Trash Palace Dumpster-- Bobbie's Best of the Bad: Rosemary's Baby (2014)

Title:  Rosemary's Baby

Year of Release—Film:  (2014/ TV)

Reviewer:  Bobbie 

The Devil made them do it.  What else can explain NBC's decision to remake...or retell...the tale of Ira Levin's bestselling book of the same title that was turned into the classic 1968 movie Rosemary's Baby starring Mia Farrow as guileless housewife Rosemary and her conniving would-be actor husband, Guy, played by John Cassavetes.

The story:

Rosemary and Guy Woodhouse move into the once elegant but now aging Dakota, a Manhattan apartment building.  Rosemary sets about remaking the apartment into a stylish home while Guy tries out for an off-Broadway play.  An older couple Roman Castevet (Sidney Blackmer) and Minnie (Ruth Gordon) have a tragedy in their lives when their "ward" Terry (Victoria Verte) commits suicide and they befriend Guy and Rosemary.

During a dinner party, Guy is enamored by Roman's tales of far-away places and they begin a friendship that leaves Rosemary feeling odd man out.  Guy, by way of an apology, promises Rosemary that she would get the one thing she has been dreaming of...pregnancy!  During the romantic dinner planned to make this occur, Minnie brings over dessert..."a chocolate mouse...her specialty.”  After eating it, Rosemary feels drugged and passes out.  She begins dreaming about boating with President Kennedy and the Pope.  Suddenly, the dream becomes a nightmare of Rosemary being raped by Satan as a coven of witches chant beside the bed.

The next morning Rosemary wakes up badly scratched, with Guy confessing he "didn't want to miss baby night" so he had gone ahead with sex even though Rosemary was unconscious.  Soon, Rosemary learns she's pregnant and they celebrate the good news with their new and increasingly intrusive friends, the Castevets.  More good news follows as Guy learns he's landed the lead role in the play that would certainly make him a star!  However, not all is well as Rosemary becomes sick and is in a great deal of pelvic pain.  Her OB/GYN, Dr. Sapirstein (Ralph Bellamy) assures her that it is just stiff joints and has Minnie make Rosemary a daily vitamin drink.

However, as the months pass, Rosemary's pain increases until she is practically bed-ridden, now paranoid about Guy close connections with their next-door neighbors, the Castevets!  Was the nightmare really just a nightmare?  Moreover, why does Rosemary hear chanting and flute plying from the Castevet's apartment?  What did Rosemary's friend, Hutch (Maurice Evens), mean when he instructed from his deathbed that Rosemary be given a book titled All of Them Witches?  And what about her husband's sudden success on stage?  Was it a conspiracy against Rosemary?  Or is it about her baby?  For those who have been living under a rock or in a cave for the past 40 years and have never read Ira Levin's best-selling novel or seen the Oscar-winning and enormously successful movie or even the 2014 retelling of it, I'll not give spoilers.

What made the 1968 movie was the sense of creeping horror as the viewer is drawn along with Rosemary's dawning realization that something isn't right in her World.  However, it was Roman Polanski's riveting style as director that gives Rosemary's Baby it's spooky atmosphere and morbid humor as he slowly but surely ratchets up the tension and horror.  Film critic Roger Ebert wrote in his June 29, 1968 review “...the brilliance of the film comes more from Polanski's direction, and from a series of genuinely inspired performances...” and “the best thing that can be said about the film, I think, is that it works.  Polanski has taken a most difficult situation and made it believable, right up to the end.  In this sense, he even outdoes Hitchcock.  Both ‘Rosemary's Baby’ and Hitchcock's classic ‘Suspicion’ are about wives, deeply in love, who are gradually forced to suspect the most sinister and improbable things about their husbands.”  The original Rosemary's Baby sits comfortably at number 9 on the AFI 100 Years...100 Thrills list.

Now let's examine 2014 re-telling of this story...what worked ... and what didn't.  This new version, penned by Scott Abbot and James Wong, radically updates the Ira Levin novel.  This time around, Rosemary (Zoe Saldana) is a ballet dancer and sole breadwinner for herself and her husband Guy (Patrick J. Adams).  After a miscarriage, she and Guy move to Paris where he has been offered a position as a teacher at the Sorbonne.  After an apartment fire leaves them homeless, they are invited by their new elitist friends, Roman Castevet (Jason Isaacs) and his wife Marguax (Carol Bouquet) to live in the Castevet's exclusive private apartment complex.  In the Polanski film, the devils are an old couple in a dusty Manhattan building.  In the newer version, Roman and Marguax are younger, more glamorous, seductive and extremely wealthy.  One can see that they would think everything has it's price.  Guy has what they want.  A vessel for Satan's unborn child!  A child he is willing to sell, if the price is right!  While Saldana played her part very convincingly, Patrick Adams played Guy as blandly as vanilla ice cream.  Not very convincing and at one point actually acted guilty about his part in the conspiracy and offered to flee Paris with Rosemary.  That ruined the whole plot.  In addition, if you watched any of the commercials for the mini-series, you might have noticed that all of them were shots from the second part, and wondered, ‘why’?  The answer is that the first part was as stagnant as pond water.  I could almost hear Joel singing, “Slow the plot down, boys … Slow the plot down!”  Disappointing!

Polish-born director Agnieszka Holland explains in a May 8, 2014 interview for the New York Times “my Rosemary is much more willful and stronger.”  But she added that Rosemary remains a victim to the nature of motherhood, “dependent on the people who decide, instead of her, what to do with her body.  The notion of postnatal and prenatal depression, and the feeling that you don’t own yourself anymore, that you’re not yourself anymore, it’s a quite important subject of ‘Rosemary’s Baby’.” 

The 2014 version is far more gory than the original, replacing the chicken heart Mia chews on with a human heart.  In the 1968 version, Guy gets the lead in the play because the other candidate went blind.  In the 2014 version, Guy's competition for the teaching position goes crazy during the job interview and attacks the interviewer with a letter opener before slicing her own throat.

And while all that red might look interesting against the somber, almost blue and white film, it loses the psychological horror to replace it with rivers of gore.  Bad move.  The original pulled the audience along with Rosemary; we shared her increasing sense of dread, realizing that only when Rosemary knew, we'd know!  And to borrow a line from late-director Dave Friedman, the remake was all sizzle and no steak.  But, the worst part of this is that audience members might be put off watching the original Rosemary's Baby or reading Ira Levin's marvelous book.  And therein lays the real shame.

Bobbie

DVD Review: BLACK CHRISTMAS (2006)

Title:  BLACK CHRISTMAS (2006)

Year of Release—Film:  2006

Year of Release—DVD:  2007

DVD Label:  Dimension Home Entertainment

Bob Clark, the director who was recently killed by a drunk driver, will forever be known for what must be the best Christmas movie I’ve ever seen, 1983’s A CHRISTMAS STORY.  The tale of young Ralphie Parker and his quest for an official Red Ryder, 200-shot, Range Model Air Rifle, (with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time…) the film is one of the most humorous and heart-warming I’ve ever seen, capturing perfectly experiences that are common to most children, regardless of era.  Clark also helmed another of my favorite comedies, released in 1980—PORKY’S.  This raunchy, risqué teen sex-comedy is one that I never seem to tire of watching.

However, before he became known for his comedies, Bob Clark was one of the new breed of independent Horror directors, a contemporary of Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, Curtis Harrington, and Larry Cohen, that burst on the scene in the early ‘70’s following the success of George Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.  Without the constraints of a major studio production, these filmmakers were able to push the envelope in ways heretofore unexplored.  Most of their efforts were, quite frankly, less than successful; Clark’s own first feature, 1972’s CHILDREN SHOULDN’T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS, was a thoroughly unmemorable, though mildly entertaining, rip-off of Romero’s NOTLD.  His next film however, DEATHDREAM, was much improved; and in 1974 he laid the foundation for the Slasher genre with BLACK CHRISTMAS.

Set in a sorority house over the Christmas break, as a lunatic hiding in the attic hunts those young ladies who didn’t go home for the holidays, this film laid down several of the conventions that would be developed further four years later with the masterpiece of the Slasher film, John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN.  Now, Glen Morgan has remade what is arguably Clark’s best Horror Film, with both Clark’s blessing and his imprimatur as Executive Producer.

This new version is faithful to the original, without being a shot-by-shot restaging of it.  It also answers many of the questions that were purposefully left unanswered in the 1974 version.  This has a mixed result; part of what the fans remember about the original film is the vagueness of the ending, and I think that leaving some secrets buried would have been a better choice.  But today’s horror fans seem to prefer their loose ends neatly tied together, and gathering the threads probably produced a more ‘commercial’ film.

The story of the killer, Billy, is told in a series of flashbacks to his childhood in the home that later became the Sorority House.  His abusive mother kills his loving father, setting the pattern for the young boy’s psychopathia.  As an adult, he eventually kills both her and her second husband, and is busy devouring her when the police arrive.  Committed to a mental institution, he escapes, heading back home… to what is now the Delta Kappa Alpha house.

The cast is good, though not spectacular, and the young women of the sorority are certainly beautiful.  Though most of the faces are familiar to viewers, there are no household names present, not that the material really requires much star power.  Morgan’s direction is competent; nothing inspired, but smooth and capable.

While remakes are difficult to pull off successfully, Morgan and co. do a very good job here.  Perhaps it has more to do with the lack of familiarity most fans have with the original, never a big commercial success, than with the changes inherent in this version.  Still, for whatever the reason, BLACK CHRISTMAS works, and works very well.

My disc is the special BlockBuster Video© Unrated Edition.  How this differentiates it from any other Unrated Edition escapes me, but no matter.  Dimension usually does a good job packaging their films, and this example is no different.  The audio and video quality was good, and the disc had a full selection of sound and subtitle options.

The release has several excellent features that should please viewers.  There is a very good behind-the-scenes documentary that includes comments from Bob Clark.  I would imagine these were among his last comments on his early horror films, as his death came not long after the DVD’s release.  Concerning his early films, he remarks that, in order to break into the business, you had to either “…make pornos, or make horrors.  And I didn’t want to make pornos.”  The documentary stands as a far more interesting look at this talented director than as a look at the making of BLACK CHRISTMAS.

Perhaps the best of the special features are the three Alternate endings; at least one of which would have been an improvement over the ending of the U.S. released version.  (The International release had one of these alternate conclusions…)  These are presented in sufficient depth and detail to allow a true comparison to be made, and each viewer to make their own choice.

In my “2006 in Review” column over at www.creaturescape.com, I discussed this film in conjunction with my look at the Remake of the Year, and stated that I had heard good things about this film but would reserve judgment until I had seen it myself.  Well, I’ve finally seen it, and must admit that I was very pleased.  It’s rare that I see a remake that I enjoy, and one that exceeds and expands upon the original is rarer still.  This one does just that, and does it with some flair and a dash of originality.  Not much, but enough to make a difference.

I got my copy from the four for $20 bargain bin at BlockBuster Video, (a definite recommendation, I might add…) but even at the list price it’s worth consideration.  I say give it a try… and have a scary Christmas.

DVD Review: PIRANHA (2010)

Title:  PIRANHA

Year of Release—Film:  2010

Year of Release—DVD:  2011

DVD Label:  Sony Pictures Home Entertainment

I will freely admit that there are times, more often than not, that the ol’ Unimonster’s not looking for a great movie (or even a good one, for that matter).  I just want to be entertained.  Sometimes that means giant bugs, sometimes it means ‘80’s Slasher Films.  And sometimes it means large-breasted young women; gratuitous nudity, violence and gore; and tasteless humor.  Sometimes it means a movie such as Alexandre Aja’s remake of the 1978 Roger Corman-produced classic PIRANHA.

 Less a remake of the original than a, to use the term currently in vogue, reinvention, Aja foregoes the “man tampering with nature” plot of Joe Dante’s original, in favor of a natural cause for the assault of millions of carnivorous fish on a lake full of partiers.

It’s a pleasant spring day on Lake Victoria, Arizona.  An elderly fisherman, Matthew Boyd (Richard Dreyfuss, in a nice little tribute to his role in JAWS thirty-five years previously), is in a rowboat, drifting along, line in the water.  A small earthquake shakes the area, opening up, deep below the water’s surface, a huge fissure.  A whirlpool forms near Boyd’s boat, drawing it in as thousands of strange fish swim upward from the fissure.  The angler is tossed into the raging water, only to be torn to shreds as the fish swarm around him.  The lake quickly returns to its normally placid state, the only indication of anything extraordinary having occurred being the now-empty rowboat—and Boyd’s arm, bloody, flesh stripped from the bones, upthrust from the water.

In another part of the lake, hordes of college kids are descending upon the small community.  It is Spring Break, and Lake Victoria is renowned as a party destination.  Everywhere one looks are drunken college boys and lovely college girls, all ready to have the time of their lives.  Through this mass of humanity a young man on a motorbike can be seen, carefully navigating his way around knots of dancing, stumbling partiers.  This is Jake (Steven R. McQueen), and as much as he would like to join in the festivities, he’s on a mission: to collect his little sister from her music lesson.

He finds her waiting for him in the company of Danni (Kelly Brook), a stunningly beautiful young woman.  As fate would have it, she is a Wild, Wild Girl—one of the stars of a series of videos that feature naked, nubile women behaving, well… wildly.  The brainchild of a weasely character named Derrick (Jerry O’Connell), one of the videos is being produced during the Spring Break activities.  Derrick hires Jake to act as location scout for the production, a guide who knows his way around the lake.

That night, Sheriff Julie Forester (Elisabeth Shue), who happens to be Jake’s mother, is investigating Matt Boyd’s disappearance.  His boat has been found by Fallon (Ving Rhames), one of her deputies, but there was no sign of the missing man.  As Julie reaches from the dock to the boat, she falls in the water, coming up with the body of Matt Boyd.

The body appears to have been in the water for several days, rather than hours.  It’s obvious to both officers that whatever did this to the old man—it wasn’t something to which they were accustomed.  Julie’s first instinct is to close the lake, a lake that, in a few short hours, will play host to a hundred thousand Spring Break revelers.  A hundred thousand potential victims—of something unknown to the Sheriff.

The latest in a string of hits for “splat-pack” member Aja, following on the heels of 2008’s MIRRORS, PIRANHA’s strength lies in its total abandonment of any pretense of being a worthwhile or meaningful film.  It’s pure exploitation, 100-percent no-holds-barred ‘70’s-era Drive-In movie.  It fulfills every tenet of Joe Bob Briggs’ requirement for a good Drive-In Movie: Boobs, Blood, and Beasts.  The script, by Pete Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg, is adequate—don’t expect Shakespeare and you won’t be disappointed.  Aja’s direction has improved with each outing, from HAUTE TENSION, to THE HILLS HAVE EYES, to MIRRORS, and now with PIRANHA.  He has a firm grasp of what modern Horror fans want to see, and the ability to bring that to the screen.

The DVD release is nice, thin on bonus features but that, unfortunately, is becoming the trend, as distributors save the bonuses for Blu-ray releases.  The one bonus is a good one, however—Don’t Scream, Just Swim: Behind-the-Scenes of PIRANHA 3D.  At a runtime of 91 minutes, it’s actually 3 minutes longer than the movie it examines.  It’s full of the ‘making-of’ details that I love, and is enjoyable in its own right.

PIRANHA isn’t going to please everyone; in fact, even a lot of Horror fans may find it over-the-top.  But sometimes you’re in the mood for over-the-top—sometimes you’re in the mood for Boobs, Blood, and Beasts.  And PIRANHA delivers, in spades.

DVD Review: BLACK CHRISTMAS (2006)

Title:  BLACK CHRISTMAS (2006)

Year of Release—Film:  2006

Year of Release—DVD:  2007

DVD Label:  Dimension Home Entertainment

Bob Clark, the director who was recently killed by a drunk driver, will forever be known for what must be the best Christmas movie I’ve ever seen, 1983’s A CHRISTMAS STORY.  The tale of young Ralphie Parker and his quest for an official Red Ryder, 200-shot, Range Model Air Rifle, (with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time…) the film is one of the most humorous and heart-warming I’ve ever seen, capturing perfectly experiences that are common to most children, regardless of era.  Clark also helmed another of my favorite comedies, released in 1980—PORKY’S.  This raunchy, risqué teen sex-comedy is one that I never seem to tire of watching.

However, before he became known for his comedies, Bob Clark was one of the new breed of independent Horror directors, a contemporary of Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, Curtis Harrington, and Larry Cohen, that burst on the scene in the early ‘70’s following the success of George Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.  Without the constraints of a major studio production, these filmmakers were able to push the envelope in ways heretofore unexplored.  Most of their efforts were, quite frankly, less than successful; Clark’s own first feature, 1972’s CHILDREN SHOULDN’T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS, was a thoroughly unmemorable, though mildly entertaining, rip-off of Romero’s NOTLD.  His next film however, DEATHDREAM, was much improved; and in 1974 he laid the foundation for the Slasher genre with BLACK CHRISTMAS.

Set in a sorority house over the Christmas break, as a lunatic hiding in the attic hunts those young ladies who didn’t go home for the holidays, this film laid down several of the conventions that would be developed further four years later with the masterpiece of the Slasher film, John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN.  Now, Glen Morgan has remade what is arguably Clark’s best Horror Film, with both Clark’s blessing and his imprimatur as Executive Producer.

This new version is faithful to the original, without being a shot-by-shot restaging of it.  It also answers many of the questions that were purposefully left unanswered in the 1974 version.  This has a mixed result; part of what the fans remember about the original film is the vagueness of the ending, and I think that leaving some secrets buried would have been a better choice.  But today’s horror fans seem to prefer their loose ends neatly tied together, and gathering the threads probably produced a more ‘commercial’ film.

The story of the killer, Billy, is told in a series of flashbacks to his childhood in the home that later became the Sorority House.  His abusive mother kills his loving father, setting the pattern for the young boy’s psychopathia.  As an adult, he eventually kills both her and her second husband, and is busy devouring her when the police arrive.  Committed to a mental institution, he escapes, heading back home… to what is now the Delta Kappa Alpha house.

The cast is good, though not spectacular, and the young women of the sorority are certainly beautiful.  Though most of the faces are familiar to viewers, there are no household names present, not that the material really requires much star power.  Morgan’s direction is competent; nothing inspired, but smooth and capable.

While remakes are difficult to pull off successfully, Morgan and co. do a very good job here.  Perhaps it has more to do with the lack of familiarity most fans have with the original, never a big commercial success, than with the changes inherent in this version.  Still, for whatever the reason, BLACK CHRISTMAS works, and works very well.

My disc is the special BlockBuster Video© Unrated Edition.  How this differentiates it from any other Unrated Edition escapes me, but no matter.  Dimension usually does a good job packaging their films, and this example is no different.  The audio and video quality was good, and the disc had a full selection of sound and subtitle options.

The release has several excellent features that should please viewers.  There is a very good behind-the-scenes documentary that includes comments from Bob Clark.  I would imagine these were among his last comments on his early horror films, as his death came not long after the DVD’s release.  Concerning his early films, he remarks that, in order to break into the business, you had to either “…make pornos, or make horrors.  And I didn’t want to make pornos.”  The documentary stands as a far more interesting look at this talented director than as a look at the making of BLACK CHRISTMAS.

Perhaps the best of the special features are the three Alternate endings; at least one of which would have been an improvement over the ending of the U.S. released version.  (The International release had one of these alternate conclusions…)  These are presented in sufficient depth and detail to allow a true comparison to be made, and each viewer to make their own choice.

In my “2006 in Review” column over at www.creaturescape.com, I discussed this film in conjunction with my look at the Remake of the Year, and stated that I had heard good things about this film but would reserve judgment until I had seen it myself.  Well, I’ve finally seen it, and must admit that I was very pleased.  It’s rare that I see a remake that I enjoy, and one that exceeds and expands upon the original is rarer still.  This one does just that, and does it with some flair and a dash of originality.  Not much, but enough to make a difference.

I got my copy from the four for $20 bargain bin at BlockBuster Video, (a definite recommendation, I might add…) but even at the list price it’s worth consideration.  I say give it a try… and have a scary Christmas.

DVD Review: BLACK CHRISTMAS (2006)

Title:  BLACK CHRISTMAS (2006)

Year of Release—Film:  2006

Year of Release—DVD:  2007

DVD Label:  Dimension Home Entertainment

Bob Clark, the director who was recently killed by a drunk driver, will forever be known for what must be the best Christmas movie I’ve ever seen, 1983’s A CHRISTMAS STORY.  The tale of young Ralphie Parker and his quest for an official Red Ryder, 200-shot, Range Model Air Rifle, (with a compass in the stock and this thing that tells time…) the film is one of the most humorous and heart-warming I’ve ever seen, capturing perfectly experiences that are common to most children, regardless of era.  Clark also helmed another of my favorite comedies, released in 1980—PORKY’S.  This raunchy, risqué teen sex-comedy is one that I never seem to tire of watching.

However, before he became known for his comedies, Bob Clark was one of the new breed of independent Horror directors, a contemporary of Wes Craven, Tobe Hooper, Curtis Harrington, and Larry Cohen, that burst on the scene in the early ‘70’s following the success of George Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD.  Without the constraints of a major studio production, these filmmakers were able to push the envelope in ways heretofore unexplored.  Most of their efforts were, quite frankly, less than successful; Clark’s own first feature, 1972’s CHILDREN SHOULDN’T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS, was a thoroughly unmemorable, though mildly entertaining, rip-off of Romero’s NOTLD.  His next film however, DEATHDREAM, was much improved; and in 1974 he laid the foundation for the Slasher genre with BLACK CHRISTMAS.

Set in a sorority house over the Christmas break, as a lunatic hiding in the attic hunts those young ladies who didn’t go home for the holidays, this film laid down several of the conventions that would be developed further four years later with the masterpiece of the Slasher film, John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN.  Now, Glen Morgan has remade what is arguably Clark’s best Horror Film, with both Clark’s blessing and his imprimatur as Executive Producer.

This new version is faithful to the original, without being a shot-by-shot restaging of it.  It also answers many of the questions that were purposefully left unanswered in the 1974 version.  This has a mixed result; part of what the fans remember about the original film is the vagueness of the ending, and I think that leaving some secrets buried would have been a better choice.  But today’s horror fans seem to prefer their loose ends neatly tied together, and gathering the threads probably produced a more ‘commercial’ film.

The story of the killer, Billy, is told in a series of flashbacks to his childhood in the home that later became the Sorority House.  His abusive mother kills his loving father, setting the pattern for the young boy’s psychopathia.  As an adult, he eventually kills both her and her second husband, and is busy devouring her when the police arrive.  Committed to a mental institution, he escapes, heading back home… to what is now the Delta Kappa Alpha house.

The cast is good, though not spectacular, and the young women of the sorority are certainly beautiful.  Though most of the faces are familiar to viewers, there are no household names present, not that the material really requires much star power.  Morgan’s direction is competent; nothing inspired, but smooth and capable.

While remakes are difficult to pull off successfully, Morgan and co. do a very good job here.  Perhaps it has more to do with the lack of familiarity most fans have with the original, never a big commercial success, than with the changes inherent in this version.  Still, for whatever the reason, BLACK CHRISTMAS works, and works very well.

My disc is the special BlockBuster Video© Unrated Edition.  How this differentiates it from any other Unrated Edition escapes me, but no matter.  Dimension usually does a good job packaging their films, and this example is no different.  The audio and video quality was good, and the disc had a full selection of sound and subtitle options.

The release has several excellent features that should please viewers.  There is a very good behind-the-scenes documentary that includes comments from Bob Clark.  I would imagine these were among his last comments on his early horror films, as his death came not long after the DVD’s release.  Concerning his early films, he remarks that, in order to break into the business, you had to either “…make pornos, or make horrors.  And I didn’t want to make pornos.”  The documentary stands as a far more interesting look at this talented director than as a look at the making of BLACK CHRISTMAS.

Perhaps the best of the special features are the three Alternate endings; at least one of which would have been an improvement over the ending of the U.S. released version.  (The International release had one of these alternate conclusions…)  These are presented in sufficient depth and detail to allow a true comparison to be made, and each viewer to make their own choice.

In my “2006 in Review” column over at www.creaturescape.com, I discussed this film in conjunction with my look at the Remake of the Year, and stated that I had heard good things about this film but would reserve judgment until I had seen it myself.  Well, I’ve finally seen it, and must admit that I was very pleased.  It’s rare that I see a remake that I enjoy, and one that exceeds and expands upon the original is rarer still.  This one does just that, and does it with some flair and a dash of originality.  Not much, but enough to make a difference.

I got my copy from the four for $20 bargain bin at BlockBuster Video, (a definite recommendation, I might add…) but even at the list price it’s worth consideration.  I say give it a try… and have a scary Christmas.

DVD Review: FRIDAY THE 13TH (2009): The Killer Cut

Title: FRIDAY THE 13^TH: THE KILLER CUT (2009)

Year of Release—Film: 2009

Year of Release—DVD: 2009

DVD Label: Warner Home Video

The latest in Platinum Dunes’ line of resurrected Horror franchises, Marcus Nispel’s retooling of the FRIDAY THE 13^TH franchise, the most successful of the Slasher genre, is quite frankly mis-named. More properly, it’s a remake of FRIDAY THE 13^TH, Pt. II—with elements thrown in from most of the other films in the series. That this jumble works at all is a wonder; that it actually managed to entertain to some slight degree is a miracle.

The film opens much as F13-II did, though instead of a flashback recap of the final confrontation between Pamela Voorhees and the final survivor of the massacre at Camp Crystal Lake, Alice, we see it take place as it happens—as does a young Jason Voorhees. This forms the basis of Nispel’s attempt to humanize Jason, to reduce him down to just another serial killer, rather than the inhuman supernatural creature the original Jason was. This humanization of Jason was, according to interviews with the director and screenwriters contained in the documentary featurette “The Rebirth of Jason Voorhees,” a conscious decision on their part. It was not a good one.

As the film transitions to the present day, we meet a group of hikers wandering the woods near Crystal Lake, searching for a stand of marihuana plants rumored to be in the area. What they find is an adult Jason (Derek Mears), still nursing a grudge over his mother’s death, and blaming it on anyone he sees having sex. He immediately begins slaughtering the hikers, in a variety of inventive ways, including bear trap and being roasted in a sleeping bag.

Six weeks later, another party of generic yuppie spawn is on their way up to the area, to a parent’s cabin for the weekend. They encounter Clay (Jared Padelecki), a young man searching for clues in the disappearance of his sister Whitney, who was with the earlier group. He’s passing out flyers with Whitney’s picture, only the locals seem a little resistant to his efforts. As he heads up to the lake to continue his search, he again runs into the yuppie spawn; this time, he and Jenna (Danielle Panabaker) go off together. The stage is set, and no one who’s ever watched more than five minutes of any Slasher film will be surprised at what follows.

If it sounds as though I’m less than enthusiastic over yet another in the endless stream of reimaginings, reinventions, and reworkings that Hollywood excretes as though they were a waste product, well you, dear reader, may go to the head of the class. I’ve seen enough of Nispel’s work to believe that he could be a good director—if the people who write the checks would let him have an original thought. And no, making the iconic Slashers of my formative years more “human” doesn’t qualify as originality.

I can only say that unless you, like the Unimonster, simply must own every Horror film imaginable, then pass this one by. This travesty actually managed a nomination for “Crapfest of the Year” in my 2009 in Review piece [2 January, 2010], and came damn close to winning the Golden Turd. It’s not that it’s a necessarily bad film—just an insulting, needless one.

DVD Review: THE SCREAMING DEAD

Title: THE SCREAMING DEAD

Year of Release—Film: 2004

Year of Release—DVD: 2004

DVD Label: Shock-o-Rama Cinema


Shock-O-Rama Cinema has a certain reputation in Horror circles, and not an altogether bad one. Though they are an admittedly low-grade producer and distributor of Horror Films, churning out, for the most part, no-budget, shot-on-video gorefests, that doesn’t mean they aren’t good Horrors. Monogram was able to produce some quality films in the 1940’s, just as Amicus was in the ‘70’s and New Line in the ‘80’s. Every era has it’s low-budget studio turning out reel after reel, or in this case disc after disc, of good, solid, horror entertainment. There may not be an Oscar winner in the bunch, but they deliver what’s promised. Though SCREAMING DEAD may not win any awards, it’s a good little Horror Film, one that delivers what it promises.

A famous photographer rents an old haunted building for a photo-shoot, and arrives with several gorgeous models, including the “star” of the film, Misty Mundae; a cute young assistant; (Heidi Kristoffer, in a very good performance…) and the representative of the property-owner in tow. The photographer proceeds to subject his models to various staged “torture” situations for his photographs. This activity awakens the hostile, sadistic spirit of a man named Rossiter, who enacts in fact what the photographer staged for fantasy. Rossiter, well-played by Kevin Shinnick, (who, in the interests of full disclosure, is an acquaintance of this reviewer…) proceeds to hack his way through most of the cast in varied and imaginative ways.
In effect a remake of the 1965 Italian film THE CRIMSON EXECUTIONER ~aka~ BLOODY PIT OF HORROR, SCREAMING DEAD benefits from having a coherent script and, for the most part, decent acting… two factors the original lacked. Let’s be honest… this movie’s not likely to win any awards. But it does what I require of any movie—it entertains me.

Shock-O-Rama is one of those companies that always seem to deliver value for the Horror-fan’s dollar. They turn out a reliable, quality product, and this disc is no different. The print is crisp and clean, and the audio is sharp. There are no subtitles, however, which would be a plus. Overall, though, THE SCREAMING DEAD is a very well done project from Shock-O-Rama.

For what is essentially a bargain-rate movie from a low-budget distributor, this is a surprisingly well-planned and executed disc. There are several special features, including a making-of featurette, as well as an interview segment with the director, Brett Piper, and several of the cast. There’s a Documentary on Misty Mundae, Shock-o-Rama’s Queen of Screams, and additional photo galleries and such. It’s really not a bad package for such a low-budget effort.

As I said, this movie wasn’t in the Oscar hunt, and deservedly so. Still, for less than $20, you can have a good, thoroughly enjoyable Gorefest to add to your collection. It may not be your first choice when video shopping… but don’t be too quick to pass it by.

From the Alan Smithee School of Directing: How NOT to Remake a Movie!

As Hollywood rushes to pump out remake after soulless remake, many of them genre films, those of us who are of sufficient age to remember a time when one could still find an original thought in Tinseltown become more and more disillusioned with Modern Horror Films. As the major studios spew forth an endless stream of crap-tastic remakes, one is tempted to dismiss them all as worthless, unimaginative attempts to cash in on the much-loved (and much better) originals. The truth is somewhat different, however. While that description certainly applies to many, if not most, remakes currently floating down the pipe, there is such a thing as a good remake. Often, the difference comes down to the choices the director makes.

There are, generally speaking, two ways to remake a movie. The first, and by far the most common, is simply to reshoot the original. Same script, same characters, same dialogue. The more unimaginative the filmmaker the closer the remake will be to the original—and the less likely it will be anywhere near as good a movie. The ‘best’, or more correctly the most apt, example of this is Gus Van Sant’s 1998 shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s masterpiece PSYCHO.

In 1960, Alfred Hitchcock redefined horror, driving a nail into the coffin of the Sci-Fi Horrors of the 1950’s with a superbly drawn tale of a woman who steals from her employer and flees town, only to cross paths with an oedipal peeping tom in an out of the way motel. The viewer’s initial impression that this was simply another suspenseful crime melodrama from the master of such films was destroyed in a shocking flurry of jump cuts and extreme close-ups, a montage that lasted less than a minute, yet changed horror cinema forever. So effectively did Hitchcock's camera work and direction evoke an emotional response from the audience that many people, forgetting that scene like every other frame of the movie was monochrome, swear they remember, in vivid detail, the red blood running down the drain in the shower.

In 1998, director Gus Van Sant remade PSYCHO, in itself a poor decision. Some movies could possibly be considered fair game for a redo; some, in fact, are in dire need of someone to tell the story properly. But when a movie is generally described as a “masterpiece,” it should be safe to assume that no one is going to improve upon it with a remake—particularly when that “masterpiece” has long been accepted as the defining film from a master filmmaker. While my personal opinion is that REAR WINDOW is a better example of Hitchcock’s mastery of the narrative, as well as his technical brilliance, PSYCHO by far had the greater impact on cinematic history. To propose a remake of any Hitchcock film is audacious, to say the least. To remake his most famous film is the very height of arrogance.
Still, if Van Sant had attempted to inject any imagination or originality into his version it might have been a better film. It could scarcely have been worse. If remaking PSYCHO was arrogance personified, attempting to out-Hitchcock Hitchcock by making a shot-by-shot remake is downright insulting, both to the fans of that original film and those who see the remake.

From the opening sequence, which introduces us to Marion Crane and Sam Loomis, played unsatisfyingly by Anne Heche and Viggo Mortensen respectively, to the final shot of Marion’s car being pulled from the swamp, the only things Van Sant bothered to change are the actors and the film in the cameras. This time, of course, the blood is red, and instead of the suggestion of female nudity, you get the real thing. You also get Vince Vaughn instead of Anthony Perkins, Julianne Moore instead of Vera Miles, and William H. Macy in place of Martin Balsam. On the whole, it’s a very inequitable trade.

But is it possible to produce a remake that not only pleases new viewers, but also avoids offending fans of the original film? Yes, it is, and what’s more, it might even improve upon that film. Such was the case with the 1999 remake of the 1959 William Castle film HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL.

The original film is a fine example of Castle’s trademark style—not a great film, but an enjoyable one nonetheless. Castle made a career proving that, whatever a film’s inherent flaws, if you promote it properly, and give the moviegoer what they want, then it can be a success. The proper term is a “popcorn picture”—not high art, just highly entertaining. The story concerns a millionaire (Vincent Price in one of his best roles) who invites five strangers to spend the night in a haunted house in order to earn $10,000—a payday each is in desperate need of. The only stipulation is that each must stay the entire night, and of course, survive the ghosts.

In the late 1990’s Dark Castle Films began remaking some of the genre’s most popular films from the ‘50’s, ‘60’s, and ‘70’s—13 GHOSTS, GHOST SHIP, HOUSE OF WAX, and of course, HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, which was the company’s first production. Directed by William Malone, HOUSE… illustrates the right way to remake a movie.

First, and most importantly, is the choice of subject. While the original HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is a very enjoyable movie, it is by no means a “masterpiece,” so beloved by fans as to be immune to future tampering. And while the plot was interesting enough in 1959, modern audiences find it a little too reminiscent of “Scooby-Doo.” The remake’s producers wisely scrapped most of the plot, retaining only the bare premise of a rich man inviting strangers to spend the night in a haunted house, in anticipation of great reward.

The new script, by Don Beebe, brings the plot into the modern day by starting out in the 1930’s, at the Vannacutt Asylum for the Criminally Insane. Dr. Richard Vannacutt, (a brief but memorable performance by Jeffery Combs) the director of the asylum, amuses himself by performing bizarre surgical experiments on the inmates, filming himself in the process. One night, the lunatics rebel, killing the entire staff and causing a fire that kills everyone else locked within the asylum’s walls. We learn the history of the location through the device of a newsreel within a television broadcast, one that inspires Evelyn Price, (Famke Janssen) the disinterested wife of wealthy amusement park designer Stephen Price (Geoffrey Rush, in a superb emulation of Vincent Price) to hold her birthday party in the ruins of the old asylum, dubbed by locals as the, “house on Haunted Hill.”

Where the original plot had Vincent Price’s character faking the ghosts in the house in an effort to conceal his plans to murder his unfaithful wife, the remake, though keeping those elements of the plot, injects a massive dose of the supernatural into the story. The result is an example of a successful blending of both old and new into a much more effective film. Critics of the remake have pointed out the overreliance on special effects and the fact that the ending was weak, due in part to those overused effects. While those are valid criticisms, they don’t detract from one’s overall enjoyment of the movie.

So it is possible to remake a film, even a classic such as HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, and do it in a way that pleases fans, both old and young. But in order to do that, directors should remember two things.
First, the choice of film to remake is of paramount importance. No one can improve upon perfection, no matter how determined or well intentioned the effort. If one chooses to remake John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN, or George Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, or even Hitchcock’s PSYCHO, that director is setting him or herself up for failure. Even if they manage to produce a tremendously good film, it will always pale in comparison to the original. At best, it will be the second-best version of that story. At the worst, it will be regarded as an affront to those who revere the original.

The second item of consideration is originality. That may seem like an oxymoron when referring to a remake, but it’s vital that a filmmaker know which elements to retain from the original plot and which to discard. As Van Sant illustrated so vividly with his version of PSYCHO, there is no point in simply recasting and reshooting the original film—it betrays an obvious lack of either inspiration or imagination to do so. Those remakes which have been successful—the aforementioned HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL, last year’s MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3-D, this year’s THE WOLFMAN—have wisely let the original supply the former and used the latter to write the script.

As a Horror fan, I may abhor the explosion in the number of films that are in various stages of being remade, but it’s hard to ignore them when they flood theaters and video store shelves. As a reviewer, I can only review what’s being offered to the viewing public, and simply because a film is a remake doesn’t mean that it must necessarily be a poorly-done movie—it just seems that that’s often the case.

Unimonster's Screening Room: THE WOLFMAN (2010)

Title: THE WOLFMAN

Date of Theatrical Release: 12 February 2010

MPAA Rating: R


[Ed. Note: There’s a new feature here at the Crypt, The Screening Room, wherein I’ll periodically review first-run films currently in theaters. It will work no different than my DVD Reviews—I understand that your entertainment dollars are as hard to come by as mine, and if I tell you to spend a goodly chunk of those dollars to see a movie, you’d better believe I was blown away by it. Also, there will be a rating system to help you decide just how much a movie impressed me, based on the number of skulls, 1-5, I award it. So read on and enjoy!]

Since 1999, Universal Studios has been on a quest to reinvent it’s most beloved properties, the Classic Monsters of the 1930’s and ‘40’s. Beginning with Stephen Sommers fantastic redux of THE MUMMY, continuing through his misinterpretation of the Monsters in VAN HELSING, and helped along the way by a flood of DVD releases from Universal’s vaults, the studio has reenergized Classic Horror fans both young and old. Their latest offering to those whose notions of Monsters predate the TWILIGHT Saga is Joe Johnston’s THE WOLFMAN, in theaters now.

Titularly a remake of 1941’s THE WOLF-MAN, the resemblance to its predecessor begins and ends with the character names. The setting is shifted slightly, from the Welsh town of Llanwelly to a more nondescript town in the English countryside, and from a roughly contemporary (to 1941) period to 1891. The characters of Lawrence Talbot and Sir John, his father, are more richly drawn than in the original, with Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins exploring complexities in the father-son relationship only hinted at by Lon Chaney, Jr. and Claude Rains. As written by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self, there are layers to this bond that the viewer will find surprising.

Lawrence Talbot, (Del Toro) an actor and the expatriate son of Sir John Talbot, (a superb job by Hopkins) receives an urgent summons to return home following the disappearance of his brother Ben. The message, from Ben’s fiancée Gwen Conliffe, (an underwhelming performance by Emily Blunt) reaches Lawrence on the London stage, where the Americanized actor is playing the lead role in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. He returns to Talbot Hall to be greeted at the door by his estranged father, shotgun in hand. Ben’s body has been found, horribly mutilated. What’s more, two others have died under similar circumstances in recent weeks, and the locals are convinced that a group of gypsies, encamped just outside the town’s environs, is to blame.

Lawrence, having promised Gwen he would find out what had happened to his brother, visits the Gypsy camp hoping to find answers. During his visit, however, the camp is attacked by something—something large, something powerful, something unseen. Lawrence catches a glimpse of it as it runs off in pursuit of a young boy, and gives chase. He becomes the hunted, however, and is attacked by the creature before it can be driven off by gunfire from its pursuers. Lawrence is taken home, wounded and near death.

He wavers in and out of consciousness for the next month, but as the moon waxes towards full, so does his strength. By the eve of the next full moon, he is feeling better than ever, and the jagged scar left by his wound has completely healed. And as the full moon rises over Talbot Hall, the beast runs loose again.

The scope of this film is much broader and grander than the original, taking full advantage of the vast differences in budget, technology, and creative freedom enjoyed by modern filmmakers. The production design is superb, creating the atmosphere so vital to recapturing the essence of the great Universal Horrors, an element that VAN HELSING sadly lacked. The photography, by Shelly Johnson, beautifully presents that atmosphere to the viewer, from the crumbling edifice of Talbot Hall to the gas-lit streets of London to dark, fog-shrouded woods of the English countryside.

But we are talking about THE WOLFMAN, and there would be nothing worth photographing if the look of the creature itself had not been ‘right’. Thankfully, Universal realized there was but one artist capable of doing justice to that originally created by Jack Pierce, and that is Rick Baker. Baker, who, along with John Landis redefined the Werewolf movie with 1981’s AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON, now brings the “Man” portion of the Wolf-Man equation back to the fore, after thirty years of increasingly canine-like lycanthropes. The make-up is terrific, resembling what Pierce created while remaining state-of-the-art.

While this is director Joe Johnston’s first shot at a Horror Film, he has managed to build-up a rather impressive genre resume so far. Beginning with 1989’s HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS and 1991’s THE ROCKETEER, to 2001’s JURASSIC PARK III, Johnston is no stranger to genre audiences. He also has notable credentials in the visual effects world, having worked on the original STAR WARS trilogy and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Though this is his first venture into the world of classic Horror, he handles it with style, creating a fitting homage to the movie that launched the Horror career of Lon Chaney, Jr. and gave us the creature that would carry the studio throughout the first half of the 1940’s.

I saw this on the opening weekend, accompanied by the 12-year-old Uni-Nephew. Both of us loved the film, daresay for different reasons. It was his first real exposure to the classic monsters, to the great Horror Films that his uncle so dearly loves, and I’m overjoyed that I could share that with him. For me, it was as if watching something reappear that I thought had long since vanished beneath an avalanche of metrosexually androgynous vampires and testosterone-juiced lycanthropes who resemble a cross between Lassie and Rambo. It was the rebirth of classic Horror, and it is just as welcome now as when it was reborn in 1958 with Hammer’s HORROR OF DRACULA. If you consider yourself a fan of the classic Monsters, you have to see this movie. Don’t wait for the DVD, this film should be seen on the big screen. Four out of five skulls, with an extra jawbone thrown in for good measure.

Monster Movies Head-2-Head: MY BLOODY VALENTINE

MY BLOODY VALENTINE (1981)

vs.

MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3-D (2009)


MY BLOODY VALENTINE (1981)

As the Slasher film genre exploded following the blockbuster success of HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13TH, “theme-day” Slashers were the rage in Horror films. PROM NIGHT; GRADUATION DAY; HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME; SILENT NIGHT, BLOODY NIGHT—virtually every holiday, special event, or celebratory occasion had its own psychotic killer associated with it. Among the best of these was a low-budget Canadian-produced film, directed by George Mihalka and starring virtually no one of note, titled MY BLOODY VALENTINE.
Set in the small Canadian mining town of Valentine Bluffs, the story of a psychotic miner wearing a hardhat and respirator and butchering the townsfolk with a pickaxe was a surprise hit for Paramount in the late winter of 1981. Shot for about $2 million (Canadian!), it grossed nearly $6 million in the US, making it a very profitable venture for the studio.

Twenty years previously, on Valentine’s Day, there was an explosion and cave-in in the mine. Five miners were trapped underground; one survived to be found after six weeks. Harry Warden, the survivor, had killed and eaten the other trapped miners, degenerating into insanity.
A year later, Warden escaped from the mental institution to which he had been confined, and returned to Valentine Bluffs. He killed those whom he blamed for the mine disaster, cutting out their hearts. Before disappearing into the mineshaft, he threatened to return for more vengeance should the town ever try to celebrate Valentine’s Day again.

With the passage of time, however, Warden’s threat had lost currency, and a new generation was now eager to bring the holiday back to Valentine Bluffs. As word spreads of the upcoming Valentine’s Dance, a murderous miner begins carving his way through the townspeople, the rising body count soon reminding the old-timers about Harry Warden’s ominous warning.
The script, by John Beaird from a story by Stephen A. Miller, is better than the average for this type of film; not great by any stretch of the imagination, but a grade or two above most of the competition. Mihalka’s direction is competent, making good use of limited resources and talents. The acting is at best average; at worst, amateurish. The leads—Paul Kelman as T. J., Neil Affleck as Axel, and Lori Hallier as Sarah—are decent; not strong enough to stand out from the crowd, but no one in this cast is capable of that.

Much of the film’s mystique is based upon the fact that the MPAA required numerous cuts to be made in order for the film to earn an R-rating. According to some contemporary reports, as much as nine minutes of footage was removed, though the 2009 DVD release from Lion’s Gate Home Entertainment, billed as the “Uncut” version, adds only three-and-a-half minutes to the film’s running length.

Still, for fans of the ‘80’s Slasher films, this remains as one of the best of the subgenre. This was true before the restoration of the cut footage, and is only made more so afterward.


MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3-D (2009)

As has become standard operating procedure in Hollywood, once a certain amount of time has passed, movies, no matter how well executed they were originally, become ripe for remake. Most of the current batch—PROM NIGHT, LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, FRIDAY THE 13TH—are little more than wastes of celluloid. Frankly, nothing more than that was expected from the remake of MY BLOODY VALENTINE when it debuted in January 2009.

However, I was soon forced to revise my opinion of remakes; at least, where this one was concerned. MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3-D is a surprisingly well-written, well-acted update of a classic Slasher, one that rises above the current standard in Horror. While that is hardly a difficult feat in these times of remakes and sequels galore, it is refreshing to see.

The plot is broadly similar to that of the original film, and the script, by Todd Farmer and Zane Smith, retains the three lead characters, Tom (renamed from T. J.), Axel, and Sarah. The look of the film benefits greatly from the western Pennsylvania locations, in much the same way the cold, bleak Nova Scotia locations aided the original. Overall, director Patrick Lussier does a good job tying the parts together into a nice, neat whole.

As the film opens, we find Harry Warden, a miner who was the lone survivor of a cave-in a year earlier, hospitalized in a coma, a coma he had been in since his rescue. He awakens on Valentine’s Day, exactly one year after the cave-in, and proceeds to slaughter the patients and staff of the hospital. He makes his way to the scene of the disaster, a now-abandoned shaft of the Hanniger Mining Co., to find a Valentine’s party underway. He begins killing the young partiers, whittling the group down to four: Tom (Jensen Ackles), the mine owner’s son and the man believed to be responsible for the cave-in; Sarah (Jaime King), his girlfriend; their friend Axel (Kerr Smith); and his girlfriend Irene (Betsy Rue, a 2009 in Review nominee for Horror Movie Babe of the Year).

Just as Warden corners the four survivors, police intervene, shooting and wounding the killer, and driving him deep into the mineshaft. The cops pursue, but lose him in the twisting tunnels.
Ten years pass. Axel and Sarah are husband and wife. He is now the Sheriff, dealing with an influx of media covering the tenth anniversary of the “Harmony Massacre.” Tom Hanniger, who had moved away shortly after the murders, returns to deal with legal issues resulting from the death of his father, a circumstance that now makes him owner of the mine. No sooner does his presence in town become known than Irene, formerly Axel’s girlfriend and now town prostitute, is brutally murdered, along with a trucker and a motel owner.

Axel suspects Tom, first of still being in love with Sarah, second of the motel murders. Tom suspects Axel, perhaps because he is still in love with Sarah. And Sarah is torn, not sure who to trust, and who to fear.

Though the plot is complex, and at times is convoluted, Lussier does a very good job keeping the threads from tangling too much. One gets the sense that he is more of a screenwriter’s director than one who is visually proficient, a better storyteller than photographer, and that serves him well here. The result may not be a beautifully-filmed movie, but it is a comprehensible one.

The movie was shot using a state-of-the-art 3-D process known as Real D, a digital upgrade of the old tried-and-true 3-D from the 1950’s. While fans may swear it’s better, personally I can’t see that it is. Frankly, until they can create true three-dimensional images, then I wish they just wouldn’t bother. Obviously contrived camera set-ups involving a variety of objects thrusting towards the camera went out of style with FRIDAY THE 13TH, Pt. 3.


Head—2—Head

Both of these movies are, no pun intended, a cut above the examples set by most of their contemporaries. Purists, which I freely admit applies to me, will lean towards the original movie. It is a prime example of the Slasher genre at its peak, comparable to such second-tier classics as THE PROWLER and PIECES.

The remake, however, does compare favorably to it, and in comparison to the slew of Slasher remakes that flooded theaters in the past two years is far better. Both films are an entertaining look at one of the most popular genres of Horror, and both belong in any serious Horror fan’s video collection.