682. Poltergeist (1982)

Running Time: 114 minutes
Directed By: Tobe Hooper
Written By: Steven Spielberg, Michael Grais, Mark Victor
Main Cast: Craig T. Nelson, JoBeth Williams, Heather O'Rourke, Dominique Dunne, Oliver Robins
Click here to view the trailer

FRIGHTFEST 2012: PART 4

According to THE BOOK, Tobe Hooper got the directing credit here, but by all onset accounts it was Steven Spielberg who actually had the helm of "Poltergeist" and it's not hard to believe, especially when you compare this with "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre".

The Freeling family is your typical American family, living in the suburbs of California and headed up by Steven Freeling (Nelson), a successful realtor and Diane (Williams), a housewife. The Freeling's have three children: sixteen-year-old Dana (Dunne), eight-year-old Robbie (Robins) and five-year-old Carol Anne (O'Rourke). After a while, things in their home start to go awry and it all starts in the confines of the television set, when Carol Anne claims to hear voices, which she refers to as the "TV people". No one else can hear or see the TV people though and the rest of the family just chalks it up to the little girl's imagination. That is, until Diane witnesses a paranormal event in the form of her kitchen chairs moving across the room all by themselves. Strange things begin to happen all over the house and one night, as the house lies quiet, the Freeling family asleep, the tree outside Robbie and Carol Anne's bedroom window reaches through the window and tries to eat Robbie! In the midst of the confusion and chaos, Steven manages to rescue Robbie, but it's Carol Anne who's fate lies in jeopardy, as she disappears and can only be heard through a static channel on the television. It seems that Carol Anne has been sucked through a portal, which emanates from her bedroom closet. Meanwhile, in Carol Anne's absence, the paranormal activity in the house becomes heightened as objects whirl around rooms and poltergeist's make their presence known. Eventually the family has no choice but to call in outside help, in order to rescue Carol Anne and release their home from evil's grip.

There's only so much I can buy into. Zombies - I can buy that. Vampires - I can buy that. Psychos living in Texas, robbing graves and mutilating teenagers - I can buy that. But eventually I draw a line and with the exception of being asked to buy Jack Black and Kate Winslet as a couple, "Poltergeist" is the biggest bunch of B.S. I've ever been spoon fed in my life. No wait, I take that back. "Poltergeist" isn't THAT bad, but trust me, it's an over hyped, over popular, very unscary and very silly time at the movies. It's hard to believe that Tobe Hooper went from directing a very scary, very gritty film like "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" to directing this piece of Hollywood, fluffy horror. The music in "Poltergeist" is so lively, sometimes almost jovial that it doesn't fit the images on the screen whatsoever and I almost expect to walk into Universal Studios and see a ride based on this movie. No movie that ever claims to be horror should be mistaken for a Universal Studios ride and that's a steadfast rule!

Anyway, back to my accusations of silliness and the limit of what I can buy into. In my book, the object of a horror movie is to give me that smidgen of doubt. Give me even the slightest inkling that maybe...MAYBE this could actually happen and let me stew with it. SCARE ME!! You can throw silly piece of shit after silly piece of shit at me, but as long as you put some basis and believability behind it, I'll eat it up. The following is a list of things that I WON'T eat up, won't buy into and won't even begin to entertain the idea of being scared by:

*Trees coming to life and snatching little boys from their beds.
*Televisions coming to life and swallowing little girls.
*A clown doll coming to life and trying to kill previously mentioned little boy.
*A closet acting as an evil portal in which previously mentioned little girl is sucked in.
*An entire home being swallowed up by this portal, leaving an empty spot where said home used to sit!
*JoBeth Williams and "Coach" Craig T. Nelson SMOKING WEED!!!

SPOILER ALERT!

Okay, so the last one's a joke, but the rest legitimately had me laughing more than they had me cowering and if I was Tobe Hooper, I'd be ashamed to say I had anything to do with this film. Yeah, I'm sure the fat check (or checks) he's received due to being part of this production soften the blow, but after directing a horror masterpiece like "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", I don't know why he'd jump at the chance to sell his soul to Steven Spielberg and make a piece of Hollywood garbage. Oh and the whole "Hey, the movie's over, everyone is safe and sound" and then springing everything on us all over again....LAME!

RATING: 5/10  Okay, so I ripped the shit out of that one, but a lot of you are going to go gaga for it. It's not as terrible as I make it sound and I guess I was just in a particularly harsh mood tonight and was extremely disappointed by this so called horror movie.

MOVIES WATCHED: 565
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 436

October 28, 2012  3:04am

580. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

Running Time: 83 minutes
Directed By: Tobe Hooper
Written By: Kim Henkel, Tobe Hooper
Main Cast: Marilyn Burns, Paul A. Partain, Gunnar Hansen, Edwin Neal, Allen Danziger
Click here to view the trailer

FRIGHTFEST 2012: PART 3

Wow, I am just all over the map here with my recent selection of movie choices. Yesterday I reviewed "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" and we go from that to "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", perhaps the two most polar opposite films in THE BOOK.

Remember kids: You CANNOT dress like this in the confines of a horror movie and expect to see the end credits!

The film begins with a narration from a young (and then unknown) John Larroquette, telling us that the story we're about to see is true and warns us that it won't be pretty. Of course, the story isn't completely true, just loosely based on the Ed Gein murders of the 1950s. The main characters are a group of twenty-somethings, two of which are brother and sister: Sally Hardesty (Burns) and her paraplegic brother Franklin (Partain). They are joined by Jerry (Danziger), Kirk and Pam and are on their way to check on their grandfather's grave following reports of vandalism in the cemetery where he's buried. After they discover that the Hardesty grave is safe and sound, the group head back out on the road, toward an old house that Sally and Franklin's father owns. Along the way they pick up a hitchhiker; a real nutcase who ends up cutting Franklin's arm open with a razor. Eventually the group make it to the old house and when Kirk and Pam decide to find the old watering hole and go for a swim, they wander into some serious trouble. Lost and knowing that the van needs gasoline, Kirk makes his way toward a seemingly occupied farmhouse, in hopes that the residents can help him and the gang out. What he finds is Leatherface (Hansen), a maniacal, brain dead serial killer who wields a chainsaw and has a penchant for collecting body parts. It's obvious that Pam, dressed in slutty short shorts and an obvious piece of sacrificial eye candy, won't last long and that is confirmed when she's hung on a meat hook, while she's still alive. Kirk follows, being dealt with in an even more brutal fashion - carved up with the chainsaw! Now there are only three members of the group left and Leatherface is just warming up.

I have a fairly equal list of pros and cons, so we'll start with the pros and ease into the cons. The film is gritty, low budget and obviously was a pet project for Tobe Hooper, the director and co-writer and that's one of the reasons why I do like it. It's obvious that Hooper cared for this film and took the time to see his vision through to the screen. Looking at his filmography, Hooper peaked early (this was only his second film and with the exception of "Poltergeist", didn't do any other notable films), which makes you wonder if he just never found a project that motivated him as much as "TCSM" did. It's a freaky movie, I'll give it that. I think, at twenty eight years old, I've finally grown out of the period where I get scared by movies. I can remember being a boy and wondering if that day would ever come, the day when I could watch a movie and then make it through a night's sleep without knocking on my mother's bedroom door. Thankfully, my brother didn't show me this until I was a teenager and thankfully we shared a room. The damn thing is just so gritty and low budget that you can't help but be scared by it. I've always said that the scariest films are the ones with no name actors, because if you can identify or place someone in a horror film, then the entire cover is blown. If you dress George Clooney up like a vicious, vampire, serial killing, nutso freak, it isn't going to go over too well because the whole time the audience will be saying, "Oh it's just that nice doctor from E.R.". When you can't identify the principles, then you have no frame of reference and they're just regular people to you, putting on a hell of a show. The make-up here is awesome and Hooper's location choice, an abandoned, decrepit old house is perfect for stirring up some unsettling feelings in the audience.

But is it a "must see"? Sure, it was innovative, had a whirlwind of controversy at the theaters and was a trend setter for horror movies that followed, but at what point do we forget all the accolades and innovation and realize that it's not new anymore, it's not original anymore and now, it's lost some of it's luster? The low budget thing kind of works both ways here, because in a way it's admirable that Hooper was able to make this independent film for less than $300 grand, but the damn thing looks so cheap and amateur that it looks really silly sitting in a book, next to the likes of "Taxi Driver" and "Modern Times". It'd be like sitting Derek Jeter down next to a some little leaguer and saying, "Well yeah this kids only in little league, but he's fast and he can really hit that ball far!" No one would care because he's sitting next to Derek Jeter! Okay, maybe that's a bad analogy, but I don't care and I'm not erasing it!! Anyway, as far as slasher films go, this is the be all, end all and if that's your bag, you can skip all the others because this is the ultimate slasher flick. It's grittier and scarier than any horror film that's been released for the past twenty years (maybe more). However, it is very amateur, so beware. It isn't crisp, clean, well shot, well acted and with a great score. It's balls to the wall gore, horror and gruesome, so if that's your thing, then this is YOUR "Taxi Driver".

RATING: 6/10  It just doesn't happen to be my thing. Fun as hell, but as far as quality goes, it's definitely lacking. Now I'm heading outside to smoke a cigarette...anyone wanna' come with me?

MOVIES WATCHED: 563
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 438

October 27, 2012  3:10am