482. Rosemary's Baby (1968)

Running Time: 136 minutes
Directed By: Roman Polanski
Written By: Roman Polanski, from novel by Ira Levin
Main Cast: Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer, Maurice Evans

FRIGHTFEST 2011: 3 of 5

Well gang, "Frightfest 2011" is raging on to it's third installment, as we inch closer and closer to Halloween and "Mother of All Horror Movies" - "The Exorcist". Tonight I take a look at a movie that I went giddy over the first time I saw it - "Rosemary's Baby".

Rosemary (Farrow) and Guy Woodhouse (Cassavetes) are a young, New York couple, searching for an apartment, where they can raise a family. When the film opens they are touring the most recent candidate - an apartment at Bramford. The duo decide to take the place and before a few weeks are up, they meet the nosy neighbors - an aging couple, Minnie (Gordon) and Roman Castevet (Blackmer). When The Castavets invite Rosemary and Guy to dinner, the two feel obliged to accept, despite Guy's initial hesitation. When the evening concludes, Guy seems pleased as punch to be living next to the Castavets and can't say enough good things about them. On the other hand, Rosemary, didn't have as good a time as she thought she would and while she can't put her finger on it, seems to carry an uneasiness when it comes to Minnie and Roman. Fast forward a little bit and Guy lands the lead role in a major play opening up and the two finally decide to have that baby they've been talking about. Rosemary, however, has a little too much to drink on their intended night and goes to sleep, dreaming very strange dreams. The next morning Guy informs her that the two "went ahead as scheduled" and Rosemary can't get over the vicious looking scratch marks on her back. Now, Rosemary is pregnant, but everyone, including Guy, Minnie, Roman and her new obstetrician, Dr. Sapirstein (Ralph Bellamy) seem to be acting strangely.

The first time you see "Rosemary's Baby" it's extremely hard not to like it, in my opinion. There are so many intricacies in the script and so many little things, that the film kind of takes on the characteristics of a thrilling murder mystery, as opposed to a cryptic horror film. Really, if you get down to bare bones, "Rosemary's Baby" isn't that scary at all. To me, it's more eerie than anything. There's a real sense of threat and uneasiness in the atmosphere of the film, that you can't help but be on edge throughout and even until well after the picture has concluded. The New York setting is the perfect place to evoke this eeriness, because it's the last place you'd expect to be frightened. Think about it, 95% of all horror movies take us to the most desolate of settings (middle of the woods, a cabin fifty miles past Kalamazoo), while "Rosemary's Baby" told us that "shit could happen EVEN where there were a lot of people.

SPOILER ALERT!

Going back to the aforementioned idea that this picture takes on the characteristics of a murder mystery - well it really kind of does, in my opinion. You have so many different outcomes that when it gets down to the end of the movie, anything could happen. Who was in on all this? Did Guy really set up HIS OWN wife? Is the Dr. in on it to? What about the younger, more Charles Grodin looking Dr, is he in on it too? You have more questions than you have answers, where USUALLY the intent of a horror movie is to just be scared, this one plays out like a mystery, where you just have to know what happens and what's happening. "Rosemary's Baby" really works so much better the first time around. The first time I saw this picture, I honestly thought that there was a good chance that Rosemary was a whacko and that she was going to end up in Happy Hills Psychiatric Ward, while Guy was left to take care of this baby all alone. In actuality, that is a viable possibility, right up until the very end. Speaking of the end, it's an ending that I'm not crazy about. In my opinion, it's far too anti-climactic. We've just been spoon-fed two hours of tense, taught, eerie footage and then all that happens in the end is Rosemary happens upon this secret room, finds her baby and holds it, basically accepting all the shit that so many people just conspired to get over on her.

On a final note, the book makes note of a scene where Rosemary firsts notice the baby kicking, exclaiming "It's Alive!, It's Alive!" (ie. "Frankenstein") and the horrifying look on Guy's face, as he realizes what's living inside his wife's womb. I honestly didn't even notice this on first viewing (although I might just have to go back and take a look), but it's small details LIKE that one that make "Rosemary's Baby" stand out. Little intricacies that were added in to really hammer home the story. The story is so far-fetched on it's own, but the way the entire idea is executed, you really forget how hokey the story is and just go with it for the duration.

RATING: 8/10 Like I said, it works a little better the first time you see it, when you don't have all the answers, but it still holds up quite well. However, Mia Farrow still annoys the piss out of me.

MOVIES WATCHED: 340
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 661

October 26. 2011 11:29pm

486. David Holzman's Diary (1968)

Running Time: 74 minutes
Directed By: Jim McBride
Written By: Jim McBride
Main Cast: L.M. Kit Carson, Eileen Dietz, Lorenzo Mans, Louise Levine, Fern McBride

FILM IS TRUTH 24 TIMES A SECOND

I realize you probably all thought I got lost, but I still made it back within a matter of hours, just not the amount of hours I had hoped for. I watched "David Holzman's Diary" last night, but was too exhausted to write the review, so I'm here now.

The film is yet another experimental film, but this time the experiment goes a whole lot better, if you ask me. David Holzman (Carson) is a film fanatic living on the Upper West Side of New York City. When the film begins, David announces his plan to begin a video diary, capturing every minuscule moment of his life, so that he can "get it all down" and find out the truth about his being. He introduces us to his new pair of eyes - his camera and we're off. He begins filming on July 14, 1967 and films for approximately a week. Once he's told us of his initial idea, he then introduces us to his girlfriend Penny (Dietz) via photographs. Penny is a model and when she comes to the apartment later that evening, she wants nothing to do with David's diary. She storms out and the next day, David explains that he's called her and worked things out. The next day, Penny comes back to David's and as she's sleeping, in the middle of the night, he films her. She catches him and storms out a second time. David tries his best to phone Penny, while trying simultaneously to film and mic the conversation, but she wants nothing to do with him. Meanwhile, David also takes to the streets of NYC to shoot various people, most notable an Upper West Side cougar and a woman who lives across the street from David, whom he names Sandra.

While "David Holzman's Diary" didn't blow me away, it did intrigue me very much. While it may not get the most stellar of ratings, I have a feeling that this will be a movie that I'll be thinking about for some time and one that COULD become a favorite. The film is very intimate, as a lot of it is just David, sitting in a chair, in front of the camera and talking to us. There's also an element of voyeurism, as David film's his neighbor. Both are elements that usually work to intrigue me and this film was no exception. I think the underlying message or theme of "David Holzman's Diary" is simply taking a look at oneself from a different perspective. Here, David wanted to "get it all down" so that he could find out some kind of truth, that he thought he was missing. He wanted to view his life as an outsider and watch it unfold as he would a television program or a film. He wanted to see if he could somehow dissect his life and find something that he had been missing.

SPOILER ALERT!

However, by the end of the film, David is jobless, without a girlfriend and under the realization that he's actually a pretty pathetic character. He lost the only thing he really had going for him, in Penny. He made desperate pleas to try and get her back. He lowered himself to following women on the Subway, until the finally turned around and told him to "beat it" and he lowered himself to peeping on "Sandra", another girl that he's seemed to have fallen in love with, without ever having any interaction with. Even the lady who answers at his message service seems to feel sorry for him when she tells him that Penny called and she wants him to stop calling her. He's a man who wants to feel important, like some of his favorite film director's, but you get the feeling that before he started filming himself, that he lead this unbelievably humdrum lifestyle. He dated Penny, but she rarely excited him. Even when he initially talks about her, he calls her vain and then recounts one minute detail about her that "touches him" and it seems that's really all she does that makes him happy. And then, in the end, he really realizes how vulnerable he is, when his apartment is broken into and all of his equipment is stolen. Maybe, that's the equivalent of killing off the character. I mean, like I said, this guy had nothing and you get the sense that filming his life was really the most excited he's been about something. And then it's all over.

RATING: 6.5/10 It's a movie where you can really dissect the character and it was a really good one. Why the low rating? Well, it seems appropriate...for now.

MOVIES WATCHED: 339
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 662

October 25, 2011 2:18pm

416. Scorpio Rising (1964)

Running Time: 28 minutes
Directed By: Kenneth Anger
Written By: Kenneth Anger
Main Cast: Bruce Byron

THIRTY MINUTES OF RADIO

Well folks, "Frightfest 2011" will resume tomorrow, but tonight, it's double feature night. Our first film of the evening actually isn't even a "feature" at all - at a length of 28 minutes, I easily drop my list of remaining movies by one....but was it THAT easy?

The film is "Scorpio Rising" and it opens by establishing that it's going to have something to do with bikers. In fact, the films opening titles aren't your usual white lettering on a black background, but rather silver studs spelling out the title and director's name, on the back of a black leather jacket. The film has no dialogue and thus no characters are ever established, but instead the film uses 1960s pop/rock & roll tunes to accompany it's images. As the film opens, we see a man working on his bike and that's immediately followed by several different men getting dressed in their "hog gear" (lots of leather, complete with jackets, belts and caps). Footage is inter cut with scenes of "The Wild One" starring Marlon Brando and we see a man lying on his bed, with pinups of James Dean splattered all over his wall. From there we go to the biker underground, where homosexuality, Nazism and religion are toyed with. Scenes of obviously homosexual bikers, inter cut with scenes of Jesus walking with his apostles are included, making the bold assumption that Jesus and his twelve were a group of gay men.

You know what, I'm sick and tired of this "innovation = greatness" idea. Just because McDonalds was the first restaurant to make and market a hamburger, doesn't mean that Burger King's isn't better. Just because Nike perfected the running shoe, doesn't mean that it doesn't make your feet hurt. Sure, "Scorpio Rising" had some before it's time ideas and in fact, when the film was screened in L.A., the theater owner was arrested for public obscenity. But just because "Scorpio Rising" was risque, innovative and "before it's time", doesn't mean that it's great. This was one of the biggest piles of trash that I've had to sit through in my continued effort to watch all of the films in THE BOOK and I'm not afraid to say that. Oh, don't worry fans of this film, that's just my opinion and lucky for you, opinions aren't fact and especially don't worry, because I'm sure you'll find all kinds of articles scattered throughout the interwebs, praising "Scorpio Rising", but not here.

THE BOOK makes note that without "Scorpio Rising", Martin Scorsese wouldn't have used pop music the way he did in "Mean Streets"and David Lynch wouldn't have found inspiration in the song Blue Velvet. Okay, well lucky for me that's the only thing I liked about this movie - the music. The music was great! In fact, if you want to experience "Scorpio Rising", go ask your Mom and Dad (or depending on your age, your Grandma and Grandpa) if you can borrow some of their old records. Ask for their record player too (you'll need that), give the records a spin and listen to Elvis Presley, Bobby Vinton, Ray Charles, The Angles, The Crystals and Little Peggy March sing their hearts out. Then, flip on your television and find some old biker movie or maybe even that episode of Roseanne where Dan sells the bike shop, mute the television and there you have it - that's "Scorpio Rising" in a nutshell, minus the homoerotic undertones.

I know, I know, I harp on this fact like a broken record, but this is the kind of movie I'm talking about when I say, "How in the hell did this movie make it into THE BOOK and ___________ didn't??" The music was fantastic and in fact, this movie was kind of like listening to the radio for an hour and a half. I applaud Kenneth Anger for making a controversial film in a time when controversial films weren't accepted. I applaud him for putting his ideas on film and presenting the final product to the world and for pushing the envelope. And, if he was an inspiration to the likes of Scorsese and Lynch, then I'll even applaud him for that. But his film was shit and that, my friends, is that.

RATING: 1/10 I BEG the BOOK to give me a short film that's worth my time. However, this is the first film since my return that's gotten a bad rating and I was beginning to think that I had on a pair of invisible rose colored glasses. I'll be back in a matter of hours to give my thoughts on another relatively short film, though it's not a short film. Get it?

MOVIES WATCHED: 338
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 663

October 24, 2011 11:15pm

813. Reversal of Fortune (1990)

Running Time: 111 minutes
Directed By: Barbet Schroeder
Written By: Nicholas Kazan, from book by Alan M. Dershowitz
Main Cast: Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close, Ron Silver, Annabella Sciorra, Fisher Stevens

THE CASE OF CLAUS AND SUNNY VON BULOW

Taking a respite from both "Frightfest 2011" and my ongoing taking in of the majority of the 1960s films, I decided to let my wife do the picking last night and after perusing through the streaming portion of Netflix, we finally landed on "Reversal of Fortune".

The film tells the story of Claus and Sunny Von Bulow. On December 21, 1980, while preparing for Christmas at their palatial estate in Newport, Rhode Island, Sunny Von Bulow (Close) was found unresponsive by her husband Claus (Irons) and taken to the hospital. At the hospital, it was deduced that Sunny was more than likely drugged and that an overdose of insulin was the likely the culprit. As the day's passed, it was also becoming more clear that Sunny was slipping into a persistent vegetative state. As Sunny lay comatose in a hospital bed, her children (Claus' step-children) hired a lawyer to investigate possible foul play, which they believed had been committed by Claus. The couple had been having marital problems, and in the event of Sunny's death, Claus stood to inherit $14 million. In court, Claus was found guilty and sentenced to thirty years in prion. This film tells the story of Claus' appeal, using flashbacks and showing multiple scenes in conjunction with multiple accounts of the same incidents. It could be argued that the films real main character is Alan Dershowitz (Silver), Claus' appeals attorney and really the focal character of the entire production. The film details Dershowitz' detailed legal work and the work of his assembled legal team, including Sarah (Sciorra), his prize student.

This probably won't be a particularly lengthy review, as I simply don't have a whole lot to say about this film. "Reversal of Fortune" met my expectations and it's as simple as that. I wasn't necessarily blown away, although I did find the performances, specifically those of Jeremy Irons and Ron Silver, to be phenomenal. Jeremy Irons was particularly excellent, earning his Academy Award statue ten fold. I wasn't disappointed by the film either, as it was as solid as a rock. However, I guess I was a little disappointed, in retrospect, that I didn't enjoy it more than I did. This is one that I've had my eye on for quite sometime and when it began streaming recently, I remember thinking that I wanted to watch it right away. It's the type of film that you'd expect out of Hollywood and it's definitely the type of film you'd expect to see getting nominations at the Oscars and the Globes.

I did, however, really enjoy the manner in which the story was told. I liked that they gave us different scenes from different character perspectives. I wish we could have got to see more scenes inside the courtroom, but actually, the manner in which things unfolded, worked really well. I liked that they made the focal point of the film Alan Dershowitz and let us get close to that character, which allowed me as a viewer, to have more of a neutral view of the whole Von Bulow incident. Had they simply let the story unfold, without the character of Dershowitz, then it would have come more naturally for me to pick a side, whereas with the "Dersh" character in there, it was much easier not to do that and just simply hear the story and take your sides at the end. For what it's worth, if anyone cares and simply basing this opinion on what was portrayed and told ON THE FILM, I leaned more toward the side of Claus' innocence. But then again, I have absolutely no knowledge of the real case, the real characters or the real situations, so that opinion isn't worth much.

RATING: 7/10 It wasn't really able to crack that '8' barrier and break into that upper echelon of film, but it was still a fine night at the movies and one that I'd recommend.

MOVIES WATCHED: 337
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 664

October 22, 2011 9:23pm

939. The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Running Time: 86 minutes
Directed By: Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez
Written By: Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sanchez
Main Cast: Heather Donahue, Joshua Leonard, Michael C. Williams

FRIGHTFEST 2011: 2 of 5

"Frightfest" rages on with the second installment of my tribute to horror, in preparation for Halloween. This time around we jump from 1982 to 1999 and take a look at an innovator in the world of cinema and the first ever (i think) "found footage film" - "The Blair Witch Project".

In October of 1994 three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland, while shooting a documentary...A year later their footage was found...

As the film opens, we're presented with the above statement and the film begins. Heather, a college film student, prepared to make a documentary about the Blair witch, assembles a three man crew, consisting of herself, Josh and Mike and heads into the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland. Prior to actually getting into the woods themselves, Heather and the crew interview some locals about the myth of the Blair witch and we're given a few details about what supposedly happened. Some believe the myth, some don't. The myth involves the murder of seven children in the 1940s and also involves a witch who was hung to death in the 18th century. After the interviews, the crew does indeed make their way to the woods, where they hike to a cemetery of sorts, where seven piles of rocks are laid out in memorial of the seven slain children. Once they have the footage they need, the trio head back to the car, but seeing as how they're not experienced woodsmen and have hiked very deep into the woods, they soon find themselves lost. Soon, the food diminishes, tempers rise and things start to go bump in the night.

In my opinion, there are several key factors that make "The Blair Witch Project" a huge success, not just in profits at the box office, but also success in pure genius movie making. The first key element is the marketing. I remember when this film was released and I remember that ominous voice over, reading the line from above: "In October of 1994 three student filmmakers....". I remember reading things like "scarier than The Exorcist" and "the scariest movie of all-time is a true story" and I can even remember me and my brother turning to each other, when they'd play the tv spot and asking, "Is this movie really real?" In 1999 we'd pretty much seen it all as far as horror films go. Corn syrup had been spilled on movie sets for decades in an attempt to scare us and make us want to sleep with the lights on. Here you have a couple of amateur filmmaker's seemingly saying to themselves, "What can we do to really give people a fright?" And the answer was simple - provide us with a smidgen of doubt. Let us think for a second that maybe....just MAYBE this is really found footage. "A Nightmare on Elm Street" was OBVIOUSLY a movie, because "By God, there's that boy from 21 Jump Street". Any horror movie always ended and audiences could go home, calming themselves down by telling themselves that, "It's only a movie". However, when it came to "The Blair Witch Project", there was that smidgen of doubt - "It was PROBABLY a movie, but I've heard rumors that they really found that footage and that those three poor students were heinously murdered." "The Blair Witch Project" gave us a horror film that MIGHT, just MIGHT be real. Of course, the cat was later let out of the bag and it was a movie, but during marketing time, they had a stroke of brilliance and it worked.

The second key factor to success when it comes to "The Blair Witch Project" is that these same amateur filmmaker's didn't underestimate their audience. They realized that people DID have a brain and if you gave them a black screen, with people screaming that they could use their imaginations and conjure up things much more frightening than anything they could commit to celluloid. I commend them for sticking with that attitude and never giving us too much. There's never anything on the screen that is physically (to the eye) scary. All of the fright and scare that comes out of "The Blair Witch Project" came from your own mind. When you went to bed that night, after watching the movie, YOU were the one to blame for sleeping with the television on, because these filmmaker's technically didn't SHOW you anything worth being afraid of. It was all on you! Take for instance "Paranormal Activity", which gets a little silly at the end with the main character (the female) being dragged across the room by an imaginary ghost and then coming back to life, with evil in her eyes and attacking the camera. I mean, that's just going too far - that's underestimating your audience, in my opinion.

There are even other factors, in my opinion, that make "The Blair Witch Project" a phenomenal film. You have, with this movie, not only a horror movie, but also an experiment in human interaction. The recipe is simple - take three people, throw them into an unknown place, scare them, raise their tempers and sit back & enjoy. You also have the three actors ad-libbing their lines and basically saying what they'd say if put into that situation. As far as I'm concerned, these three were all amazing actors, putting on a hell of a show and selling a movie. Say what you will about "The Blair Witch Project", but as far as I'm concerned, it's brilliant. Maybe I'd classify it as a guilty pleasure, but I'm not ashamed to admit it. I think it gets a bad wrap for a couple or reasons - one being that it's a horror movie and two being that it had, what I hear is, a really shitty sequel. Luckily, I haven't seen the sequel and based on the horror stories I've heard about it ("horror stories" in a bad way, not a scary way), I'll steer clear of it.

RATING: 10/10 As it stands right now, this is a TOP 5 caliber choice for my next TOP 20 and I'm not ashamed to admit that. I might get flack for that, but I say what I mean when it comes to my opinions on film. Great movie!

MOVIES WATCHED: 336
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 665

October 21, 2011 12:14am

371. One-Eyed Jacks (1961)

Running Time: 141 minutes
Directed By: Marlon Brando
Written By: Guy Trosper, Calder Willingham, from the novel The Authentic Death of Hendry Jones by Charles Neider
Main Cast: Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Ben Johnson, Katy Jurado, Pina Pellicer

ROLE REVERSAL

As we make our way through the "Frightfest 2011" festivities, from now until Halloween, I'll also be peppering in some other odds and ends to kind of split up all the gore. Today, I took to the streaming portion of Netflix and a western starring and directed by Marlon Brando - one that I've been eye balling for quite some time.

The films plot is pretty cut and dry, but as the film progresses small pieces of storyline are continually thrown in and it actually gets to be a pretty intricate little revenge story. Brando plays Rio, the quick drawing, easy-going, bad ass outlaw, who along with Dad Longworth (Malden) opens the film mid-bank robbery. Once the loot is got, Dad and Rio take refuge, but our quickly found out and are on the run for their freedom and their lives. When they come to a standoff with the law, the two make a deal that Dad will go get a couple of fresh horses, while Rio stays behind and holds back the cavalry. When Dad reaches his destination, a lone ranch where he plans to steal two horses, he has a change of heart, steals one horse for himself and leaves Rio to fend for himself. Rio is captured and sent to prison, where he spends five years brooding over the fact that his best friend back stabbed him. After five years, he has enough and escapes, swearing revenge on Dad Longworth if it's the last thing he does. When he finally happens upon Dad, he finds that Longworth is now the Sheriff of Monterey, California. Dad lies about the past to save his own hide, because surely Rio has held a grudge and he'd stand no chance against a vengeful Rio. Rio plays it cool, stating that no hard feelings are to be had, but secretly he plans to kill Dad....that is until he falls in love with Dad's step-daughter (Pellicer).

Let's talk about Marlon Brando. Up until today, I've never really been giddy about his acting skills. Sure, he was good enough, but I had never really bought into people who tried to sell him as the greatest actor who ever lived. This is only my second encounter with Brando as I work my way through the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book and even after watching "On the Waterfront" earlier this year, I still wasn't convinced that this guy was anything worth writing home about. Then I see a Western today called "One-Eyed Jacks" and Brando sells me. I mean, this guy not only sells me the car, but he sells me the stereo system, the new paint job and all the trimmings. Long story short - Brando was amazing in this movie! He plays his character to perfection, personifying everything that Rio should be. The film opens with him chewing on a banana. You think, oh here sits a guy who's relaxing, enjoying some fruit, taking it easy...but as the camera pans out you realize that he's in the middle of holding up a bank! He's quiet in it. He says more with his eyes than he does with his mouth and I realize that the things I'm spouting sound so cliche, but they're the God's truth.

Another particular scene is when Rio meets up with a fellow named Bob Emory (Ben Johnson) and the duo, along with a couple other guys plan a bank heist. At this point, Rio has just escaped prison and is searching relentlessly for Dad. Rio finally gets word from Emory that Longworth is the Sheriff of Monterey and wants to know if Rio would like to stick up the bank in Monterey. At this point, Rio is steaming man. He's not saying a single word, but you can see the anger in his eyes, at the fact that Dad has become a Sheriff and profited at Rio's expense. His answer to Emroy, a simple "Yep".

The storytelling in "One-Eyed Jacks" is really great too, as they manage to really make you believe that Marlon Brando and Karl Malden are going to tear each other apart if given the chance. It also takes the old west, stereotypical roles and gives them a spin, as the Sheriff here is actually the bad guy and the outlaw is the one we end up rooting for. Now, the big downfall of "One-Eyed Jacks" is the length, as this thing, at times, just seems to drag on FOOORREEVERRR. There are some scenes and segments that are really slow and other times things move along nicely, wrapping you up in the story and really working to get over with the audience. I read somewhere, just now, that Brando shot an additional FIVE HOURS of footage that he wound up scrapping. My God, even the footage that remained wasn't all necessary and if they could've just snipped a few hairs here and there, I think it would've made the film much tighter and a lot more smooth and this COULD HAVE ranked off the charts, as far as my rating system goes.

RATING: 6.5/10 I may or may not be undercutting this one, but the parts that dragged, really dragged. The acting from Brando and Malden is sensational and the storytelling is top notch, if only it had been a little shorter.

MOVIES WATCHED: 335
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 666

October 20, 2011 6:02pm

684. The Evil Dead (1982)

Running Time: 85 minutes
Directed By: Sam Raimi
Written By: Sam Raimi
Main Cast: Bruce Campbell, Ellen Sandweiss, Betsy Baker, Hal Delrich, Theresa Tilly

FRIGHTFEST 2011: 1 of 5

Today, I kicked off "Frightfest 2011" by heading to the DVD shelf and grabbing "The Evil Dead". It's a film we own, simply because we found it for cheap, at a time when my wife and I were on a horror movie binge. Will it hold up and maintain it's spot on my DVD shelf or was it deemed a worthless purchase and be gotten rid of?

The film opens with a group of college age students, in a car and headed to a cabin for a weekend in the woods. Sounds like a typical horror film opening to me. We have Ashley (Campbell), his sister Cheryl (Sandweiss), his girlfriend Linda (Baker), his best friend Scotty (Delrich) and Scotty's girlfriend Shelly (Tilly). Once they cross the rickety, wooden bridge that leads them to the cabin, they, at first, have no idea of the horror that awaits them. Almost immediately upon entering the ominous looking, wood cabin, weird things begin to happen. For instance, the clock stops on it's own and the cellar door opens and slams shut, without being touched. When Scotty goes to inspect the cellar, he and Ash find a collection of things that peak their interest. Among the items is a "Book of the Dead", a dagger with a skull on the end of it and a tape player. When they bring it upstairs and play the reels that are loaded in the tape player, they unknowingly resurrect demons upon the area, bringing even the trees to life. From here, the shit really hits the fan, as certain members of the quintet are possessed.....and we'll leave it at that.

You know, I, just today, watched a trailer for a horror movie that is to be released in January called "The Devil Inside Me" (i think) and after watching "The Evil Dead", I got to thinking. It always tickles me how hard modern day "horror masters" try so hard to give us "the scariest movie of all-time", but almost always end up failing with a *THUD*. No name directors are handed millions of dollars to try and give us our next fright and they can never come through. But then, you look at a movie like "The Evil Dead", with a budget of a mere $375,000 and a really simple formula, and realize that it's scarier than anything that Hollywood has put out in the past 20 years. Now granted, I'm a twenty-seven year old who's grown out of his fear of horror cinema, but I can still admit when a film really gives me a little bit of fright and this one totally delivers. Hell, I haven't seen "The Exorcist" in a while (soon to change that, check back later this month), but I'd be willing to say that "The Evil Dead" is right up there, on par with it, as far as being scary. The make-up and effects are off the wall, sometimes silly, but usually creepy and the sound effects and music only add to heighten that terror.

The book makes note that with the addition of the two sequels, today "The Evil Dead" is laughable, at best (I'm paraphrasing), but I haven't seen "Evil Dead II" or "Army of Darkness" in ages and can barely remember a thing about them, so I guess as a standalone picture, "The Evil Dead" is a damn fine horror movie, if you ask this blogger. Horror movies haven't been my cup of tea for a long time and in a way, I've really grown out of them. But I'm still ready and willing to admit when someone (Sam Raimi and crew) do a fantastic job of evoking thrills and chills and really putting me on the edge of my proverbial seat. It's also funny to realize that when it was made, Hollywood wouldn't touch "The Evil Dead" with a ten foot pole, citing that it was far too gruesome. Fast forward about 20 years into the future and Hollywood hands over the helm to "Spider-Man", a big summer blockbuster, to none other than Sam Raimi. Bottom line is this: IF you're looking for a good scare, then "The Evil Dead" is a top notch choice. However, I'm not sure I'd label it a "must see", but that's just me.

RATING: 7/10 That's a rating on the horror movie scale. It's a solid scary flick and one that I would recommend...to the right people.

MOVIES WATCHED: 334
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 667

October 19, 2011 6:04pm