that dream like quality of an Italian horror movie where characters and elements of the story are just kind of floated out there one at a time instead of stitched together.  That can be seen as a detriment, but it worked for me-- though again I wouldn't mind seeing the three hour version.  The tension builds as seemingly central characters start dropping like flies, though a few of those deaths would've meant more to the audience, had they gotten more time with those characters. The end is rather abrupt and anticlimactic, probably the biggest victim of abbreviating the story the way they did. 

My main issue with the story: In movies where supernatural beings exist (Santa, zombies, vampires, etc.), one of the key elements to the story has to be the people's understanding of those beings within that world.  So in this story, people are 100% aware of vampire mythology, and as it turns out, the rules apply exactly as the characters understand them.  So...why are they so stupid?  I'm talking about the main characters, not the people who have no idea what's going on.  "Hey, this guy's a vampire, and likely has a familiar working for him, let's just walk into his basement and see what happens."  Then after the one guy is killed in the basement and the kid barely escapes with his life, "Hey, let's go back into that basement with no way out, you know, the one where the other guy was just killed by the vampire."  How about you just burn down the building in broad daylight?  "Hey, we just figured out the vampires are all in car trunks at the drive in.  There's about four minutes of daylight left, let's try to find the OG vampire and kill him in those four minutes."  How about you come back tomorrow and pop the trunks at high noon? 

I know, horror often requires people to make dumb decisions, otherwise you wouldn't have much tension.  But the stupidity of the characters is particularly egregious when they have the vampire playbook and still almost fuck the whole thing up.  But it did lead to the theater screen stunt, so I suppose all is forgiven.

Random thoughts:

- The three hour version almost certainly does a better job of showing the population dwindle as a small town slowly loses its mind and its soul.  All we're left with in this version is a sheriff (played by William 'the President in Iron Man 3, the bad guy from Die Hard 2, and also the Grim Reaper in Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey*' Sadler, who, while he didn't nail the accent, definitely got the linguistic mannerisms of a rural Mainer spot on) who oddly starts the movie off giving an out of towner shit just for being there, yet doesn't care one way or the other once everyone disappears; and an unintentionally comedic sequence of shots featuring people's mail, newspapers and milk piling up on the front steps.  So, I guess the mailman, the paper boy and the milkman have yet to be turned?     

- The vampire mythos is quite literally old school, by the book stuff in this story.  They have to be invited in, they have hypnotic powers, they shun crucifixes, etc.  But a new twist was a rabies shot as an effective cure for vampirism, if administered quickly enough.  I didn't really love it.  A little too scientific as opposed to spiritualism/mysticism for this kind of story.  Also odd that the priest's faith failed him while the doctor who didn't even believe in this stuff was able to wield crosses that kept the creatures at bay.

All in all, I had fun with this movie.  It isn't great, but it did have a kind of rustic charm to it (besides just the setting).  It's intended as an old fashioned vampire story, so it isn't trying to reinvent the wheel.  If the complaints are that it didn't do anything new, I'd say that was the point.  But most of the criticism is probably that it's an oversimplified version of the story, to which I can't argue, but also think it still does well with what it has.  Keep your expectations to a minimum and enjoy the ride.            

* - My exact quote to my wife when explaining the actor, using only the movies I know she's seen with me.  I enjoy being her personal IMDb, even though she never asks, doesn't remember those movies, and does not care at all what else this actor was in.                    

Just as a follow up on the constant, unearned 'Salem's Lot discussion, I thought the cast was pretty good in this new version. But the 2004 miniseries is probably my least favorite version, but has the best cast. Rob Lowe (in his second Stephen King miniseries after The Stand), Andre Braugher, Donald Sutherland, Samantha Mathis, James Cromwell, and Rutger Hauer. There really isn't a weak link. But it was a basic cable, early 2000s production that moved the action to the contemporary time, and just couldn't measure up to either the novel or the previous Tobe Hooper miniseries.

For Halloween I watched Valley of the Dead, a Spanish zombie movie that takes place during their civil war. A small group of fighters from both sides gets trapped in an area where the Nazis are experimenting with a zombification weapon. “Train to Busan” it ain’t but I thought it was quite entertaining, and the Spanish Civil War setting added to its appeal. Some hints of humour but it’s not meant to fit into the zombie comedy sub-genre (or, if it was, then it failed).

It’s on Netflix. Horror/zombie fans who don’t dislike subtitles may like it.

Just when you thought this conversation was over!  Like a creature of the night, it just keeps coming back... 

Another random thought I had watching this movie.  I've always wondered about the exact parameters of the whole 'vampire needs an invitation to come in' mythos.  (I mean besides that making vampires an oddly polite murderous creature.)  First off, what exactly counts as an invitation?  I mean if they can just come in as long as your doors (or 2nd floor windows) are open, do they really need an invitation?  There are probably some old school, common law interpretations on this somewhere.  And does it really matter if you can just boot them out by renouncing your invitation at any time (and do you need the cross to do so)?    

Perhaps a more complicated aspect is the concept of what counts as 'in?'  There's the scene in the movie where the kid runs into his treehouse and quickly closes the trap door and windows, and that keeps them at bay.  So I guess the treehouse fits the legal definition of a structure or a domicile in vampire law?  What if he left the windows open but specifically told them they couldn't come in?  What if I stood on my back deck?  No roof, just railings and stairs leading to the yard.  Could they snatch me up or would they have to be invited to land on my deck?  What about my front porch?  Again it has railings, but also a roof; but not an outer wall or a door to close.  It's also obviously open to the front walk.  Is that an open invitation and could I renounce it verbally? 

I figure a tent counts, but what if I build a children's fort out of sticks leaning against trees?  I made it, I'm inside, it's a crude structure.  Does that count?  If so, is there a minimum height requirement for the walls of the fort?  I can imagine a vampire tapping his toes in annoyance as I throw fours sticks down around me and laugh at him.  How about I hide under a tarp?  I'm 'inside,' away from the elements.  There's no way to get in without forcing your way in (either by lifting it off me or attempting to crawl in with me.  I would think you'd need an invitation.  Can I stand under an awning or sit in one of those lawn chairs with a canopy?            

Let's explore this further.  Can you go into any structure, even if you don't own it (therefore drawing into question your own right to invite them in) and they can't follow you?  What if you're homeless and live in a box?  Do you technically own the box, and thus have a level of protection?  What about a car?  Do you have to live in the car or just own it?  What if it's a rental?  What if you're on a bus? 

I want a book explaining this stuff, and I think I'm going to have to write it.