31 Days of Spooky Movies: The Witch

Day #30c

The Witch:

A New England Folk Tale

(2015)

A family in 17th century New England is banished from the puritan plantation they called home. They seek to build a new life for themselves in the wilderness, but their efforts are plagued by the a witch in the nearby forest.

Fright Factor:

2 / 5 Prideful Christian Fathers

Gore Factor:

2.8 / 5 Dead Animals You Found In the Woods

Should you watch it?

Oddly I don’t have a lot to say about this one.

It was certainly more of an atmospheric movie than I was expecting. And very rarely did it ever try to actively leverage that atmosphere into generating any real scares. As such, I’d say it’s much more of a spooky movie than a horror movie.

For the most part it’s a great looking film and I really liked how they lit a lot of the scenes. The cast does a great job. Technically there’s not a lot I can complain about too much.

...well, the cuts that seemed to suggest that the son was having some incestuous thoughts about his sister were a bizarre choice, but that’s about it.

And yet...I dunno. I just couldn’t bring myself to really care much about the story.

More than anything I found myself getting annoyed at the film for continuing to focus on the character of the witch. The most interesting parts of the movie for me were when the father (played by Ralph Ineson) was the antagonist and the way his attempts to save his family’s souls were actually serving to corrupt everyone.

Sure the witch keeps fucking with them throughout the movie, but majority of their problems were due to the father and his overabundance of pride.

His pride got his family banished. His pride caused him to lie and let his kids take blame for things he had done. His pride stops him from acknowledging that he isn’t a good enough farmer or hunter to provide enough food for his family.

(Speaking of which, what kind of crappy subsistence farmer plants one crop? Sure, he had a couple of real tiny plots of other little things, but was pretty much just growing corn. He wasn’t even going the three sisters’ route by adding some squash and climbing beans into the mix. It might as well have been modern day. Was he getting subsidies from the government due to the 17th century puritan plantations’ love of cheap sugar substitutes?

Alas, this is something the film does not get into.)

But I’m getting off topic!

You see, in my opinion, the film was at its best when the family’s trust and love for one another was slowly being corrupted due their father’s pride (and just general misfortune). The way the family started turning on itself and the way they started using their daughter Thomasin (played by Anya Taylor-Joy) as a scapegoat for their woes? That’s where the real horror of the film lay. Yet the film’s focus never strayed too far from the witch.

I think the witch was intended to be scary, but she was so profoundly underdeveloped that she just wasn’t. She had such a lack of any character that she might as well have been a force of nature. You could very easily replace anything the witch does as an effect of a disease and the story wouldn’t change one bit. So what’s the point of her!?

If anything she distracted from the main horror of the storyline, because it was only the idea of the witch that mattered. So why show her? By choosing to not show the witch the film would have enhanced the tension of the family’s fears, because the viewer would join the family in not knowing if they should believe in the witch or not.

All in all it was a movie that was enjoyable for its atmosphere, but lacked the sufficient menace and audience engagement to go much beyond that.

“We will conquer this wilderness. It will not consume us.”

31 Days of Spooky Movies: Little Shop of Horrors

Day #30b

Little Shop of Horrors

(1986)

A musical comedy about a hapless florist who stumbles upon a sentient plant. On the one hand this plant could help make him rich and famous, but on the other hand it does feed on human blood...

Fright Factor:

1 / 5 Dentists

Gore Factor:

1 / 5 “Feed me, Seymour!”s

Should I watch it?

Frankly I’m shocked whenever I meet someone who has never seen this movie, but let’s take a moment to go over the facts:

• It was directed by Frank Oz, the director of What About Bob? and The Dark Crystal (and also the actor who portrayed Yoda and Miss Piggy).
  
• The music was done by composer Alan Menken and lyricist Howard Ashman (aka the duo behind Disney’s The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast).
  
• And it stars the likes of Rick Moranis, Levi Stubbs, Ellen Greene, and Steve Martin. With some great appearances by some other big stars.

I mean, damn! That’s a pretty amazing lineup.

I don’t really know what to say other than that it’s a really fun movie! It’s a perfect movie for those out there that want something with a spooky edge and some monsters, but would prefer to laugh over being terrified beyond all belief. I mean, sure, if you think about it it’s actually a pretty dark story. And yet—while a couple of gory things are said to have been done—there really is not on screen depiction of any of it. Plus all the great comedy and music generally keeps things pretty light.

 (well...maybe it would be scary to a young child...but I don’t have kids so what do I know). 


Although if you’re looking for faults, I suppose the one that comes to mind is the lack of female characters.

Technically there are four female characters if you count the Greek Chorus, but do you count a Greek Chorus? I don’t know! In terms of characters who are actual active players in the game, Audrey is it and I’ve always found her character to be a bit...questionable.

But if you dive into why her character is questionable? Well, things start to get real murky really fast. I think arguments could be made that she is nothing more than vapid ditz who has no agency, defines herself through her relationships with men, and whose only real dream is to be a wife and mother in the suburbs. And yet arguments could also be made that any negative aspects of her character are also shown to be aspects of the Seymour (aka the main character) and that they both develop together as they learn what a healthy relationship is and is not. But unlike in Seymour’s case where there are plenty of other male characters to compare and contrast him with, this cannot be said for Audrey.

And then things get even more complicated when you account for the fact that very different things that happen with her character depending on which version of the movie you’re watching: the theatrical cut or the original director’s cut.

See what I mean when I said things get murky really fast when you start to look at this thing too closely? Suffice it to say that all this could have been avoided if they had bothered to include more female characters.

All in all, I really love this film. There are so many iconic elements and memorable moments. It’s just a really fun time at the movies. As far as dark-comedy musicals go, Little Shop of Horrors reigns supreme.


P.S. If you’re wondering which version to watch, I personally prefer the theatrical version. It is a bit cheesy, but I think it’s sweet and a better fit for the movie overall. However, I do know a number of people who prefer the director’s cut ending which is more true to the original off-Broadway musical’s and includes another song.

P.P.S. (If you do want to dive into the differences between the two, I quite enjoyed this short essay that Vrai Kaiser wrote for The Mary Sue. Just be warned that there are spoilers, so probably best not to read it if you haven’t seen the movie yet.)

“Poor!

All my life I’ve always been poor

I keep asking God what I’m for

And he tells me, ‘Gee I’m not sure’

‘Sweep that floor, kid!’

Oh,

I started life as an orphan

A child of the streets

Here on Skid Row!

He took me in

Gave me shelter, a bed,

Crust of bread and a job

Treats me like dirt, calls me a slob

Which I am!

So I live...

Downtown!

That’s your home address

You live...

Downtown!

When your life’s a mess

You live...

Downtown!

Where depression’s just status quo.

Down on Skid Row.”

31 Days of Spooky Movies: From the Dark

Day #30

From the Dark

(2014)

A young couple’s car breaks down while taking a trip in the rural Irish countryside. But things take a real turn for the worse when they find themselves being hunted by a murderous and photophobic creature of the night.

Fright Factor:

2.5 / 5 Feral Nosferatus

Gore Factor:

3 / 5  Flesh Wounds

Should you watch it?

You ever have a meal that’s far from flashy, but just really satisfying? Like a simple grilled cheese that just really hit the spot? That’s this movie in a nutshell for me. It’s not a super fancy film, but for me it was a truly satisfying bit of horror.

When it comes to monster movies I’m usually not the biggest fan of vampires. They’re so often depicted as the narcissistic trust-fund, private school elitists of the monster community and that type of character brings me no joy. So I am very happy to report that this isn’t that kind of vampire movie!

In fact I’m hesitant to even use the term “vampire;” the creature here was something...I dunno know, older? Like if a nosferatu was abandoned by its parents in the woods as a babe and went feral. You know what? Let’s use the old-school term and call it a vampyr. That seems oddly appropriate. There were no weakness to crosses or holy water here, just good old fashioned light and a stake to the heart.

And it’s this film’s back-to-basics approach that really made it work for me. In fact it’s a pretty great example of the 3 main elements that make for a satisfying horror movie.

#1: Fun Characters

It’s really hard to create a properly scary tension if nobody cares if any of the characters live or die. Sure you can always use  a jump-scare or throw in some gore (as many films will), but techniques like that make for a poor meal.

And luckily for us the characters here are pretty great. I mean, to be fair, there are really only 4 characters in the entire movie and only the 2 main characters have any lines, but still! Niamh Algar and Stephen Cromwell have a great chemistry together and their back-and-forths were really relatable. And what’s more, they were fully-formed people and not just simple stereotypes! (that's always a big get in a Horror movie)


#2: Solid Foundation

A lot of movies seem to confuse a good premise with a solid foundation. Take Snakes on a Plane for example. It’s got a fantastic hook, but really, when it really comes down to it there’s not a whole lot you can do with that. A good horror movie needs to have a solid foundation to work with otherwise anything it tries to create will inevitably collapse.

It can take the form of a clever killer, or an intriguing survival mechanic, or whatever, but it needs to have that foundation element that gives the filmmakers room to create suspense, to move the action forward, and to just generally keep everyone interested. In A Nightmare on Elm St it was that Freddy Krueger can go into people’s dreams. In The Silence of the Lambs it was that the only person who could locate a mass murderer was an even more dangerous and intelligent mass murderer.

See what I mean?

And that was a big part of what made this movie so much more enjoyable than I was originally expecting. They didn’t just settle for “Oh a monster is attacking them! And they would rather it didn’t and would prefer to live if its not too much bother.” They upped the stakes by getting rather clever with the vampyr’s weakness to light.

In most stories vampires are weak to sunlight, but the vampyr here is just generally photophobic and is hurt by any form of light stronger than the moon. The movie uses this to great effect and there’s this great tension to the action that revolves around the protagonists’ ability to find and use sources of light to their advantage.

And it’s really fun! I had all sorts of “AHH! I didn’t even think about using that one!” moments while watching the movie.


#3: Good Execution

Nothing kills a horror movie faster than bad execution (although bad enough acting can get really close). And while perhaps not the best around, the technical side of the film was quite good. In particular I liked how they used the background of their shots. They did a good job of inserting movement or information in the background that generally worked well to heighten the tension and the general creepiness of a scene.

There are a few things I could critique (for example there were some day-for-night shots that weren’t the best), but none of them were terrible, and certainly never bad enough to ruin a scene.



So there you have it. The movie isn’t without its flaws, but it’s a really solid piece of horror. It has a monster with a unique flair, an interesting and fun to think about survival mechanic, and a pair of likeable protagonists with amazing Irish accents.

Sure you might not rave about the plating and fancy ingredients, but all in all it’s a pretty darn satisfying meal.

“People can get their hair cut without it leading to marriage, ya mentalhead.”

31 Days of Spooky Movies: The ABCs of Death

Day #29

The ABCs of Death

(2012)

A series of 26 short films, each done by a different director and each centering around a word that starts with a different letter of the alphabet.

Fright Factor:

1 / 5 Wasted Evenings

Gore Factor:

4 / 5 Cheap  Gross-outs

Should you watch it?

Let me tell you something, dear readers: I Hated this movie.

Correction: I still hate this movie!

SO MUCH!

I would gladly rewatch any of the other terrible horror movie I’ve watched during all my years of doing these 31 Days of Spooky Movies challenges rather than watch this shitstorm again.

My friends warned me that this movie was awful, but I didn’t listen! It just sounded like such an interesting premise that I just had to see it for myself. And it turns out that not only is this movie powerfully stupid and incredibly boring, but it’s also not at all scary. Sure some of the shorts are quite gory, but—as you may have already guessed by how I divide my ratings—gory is a very different creature than scary.

As Steven King says in his book Danse Macabre, “I recognize terror as the finest emotion and so I will try to terrorize the reader. But if I find that I cannot terrify, I will try to horrify, and if I find that I cannot horrify, I’ll go for the gross-out. I’m not proud. ”

And the real nail in the coffin, the real mind-numbing thing about the movie isn’t that it’s incredibly vapid and dumb (although it is): it’s that it’s 26 incredibly vapid and dumb movies! You’re forced to experience one confused disappointment after another in some sort of cruel, torturous, and seemingly never-ending parade...

I don’t know what else to say...

Fuck this movie.

“F is for Fart”

31 Days of Spooky Movies: Pontypool

Day# 28b

Pontypool

(2008)

When a strange and deadly infection appears in a small town in rural Canada the crew at the local radio station becomes ground zero for coverage. However, unlike most epidemics, the pathogen here isn't a physical one, but one hidden within our very language.

Fright Factor:

2 / 5 Shock Jocks

Gore Factor:

3 / 5  Word Vomits

Should you watch it?

Sometimes I’m not entirely sure if a movie is definitively amazing or if it’s just flipping all my switches. Whatever the case may be, I love Pontypool! I mean it’s a linguistic zombie movie that cares more about creating a mood of terror than sights of gore! What’s not to love about that?

The idea of a virus that spreads through language is such a brilliant twist on a genre based in the physical. Zombies bite, zombies swarm, zombies eat, zombies rip, zombies tear, and so on. Zombie movies almost always involve the virus spreading through acts of aggression. And yet here it’s the opposite: the virus spreads through words. How do you work together to find a way out of a bad situation without language? (Not to mention the interesting modern parallels one could make between this pathogen and a computer virus).

Even if the linguistic angle isn’t your thing, this movie still has quit a lot to offer. The cast is small but it is stellar. The costars of Stephen McHattie and Lisa Houle just give it their all and knock their performances right out of the park.

And if all that wasn’t enough, the real coup de grace of the is just how it well it was made and how refreshingly unique its focus. So much of Horror filmmaking is about showing you scary things. “Here! Look at this thing...isn’t it SCARY!”

I think if you look for it you’ll notice that a lot of weak Horror movies fall flat because the filmmakers aren’t able to construct any actual fright and forced to deal solely in shock and eww. They simply show you something gory, or violent, or brutal, or whathaveyou, and call it a day. But a great Horror works through multiple channels to unsettle you. Showing things can be great, but there’s also so much wasted potential from not attempting to trigger the viewer’s other senses and using our own imaginations against us. Unless the filmmaker is exceptionally talented there is rarely anything they can show you that will be worse than what you can imagine.

And that’s a big part of what makes this movie so enjoyable to me. The virus is one transmitted through sound, the movie is set at a radio station; it’s sound (not sight) that provides the central focus of the movie. The action for most of the story is coming almost exclusively from the calls the station is receving. Those calls combined with the reactions from the crew at the station work together to build this delightful tension as you begin to sense control being lost and danger looming ever closer. The film just trusts the viewer to fill in the details in a way that I just love and so rarely see.

At the end of the day Pontypool is a movie that’s not for everyone. (As much as I hate to admit it). It’s just too different and takes too many departures from the mainstream to have true mass appeal. But for me? Well, that’s exactly what I love about it! It takes risks, it deviates from your usual expectations, and delivers something exciting, unique, and best of all: Spooky.

“Kill is Kiss.”

31 Days of Spooky Movies: Under the Skin

Day #28

Under the Skin

(2013)

A creature disguises itself as a human woman and proceeds to seduce lonely people in order to consume them. But when she attempts to abandon this way of living things begin to spiral out of her control.

Fright Factor:

1 / 5 Human Experiences

Gore Factor:

2 / 5 Empty Skins Waving Gently Like Seaweed In the Current

Should you watch it?

You know what? Despite the fact that I really only had a vague idea of what exactly was going on, I greatly enjoyed this movie.

It’s slow and arty and has a strange kind of ethereal beauty about it. It’s one of those movies that leaves you thinking after it’s done. Something that could be about all sorts of things, or perhaps none at all. It’s completely up to you.

If you’re in the mood for something really Scary, I’d say you should probably keep looking. But if you want something spooky yet artistic? Something off the beaten Horror path, perhaps? Well, look no further.

“When was the last time you touched someone?”

31 Days of Spooky Movies: What We Become

Day #27

Sorgenfri

[What We Become]

(2015)

When a zombie virus comes to town the government quarantines everyone inside their homes. A family does their best to survive the situation, while their idiot son’s poor life choices constantly threaten to destroy everything they hold dear.

Fright Factor

1.5 / 5 Nuclear Families

Gore Factor

2.8 / 5 Knives to the Eye

Should You Watch It?

You know what? No.

It’s not a terrible film, but even at its best moments it’s still pretty generic.

To its credit there were two things I did like. The first being that the government’s actions, while aggressive, seemed very appropriate. I mean, sure it would be pretty creepy to get quarantined in your house upon threat of being shot if you left, but still a better situation than being eaten alive by the living dead, no?

Second was that I also liked the main family (for the most part). There was something very honest and relatable about them. Unfortunately the movie manages to sour this by means of the family’s son who is, without a doubt, THE WORST.

I mean, good golly, that kid is awful. I would have turned this movie off, but I REALLY wanted to see someone eat him. He ruins every decent thing the film had to offer by rebelling against it and becomes this incredibly frustrating embodiment of everything that makes some teenagers so irritating: he rebels against any authority that disagrees with him, he acts on impulse and never considers the consequences of his actions, he doesn’t listen, he thinks more with his hormones than with his brain, and did I mention that he thinks he knows everything?

And guess what happens to this void of common sense when a zombie virus hits town?

That’s right! His vast supply of idiocy constantly endangers everyone he encounters.

If this was a comedy that might actually be pretty entertaining, but it’s not a comedy! They play everything straight and serious.

If you want to spend an hour and a half yelling at a teenager who constantly ruins everything for everyone, then by all means watch this movie. But if you’ve watched any other zombie movie than nothing here will surprise you. There are FAR better zombie movies out there. And FAR better Scandinavian horror movies as well.

“Right now there is no specific cure.”