Horror Movie Review: Carrie

Carrie (1976 & 2013) is THE horror icon for me. I saw Brian DePalma's version (1976) back in middle school and immediately rechecked it all summer from the library (I guess they allowed multiple renewals back then?) and showed it to my friends one by one. I think they all thought I was as damaged as Carrie White herself for loving this movie so much at the age of 12. That is a little messed up, isn't it? I have seen the original movie probably more times than any other film. I made a Carrie-inspired Barbie back in high school using corn syrup. She was very sticky. All of this is leading up to the fact that I just want to let y'all know that I am very biased when comparing these two movies. I have seen the '70s version like 25 times at least and the new version I've seen only twice. Also, this comparison is for people that have seen both films mostly, because my comparisons are mostly about details within. That said, here's my comparison between these two films.

They both pass the Bechdel Test almost immediately. This film is about the antagonistic relationship women have to one another in our women-fearing culture. The casting and performances from both films are pretty great, but Spacek's Carrie wins for me. Chloe Grace Moretz is an intriguing actress, but she is too pretty to be Carrie and she just doesn't bring the menacing enough for me. I enjoy Julianne Moore's performance as Carrie's mother in the new version. It has a bit more nuance and you feel more sympathy for her. I don't like how controlling Carrie became to her mother in the new version, though I get it. The sympathy Sue still felt for Carrie at the end of the new version seems really unjustified after all the brutal murders Carrie just performed. I don't think Sue would have tried to help her at that point. She would have been too scared.

I enjoy the added scene of Margaret giving birth to Carrie alone, not knowing she was pregnant and almost killing baby Carrie right after she was born. I feel like that's exactly what happened. The newer film serves for me as a retcon for the old film. I will be able to watch the old film now inserting the details from the 2013 version that I liked in my mind, enhancing a movie I've loved for two decades now.

I have a bit of a problem with the casting of Tommy and Sue. They're so vanilla and boring-looking to me. I prefer the original definitely here. I prefer the aesthetics of the '70s much more than the aesthetics of 2013, so I missed the visuals in general from the first one while watching this one. It's a total bonus that we don't have to endure John Travolta in the new version, though. There are a few people of color (two even with names!) in the new version, though, so major points for that!

Ok, let's compare the bloodbaths at the end. The blood is more realistic in the new version, which is one of the only parts of this scene I prefer to the original. The biggest part that bothers me about the new version is Carrie's movements and expressions. In the old version, she is wide-eyed, robotic, and emotionlessly ruthless as she kills. She walks slowly with her arms rigid at her sides. The killing is coming entirely from her mind. No movement is necessary. I think that makes her scarier. In the new version...first of all, they do an instant-replay of the blood hitting Carrie. That is SUPER cheeseball, and I don't like it. Carrie in the new version used her hands a lot, which I could forgive if she held them tightly in a way that makes it feel like she's really causing the damage with them. I don't really believe Moretz's Carrie is a tortured soul, despite what I've seen her go through. She just looks too innocent or something here.

I think the new version trimmed a bit of the fat from the old one in this scene, however. The old version's scene at the prom after Carrie gets hit with the blood is longer than it needs to be. The editing in the new version during this scene is tighter. But, Carrie's ruthlessness once she leaves the prom in the newer version is a bit much. That slow-motion-Chris-going-through-the-windshield thing is where the film really loses me. I think the car-flip in the original is a much better way to show Chris' death. I do love a girl-villain walking away from fire she's caused, however, and both of these films have it. I think the main issue I have with the destruction Carrie causes in the new version is the fact that she's displaying emotion as she does it. She looks like she's cognizant of the terror she's causing and I felt that the wreckage caused by the original Carrie was more like a trance...a blackout of destruction she wakes up from when she goes home to her mother. Carrie in the new version awakes from this trance in the same tub-scene, but she never looked catatonic, so I don't believe it. I like the catatonia of the original Carrie much better. I can't enjoy the killing if she is aware she's doing it and is enjoying it. Not sure what that's about, but there it is. There are some great little moments in the new version's ending but I grew up on the old version, so nothing could ever eclipse it for me.

Most of my criticisms come down to performance. I actually think some aspects of Moretz's Carrie could have been added to Spacek's. Honestly, this remake is quite good and both movies are worth your time if you like female villains in horror. I'd say choose the old version if you like the aesthetics of the '70s and choose the new version if you're into more realistic blood and Julianne Moore and if you REALLY hate John Travolta, because he is at his most annoying in the original.

Carrie (1976)

Carrie (1976) -- 

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 4

Plot: 4

Characters: 3.5

Score: 3.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3

Rewatchability: 5

OVERALL: 23

Carrie (2013)

Carrie (2013) --

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 3.5

Plot: 4

Characters: 3

Score: 2

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 3.5

OVERALL: 19.5

Horror Movie Review: Scream

Scream (1996) is THE horror film of the '90s. Straight-up slasher film with meta-commentary on slasher films built into every crevice and a female protagonist that breaks all the "rules" of horror and still outsmarts the killer. Bonus: it's 1996 so you get the fashion, ambience, and music of 1996!

It passes the Bechdel Test even before two MEN talk to one another. I used to find Sidney's PTSD slightly annoying but now I totally get it and I don't really think she was over the top about it. The women aren't overly sexualized in the film. Even the more sexual Tatum is an attentive friend to Sidney, isn't portrayed as stupid, and doesn't shame Sidney for being shut-down. There are three competent women in this movie and even the opening scene with Drew Barrymore doesn't portray her as being overly stupid for getting killed. There's a lot of victim-blaming in horror, portraying women as stupid and therefore maybe deserving to die, but Craven obviously wanted to subvert that trope in this film. I really really like that. I loved this film way before I called myself a feminist.

Dewey with the ice cream cone: one of the best sight-gags ever in horror.

No people of color, though. Man, where are the people of color in horror?

An interesting flip on the only-virgins-live trope in this film is that not only does Sidney have sex and then live, but immediately after the sex, the smoke seems to clear for her and she starts to put everything together, almost like the sex cleared her head. That sort of makes it sound like she needed the D, but it was really more subtle than that. It was like the sex didn't phase her at all. She didn't look guilty or super in-love as a result of it. She just put her clothes back on and continued with a conversation as if it wasn't a big deal. Having sex for the first time really isn't a big deal, of course, so it was nice to see it portrayed that way in a film. Judging by his boob-grab technique, I'm sure Billy wasn't a great lay either, so she was probably avoiding the "Was it good for you?" question anyway. Ooh, maybe it was like, "I'm sooo over you now that I know I was waiting so long for THAT. Might as well fill the time by accusing you of murder."

Oh, and Matthew Lillard's performance in the last few scenes is just...I won't ever not laugh at that. How did he not get more acting work? I need to see "SLC Punk" again.

I love this movie. It's funny and smart and just a great time. I don't even like slasher-films but this one isn't focused on the maiming of women, so hey, maybe that's why I can like it. Definitely in my top five horror films ever.

Aesthetics: 3.5

Plot: 4.5

Characters: 4.5

Score: 3.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 5

OVERALL: 24.5

Horror Movie Reviews: Resident Evil

Resident Evil (2002) is a nearly perfect zombie film. The creation of zombies by science experimentation and corporate control (they got that from "Return of the Living Dead 3", remember?) is plausible and laid out in a pretty logical way in this film. The transition to zombie after being bitten is slow and gradual, which I really like.

There are three people of color in the main cast of 10 and two women. It passes the Bechdel test. Everyone dies except Milla. Milla is hot. The score is done by Marilyn Manson. When I first saw the movie, this gave me hope that Marilyn's music would eventually transition into scores and ambient music. I think this was a logical progression for him, but he hasn't gotten there yet. This score could be considered Manson's last great work, if you ask me. No one did, but that's my two cents. One of the only downsides in this movie save from there being a shortage of women is that all 6 white dudes in this movie were indistinguishable from one another. I seriously could not tell the white dudes apart until the majority of them were picked off. They were like vanilla Backstreet Boys of indiscriminate features. The only eye candy in this film was in the form of Milla Jovovich and Michelle Rodriguez, and theirs is an excellent candy for eyes, so I'll allow it, though I would have loved to look at a hot boy or two.

Milla's fighting style is mechanical with an economy of moves, which is my favorite fighting style. There's this really great iconic scene at the end with Milla walking down a post-apocalyptic street with a partially shaved head, hospital gown and a giant gun (ahem, "28 Days Later"--you big copy-offer!) and you just know that she's going to be a complete badass for four more films. I can't believe there's that many, but I think I'm going to watch them all now.

Resident Evil is a really very spectacular zombie film. The women, though few they be, have agency and personality. Michelle/Rain isn't treated like a "thing" at all even ONCE after she's bitten early on in the film. Her decision to stay with the group and continue fighting is never questioned, though they all know she could turn at any moment. They treat her as a human, refuse to leave her behind, and don't taunt her for the zombie she will soon become. Milla's character is a person in power that has been taught to fight and trusted with big corporate secrets. She also cares about humanity and is a freaking hero.

The most empowering zombie movie I've ever seen.

Aesthetics: 4

Plot: 4

Characters: 3.5

Score: 4

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 4

OVERALL: 23

Horror Movie Reviews: The Blair Witch Project, Films Original and Sequel LIVE BLOG

The Blair Witch Project (1999) is an original horror film that I have enjoyed since seeing it in the theatre in 1999. If you don't know of its premise, it has been done many MANY times since 1999, but this was the first in the mockumentary horror genre, and it scared the holy hell out of me. The hype and the promotional material leading up to the film was thoughtful and unique. This was one of the first films in which the internet hype really enhanced the movie experience. Full disclosure: When I first saw this film, I was too young and literal to understand that this was a MOCK-umentary and not a straight documentary. I genuinely thought I was watching the lives of these three filmmakers. That added to the horror for sure. People love to mock and downplay this movie's brilliance, but it was a pioneer in horror and I really really love it.

I'm doing this review a little differently because a) I'm running out of time for this project, and b) I think it will be fun to watch and review both very different Blair Witch movies in real time so you can see how my thoughts unfold while watching a film. It will be less thought-out a review than usual, but it should be fun. I've got a French press full of coffee and nothing else on the agenda today. Let's watch some horror!!

******SPOILERS*******

Heather looks so pretty in the beginning. Very mid '90s. I think "28 Days Later" completely copied off this film's camcorder-quality aesthetic. I love a good small-town haunting plotline, and this movie's got it in spades. Black and white graveyard footage!! I think it's possible that the interviews with townspeople are real. Ok, I just looked it up. SOME of the interviews with the townspeople are real and the actors didn't know which, if any, of the townspeople were actors and which were not. The dialogue from the actors in the film is improvised. It all feels so organic and real. It really looks like a student-filmed documentary. It really adds to the creepy. I just paused the movie to read all the Wikipedia on the making of the film because it's fascinating to me. It's really "filmed" by the three actors over the course of eight days. Each day the actors were provided with a general outline of the day's plot-points and locations to travel to on a GPS. So, you're actually watching these people camping together and filming it over the course of about a week. How cool is that? The actors are using their real names in the film. The Wikipedia entry keeps mentioning "the filmmakers" without names. Again, the marketing with every detail is so locked-DOWN, man. This movie is horror catnip for me. Its gritty realness works on me exactly as intended, and I love every minute of it.

Pressing play again. It passes the Bechdel test with Heather's conversation with Mary, the first named townsperson she speaks with for the "documentary".  Also, Heather is in charge. I don't think I'll have any feminist issues with this film, but I don't think anyone of color is in it, either. I'd like Heather Donahue to read horror fiction audiobooks. Must. Resist. Urge. To. Lookitup. I wonder if the "filmmakers" went so far as to make the noises they catch on film. They would have had to have. And the actors knew it was coming, but not when, so some of their stress would have been real. I wonder if the whole map thing was real. If not, did their notes for the day say, "Argue about the damn map all day...all...freaking...day."? I love all the crunchy leaf sounds.

More map arguing. I love it. This is the point when the desperation starts to set in. It seems like they were supposed to camp for two or three nights and now they're lost, so each additional night they're in the woods is unplanned at this point. It would be so terrifying to be lost in the woods with only a map and not knowing where you are on that map. GPS is good. I like modern technology. And I want to go camping now, oddly. The map is officially lost now. Commence-map arguing, level: advanced. Hysterical exhausted laughter is one of my favorite things in the whole world. If it wasn't part of this movie, it would be less believable, even though ALL of it is believable to me. Heather is losing her shit now because Mike just admitted he kicked the map into the creek. This argument feels so real.

I think we're on night four in the woods now. The noises each night get closer and louder. Tonight it sounds like a stampede and children. Is this the night they lose Josh? Heather really makes this movie. She is a true scream queen without any issues of nudity, virginity, or lack of agency. Kudos, Heather Donahue. You're my hero. Josh is still with them. They run from the tent and don't go back until morning. All of Josh's stuff is scattered and/or gone.

Night 5: They've been going in circles despite walking south for days now. They are so frustrated and crazy and stressed which is exactly what would be happening in this situation. They've settled into their roles. Heather is leader. Mike is peacemaker. Josh is antagonist/inconsolable/losing it. The morning after night 5: Josh is gone now. This entry is looong already. Night 6: they hear Josh screaming. My god, this is terrifying. Oh man, the morning after night 6 contains the bundle of Josh's teeth, hair and shirt. The teeth are real teeth donated by a dentist. This movie should have won Oscars. Night 7: the iconic nose-drip scene. They hear Josh screaming for them again. Is this the last night? Yes it is because they found the house. Prepare yourself for a LOOOOOOOT of screaming. Ok then. This movie is only an hour and 17 minutes long. So so so good.

Aesthetics: 4.5

Plot: 4.5

Characters: 4

Score: 4.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 5

OVERALL: 26

Movie Post Script: I just started the whole movie over again to watch the director/producer commentary. It's amazing. They were really out there camping in the woods for a week. The actors were pulled aside and told their character's individual motivations/plots for given time periods. So that moment where Mike reveals he kicked the map into the creek the other actors didn't know that was coming. Brilliant! I guess Josh was really suuuuper antagonistic throughout, which was what made the filmmakers decide to kidnap him instead of their earlier plan to have it be Mike. They wanted to change the dynamic between all of them, which totally works. So all those moment when Heather looks like she's going to strangle Josh were probably pretty real. Fascinating. For the last two days of shooting the actors were given only a PowerBar and an apple to eat each day. Yikes. The director and producer keep mentioning that Heather's shots/framing were accidental, but I don't think they are. Without Donahue, this movie wouldn't be what it was. She did most of the camera-work and most of the great emotional scenes (both the subtle and the really dramatic ones) came from her.

********************************************

Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows (2000) is a movie I have seen at least 3 or 4 times. I used to really like it alot, but haven't seen it in many years, since I owned it on VHS probably. This film is drastically different from the original. It's supposed to be a reenactment of events that transpired after the release of the first film. It was not AT ALL well-received by critics. We shall see if it holds up for me.

The score of this film (done by Carter Burwell) is pretty good. It's all sounds of water and rocks banging against each other and shit. A really cool feature of the DVD is that the film's score is on the opposite side of the disc. I wish that had become standard practice for movie soundtracks/scores. There are three main female characters and two dudes in this movie, but no people of color. I identified pretty heavily with two of the women when I initially saw it: the Wiccan and the goth. The Wiccan is a pretty good representation of what Wicca is really about. It's all about nature. Ooh, just passed the Bechdel Test! Next to Buddhism, Wicca is my favorite religion.

Wiccan chick: I believe in nature.
Goth chick: I hate nature.

Man, see my dilemma? Which of these chicks is my spirit animal? Who among us can choose between them? That's the best. As a woman, you hardly ever have two female characters in a movie that you like. I love this first night that they're in the forest. They're all getting drunk and high and bonding. It's awesome. Wait, the third chick is really cool too! She's all philosophical ("Perception IS reality!") and arguing with her boyfriend who is also smart. Cool. According to Wikipedia, the film was conceived as a meditation on the psychological effects of mass hysteria.

I'm twenty minutes into the film and I'm still just as into it as I was when I first saw it. I think this is another case of film critics being totally wrong. The characters all have distinct personalities. Kim (the goth chick) is sort of psychic and sardonic. Erica (the Wiccan) is hypersexual and a bit of a hippy. Jeffrey (the tour director) is probably schizophrenic. Tristen (the writer) is intelligent and believes in the supernatural because of aforementioned "perception is reality" philosophical reasons, i.e. they don't make her into a "dumb" character because she believes the supernatural might be real. Stephen the boy-writer (Tristen's boyfriend) is also smart, but more sentimental as boys tend to be and a non-believer in the supernatural. Their relationship seems plausible with arguments and moments of genuine affection that makes it seem like they've been together for years. Whoa, Tristen has a miscarriage and they actually show her bloody-crotch corduroys.

In contrast to the original, this group gets out of the forest the morning after the first night. They go back to Jeff's house. But...they brought something back with them! Bwa ha haaaaa. Tristen is having nightmares. Kim has marks on her body. Stephen is the realist trying to calm Tristen and get them home. Tristen wants to stay so she can understand what's happening to all of them. They're all having collective hallucinations. They begin to piece together what happened during a collective blackout on the night in the forest when they view the tapes. The scene in the convenient store is an only slightly dramatic version of how people used to treat the gothfolk back in 2000.

There are a few people of color in the movie, but you see them for like two minutes and they end up victims of brutal murder. Events are unfolding kind of like a two-parter episode of X-Files or something. I think they kept the mystery of what is happening pretty well under-wraps. There are so many hallucinations that when the real information trickles in alongside the hallucinations, the viewer knows as little about what's real as the characters. I do call bullshit on when they finally figure out how to view the footage of their missing hours because of all the camera angles. No, wait...this is supposed to be a filmed reenactment of events. Ok, I'll let it pass then. Oh no. Stephen just pushed Tristen off a platform. And they killed those other tourists. All of them were culpable except Tristen. None of them remember killing them. All the evidence suggests that they killed each other and the tourists. I can't forgive Stephen for pushing Tristen off the platform, even if it is as he tells it...that she goaded him into doing it. Still doesn't excuse what he did.

Overall, pretty straightforward psychological horror film. It sort of lost me in the last half hour or so and could have maybe been edited better. I think there should have been more time establishing character development and watching these people slowly unravel and less time unveiling the horror aspects. The actors probably weren't talented enough for that, however. Except Tristen. She gave a pretty nuanced performance. The movie was not great, but enjoyable.

Aesthetics: 3

Plot: 2.5

Characters: 2.5

Score: 3.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 2.5

Rewatchability: 3

OVERALL: 17

Whew. That was the "live blog". I just watched both "Blair Witch"movies AND the commentary for the first one. Fourish hours well-spent, I think.

Horror Movie Review: The Ring

The Ring (2002) is quite simply, a terrifying film. It is based upon "Ringu", a Japanese horror film that I can't even watch again, that's how scary the original version is. It has a meta-ness that makes it even MORE terrifying. For this blog entry, I am going to refrain from spoilers, because if you haven't seen it and you even remotely enjoy horror, I do not want to spoil the experience for you. It's at the library. It's not sexist, at ALL. It passes the Bechdel test. It's not racist, though there could be more people of color. It's just straight scary.

The thing that this movie does right is visceral. To feel fear, one must be connected to all of their senses. One must be overtaken by sights, sounds, intellect and to feeeeel something. This movie has an atmosphere. It is wet and gritty and grimy. Watching it makes you feel cold and soggy, and that makes everything that much more horrifying.

I saw this film when it was still in the theatre and a friend called me afterward whispering, "7 days." "The Ring" is possibly the single horror movie that made me genuinely frightened in a sustained way. The fear lingered in me as a miasma of foreboding for, well, a week at least. The filmmakers had me right where they wanted me. The tactics this film uses to paralyze you with fear turn that fear back onto you. The fear is generalized enough that you don't need a trigger in the world outside the movie to feel scared again once it's over. The MOVIE is the trigger. The MOVIE has inception-ed you. It's not a movie where you see a monster grab someone's ankle as they're getting out of bed and then you're scared to get out of bed at that exact moment your foot hits the floor in real life. You're scared anytime, anywhere. That's the genius of this film. Ugh, and the wetness. I think the wetness enhances it so much more because fall is a cold and wet time of year and that's when one typically watches horror films. Life takes on the eeriness of this visceral horror film.

My one complaint is, "What IS the killer's motivation? I mean, seriously."

Totally recommend, if you like feeling completely creeped the eff out, man.

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 4

Plot: 4

Characters: 3.5

Score: 3.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 4

Rewatchability: 2.5

OVERALL: 21.5

Horror Movie Review: The Cell

How JLo looks in the serial killer's mind.

The Cell (2000) is more of a psychological horror than a traditional one. It's not well regarded, but I cannot comprehend why. The score is phenomenal, the imagery is gorgeous, and the plot is intriguing. Even the DVD special features have depth and a respect for the field of psychology. There's even this unique feature wherein you can watch the film without dialogue hearing only the score. So, here's the gist: we need to find where a serial killer has trapped his next victim who is not dead yet, but the killer is in a coma/catatonic state for which he will likely never recover and there's a time factor. JLo is a psychologist that specializes in a new technology in which she Matrixes herself into the brains of coma patients. The minds of others are represented by complex dream universes of imagery and symbolism. It is just SO. FREAKING. COOL. The symbolism is complex, but believable. During the course of the film we get to see what the serial killer's mind (above) is like, what JLo's mind is like (below), and another patient of hers as well. They are different landscapes according to the psychological structure of each person's mind and again, I just think that's one of the most intriguing ideas presented by any movie ever.

JLo is very Mary in her own mind...but she also kills things with a bow and arrow later.

I think seeing this movie is a bit of a therapy session in and of itself. Thinking of people's minds as landscapes is something that I've done ever since seeing this movie in 2000, and it helps me understand myself and others. Art in general is a landscape of the artist's mind in whatever form that art takes.

As for representation of women and people of color, we do have a bit of that in this movie. It passes the Bechdel test. There is a Latina woman and a black woman as main characters in the film. They are both professionals that are good at their jobs and respected as equals by their coworkers.

There's also many glimpses of this cute puppy throughout the film.

In the scary category, seeing into the mind of a serial killer is really terrifying at times, but I also like that we are meant to sympathize with him. Ultimately, he cannot be saved. It is too late for a person that kills people, but that doesn't mean they haven't had a lot of pain to get them to that point. We get to see what made him become the monster and we're meant to feel empathy, but not as a means to excuse anything he's done.

The killer is a sort of gleeful god in his own mind.

I really enjoyed rewatching this movie from beginning to end. It is a well constructed and thoughtful film. If you like visually and aurally magnificent films and the more psychological aspects of horror, I highly recommend "The Cell". It's not streaming and not at Joplin's library, but if you and I are close, I will totally let you borrow it.

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 5.0

Plot: 4.0

Characters: 3.5

Score: 4.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 4.0

OVERALL: 24.5

Horror Movie Review: Poltergeist

"No more."

Poltergeist (1982) is the most heartwarming horror movie I've ever seen. Steven Spielberg directed...'nough said. But honestly, the family dynamic in this movie was really quite believable. I cared about this family. It passed the Bechdel test almost immediately (these '80s horror movies are surprising me with how progressive they were!) and the women characters had definite personalities. The dad was a caring father. The little girl (above) didn't do a lot of unnecessary screaming, crying, or whining. In fact, the little boy did the majority of the screaming and whining. The mother smoked pot and had a youthful sense of humor, but wasn't painted as irresponsible or uncaring towards her children because of it. There was zero scolding of her for smoking pot by the dad or the movie itself either. In other words, she wasn't shown as a "bad" character because of this trait. This film almost set itself up as a sitcom. Lovable family that laughs together and loves each other. No nudity. Nothing pissed me off about this film.

There's this really great scene between the mom and a female psychologist/paranormal investigator wherein neither woman judges the other and they just have a philosophical bonding moment together wherein they obviously see one another as people doing their best in the world. This is the kind of moment you hardly EVER see between women in film. Kudos, Spielberg!

Minorities: there was one person of color and he was a side character, but he wasn't shown as inept or stupid and he didn't die, so half a point, I guess.

The only downside to Poltergeist is that the horror aspects of the film ramped up unexpectedly to 11 in the last half hour. As soon as you hear the little girl deadpan, "No more." I think the film should have gone to black. When I rewatch it, that will be my stopping point, I think. I liked that the horror was offscreen for most of the movie. Just when you think everything has been resolved, all the sudden they throw every possible horrific thing at the viewer and it's really overkill, for me anyway.

Overall, I recommend this movie. It's a philosophical horror movie with heart. I can dig that.

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 3.5

Plot: 3.0

Characters: 4.0

Score: 2.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 4.0

Rewatchability: 3.5

OVERALL: 20.5

Horror Movie Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) is an enjoyable and straightforward horror movie from beginning to end. It includes many of the tropes of horror we have come to love/hate without using them against women.

******SPOILER ALERT******

Two of the horror tropes present: The virgin lives and if you have sex, you die. Buuuuut, Nancy never says she's a virgin and both of the characters involved in the sex die, not just the woman. It turns out in the end that it was ALL a dream, so no one really died at all. Bonus: no boobs!!! There were a couple of see-thru nightgown scenes, but they were focused on bush-peeps that were relatively subtle for horror.

I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. I like a horrific dream theme, what can I say? The teenagers actually look like teenagers, including Johnny Depp (though he's 21 here) in his very first role looking very non-Johnny Depp in khaki pants and Izod sweaters.

I am really pleased at the treatment of women in this movie. It passes the Bechdel Test within the first five minutes. The main character and hero of the piece is a woman. Nancy asks the men (her dad, her boyfriend, etc) in her life to help her, but they fail her repeatedly, so she saves herself! No people of color or other diversity in this film, but that's one of the only downsides to this nearly perfect horror film.

A Nightmare on Elm Street is simply damn good horror. I recommend it.

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 4.0

Plot: 4.0

Characters: 3.5

Score: 3.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 3.5

Rewatchability: 3.5

OVERALL: 22

Horror Movie Review: The Shining

Shut up, Tony!

The Shining (1980) is a legendary horror film for a reason. It is genuinely terrifying. Every shot is gorgeous. The score builds to a level that makes you feel like you're ready to claw through your skin by the end. The film is two and a half hours long and takes its sweet molasses time to build to the level of complete madness you feel by the end. If you like your horror psychologically realistic and simmered to a slow and total terror meltdown, this is the movie for you...

UNLESS you're not into women and minorities being treated like garbage. This film repeatedly names women "bitch" in that really ugly way that women used to be called bitch on the regular by their abusive husbands. There's also a scene in which a black man is referred to as that lovely N-word not even I of the foulest mouth will utter. We are supposed to forgive the "women are bitches" and "black people are n______" arguments because they are uttered by the bad guys, but I'm betting that Kubrick is one of these bad guys. You'll not get forgiveness from me, Stanley.

This movie doesn't pass the Bechdel Test either. Despite the lengthy conversation between the doctor and Wendy in the beginning of the film, the doctor was not named and they only talked about Danny and Jack.

The storyline of this film is a little too close to home for me. I don't like my horror to mirror life. Men go "crazy" and ax-murder their wives and children all the time. I was pleasantly surprised, however,

**************SPOILER ALERT******************

that Wendy and Danny actually survive. The Shining is thought to be one of the greatest horror movies of all time and there's only one onscreen murder and then the eventual freezing-to-death of Jack the psychotic protagonist.

This movie is actually fairly impressive, but I won't be watching it again.

Aesthetic/Visual Effects: 4.0

Plot: 2.5

Characters: 2.0

Score: 2.0

Treatment of Women: 1.0

Rewatchability: 0

OVERALL: 11.5

Horror Movie Review: Beetlejuice

Beetlejuice (1988) is a movie I'm sure you've seen at least ten times, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time describing it. It's a Tim Burton movie that includes all of the usual Tim-Burton-ness and Danny Elfman did the score, 'cause he always does the score for Burton's films.

Still a super fun film. The only thing that upset me was how gross Michael Keaton's Beetlejuice looks, but he's supposed to look that way, so whatevs. Oh, and the characters are SUPER white-washed...was there anyone of color in this movie? The dead voodoo dude might have been the only one.

I was really surprised by the treatment of women in this movie. It passed the Bechdel Test within the first five minutes and with the exception of Beetlejuice's general crudeness, there was no sexism present whatsoever and the women in this movie were just as complex and respected as the men.

Overall an enjoyable movie, great for the whole family! Except for an f-bomb and a couple of other language moments, you could totally watch this with your kid. I know I saw it at the age of 6 when it first came out and I turned out totally fiiiiiiiine.

Aesthetic/Visual Effects: 3.5

Plot: 4.0

Characters: 4.0

Sound/Score: 3.0

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 4.0 (very whitewashed, despite being kind to women)

Rewatchability: 4.0

Overall: 22.5

Horror Movie Review: Interview With The Vampire

Claudia's transformation.

Interview With The Vampire (1994) is based on the Anne Rice novel of the same name and is one of the most beautiful horror films of all time. It's so gorgeous to look upon that one could make a pretty compelling argument against it even being classified as a horror film. Most of this review can be summed up by two major points: 1) preeeeeeetty and 2) you don't like women much, do you? Like, you don't even think about them at all...this was written by a woman?!?

As a book series, I genuinely enjoy Rice's Vampire Chronicles. Her version of vampires as elegant, tortured and beautiful souls works for me and as I've written before, her vampire origin story chronicled in Queen of the Damned is the most believable and intriguing, in my opinion. I know it's uncool to like Anne Rice novels, but I do and I refuse to apologize.

Now, take a moment to look upon Brad Pitt's pillowy lips, mint-green eyes and supreme broody-vulnerability. Go ahead, take your time.

The vulnerability of Louis (Pitt's character) is one of the most intriguing aspects of his character. He was THE tortured vampire before Angel from Buffy. Tortured souls are my Achille's Heel and godDAMN that man is resplendent in this film! Though he's undoubtedly a beautiful man, Pitt doesn't usually do it for me, but you would have no idea this was the case watching me drool over him in this role. He's pouty, he's pretty, and he's pale: the Mixtress-Rae-swoon-trifecta. And that hair!! I have to move on, because all I have to say here, obvi, is PREEEEEEEEEEETTTTTY!

To add to the pretty, this film truly holds up in the categories of score, makeup and visual effects. The vampire transformations (see Claudia's above) still look good. The animatronics and makeup techniques of Lestat's death look truly horrific and realistic and this was before film's heavy reliance on digital effects. Elliot Goldenthal's score for the movie references the time in which these vampires lived (from late 1700's to late 1980's) while employing full orchestras and drama drama harpsichord drama. It's delicious. The vampire fangs are my favorite of any vampires in film ever (you can see these in Claudia's transformation at the top of the post). I really like that both the lateral incisors AND the cuspids that you'd normally associate with fang teeth are pointed. I also like that they are always pointed. Their fangs don't come out like switchblades like in True Blood or anything. One of the only things I don't like about Buffy is that the vampires can look normal when they're not in "vamp-face". I mean, what's the point in being an otherworldly creature if you don't get to look like one all the time? The eyes in this movie, man...Brad Pitt's Louis has these piercing mint-green eyes that glow. It looks magnificent and truly did the vampire eyes of the book justice. Every visual in this film is decadent and delightful.

This film takes its beauty so seriously that it gives women and men alike what we've mostly been starved for in our culture, especially by the film's release in 1994: homo-erotica! Everything we see is a tease because Anne Rice's vampires can't, you know, but I don't care because it's hot! We see Antonio Banderas and Brad Pitt almost make out in a drawn-out scene of extreme closeness and hair everywhere. Behold!

I haven't mentioned Lestat yet. Tom Cruise does his Tom Cruise thing in this movie and that works for this character just fine, but his visage just doesn't catch my eye when there are long-haired and pale versions of Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas around. Sorry not sorry.

Ok, so you get it. Every visual and every sound in this movie is pretty. The performances from almost all the leading actors are pretty solid as well.

Let's move on to the movie's one HUGE, glaring, and terrible flaw. It treats women like total trash, literally. Women are mothers or children or whores and always, with no exceptions, victims. And where are the people of color? Oh, they're slaves and victims too. Grrrr. The only leading woman is a girl, Kirsten Dunst (then 12) as Claudia. She's made into a vampire at age 10 or so (grosssss!) and because of this, she never grows into a woman and is weaker than other vampires so she has to literally rely on the men in her life (Lestat and Louis). Most women in this movie are whores that die mid-orgasm (their pleasure caused by dying, not by sex) at the hands of mostly Lestat, so at least you get to see them having a good time, but they're nameless victims treated dismissively. Claudia does kill a couple of men, but most victims in this film are women and most beautiful vampires are men. The film barely passes the Bechdel Test, and only because of ONE line towards the last 1/4 of the movie. The treatment of women characters in this film is a really really big disappointment, but it's the only downside to a thoroughly enjoyable movie.

Aesthetics/Visual Effects: 4.5

Plot: 3.5

Characters: 4.0

Sound/Score: 4.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 1.0

Rewatchability: 4.0

Overall: 21.5

Horror Movie Review: Bride of Frankenstein

"More fearful than the monster himself!"

The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) is one of, if not THE, first movie sequel and it's largely thought of to be better than 1931's Frankenstein. The director James Whale was an out gay man. OUT in 1935, children! Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein, or the Modern Prometheus" is the first science fiction piece of culture EVER.

The bride herself, as a character, is one of the most iconic images in horror, though she never came to life in the book and is BARELY onscreen in the film of her namesake. That's the biggest flaw with this film, in my opinion. You see the bride hissing and jerking magnificently for the last maybe 3 minutes of the film. You wait and you wait and you wait for her to come to life and take the monster and Frankenstein down with her superior strength and angry confusion, but sadly, it isn't to be.

The film's score was created especially for the movie, which was a new thing in 1935. The film also exhibited humor, which is something horror is still squeamish about employing.

I have more thoughts about the imagery than anything else about this movie. Frankenstein's monster and the bride are both images that have prevailed in our culture for 80 years now. The machinery in the film used to reanimate the bride is also breathtaking. The bride is sewn into my backpack I wear every day. I want to embody her glamorous horror. She is an inspiration to me. The character has lived on in many other films. There's an excellent article about the progression of the character in pop culture here.

The movie taken on its own without all the iconic history surrounding it is still quite enjoyable. The score was a little distracting and the wilting-fainting-ness of Frankenstein-the-scientist's soon-to-be wife is nauseating, but that scene with the blind guy and the monster is emotional and genuine, even by today's standards. You have sympathy for the monster, you laugh, and you wait for the bride to arrive...that's the film in a nutshell. The cinematography is, as I wrote above, simply breathtaking.

My Ratings

Aesthetics/visual effects: 3.8

Plot: 2.5

Characters: 3.5

Sound/Score: 2.5

Treatment of Women/Minorities: 1.0

Rewatchability: 3.0

OVERALL: 16.3

The search for my Top Ten Horror Movies, part 1.

Happy Autumnal Equinox, e’erybody!!

I’ve been thinking about horror films lately. It’s been awhile since I watched my favorite horror movies. Also, I haven’t seen several of the iconic movies from the horror genre. You see where I’m going with this, right? It’s time for a rewatch/watch-for-the-first-time and review blogfest!!

Disclaimers/Caveats/Rules of the Rate:

Disclaimer: I am definitely a fan of horror, but my love of it is mostly due to gothic imagery and the potential for girl villainy. I enjoy a good psychological thriller, but the “being hunted by hillbillies in the woods” and “being tortured by psychotic individuals” oeuvre are not for me. I like being worried and maybe a little freaked out, but I don’t enjoy things that are disgusting or overly violent. I like my gore to be beautiful, not squishy. Also, I can almost guarantee if there’s a rape scene, I am OUT. Immediately.

Caveats: I am limited to movies I own, movies I can check out at the library, and movies that are available on Netflix or Hulu. This will by no means be a complete list. Thems the breaks. Shaun of the Dead should probably be on this list. Perhaps I’ll add it later, but I’m really mad at Simon Pegg right now because his last few movies have been crap-fests with terrible treatment of women characters. I thought you were on our side, Simon...WTF?!

Rules of my rating system: I’ll be scoring these movies on 6 factors (Aesthetics/Visual Effects, Plot, Characters, Score/Music/Sound Effects, Rewatchability, and Treatment of Women/Marginalized Groups) on a scale of 1-5. These scores will be added for an overall possible score of up to 30 points. They will be ranked at the end of the project using these scores. I can then present you with Mixtress Rae’s top 5 (or maybe 10) horror movies of all time. I’m limiting myself to reviewing only 25 movies so that I can hopefully finish the project by October 31st or at least somewhere around Day of the Dead (November 2nd). This list could definitely be a LOT longer. If you think I’m missing something really important, give me a good defense of a title you think I should add and I’ll consider it (provided you let me borrow it if I can’t find it at the library, Netflix, or Hulu). For the most part, I’m sticking to first in series. The exceptions are sequels that have more badass girl villains than their debuts.

Here is the list of movies that I’m planning to rewatch/review that will likely have a better shot at hitting the top five (or ten):

*Bride of Frankenstein

*Interview with the Vampire

*Queen of the Damned

*Scream

*The Ring

*Carrie

*Alien

*Cabin in the Woods

*Blair Witch Project

*The Descent

*Poltergeist

*The Cell

*28 Days Later

*Hellraiser

*return of the Living Dead 3

*Beetlejuice

*Cube

*Resident Evil

*The Crow

*Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Here is the list of horror movies I’ll be watching for the first time/rating:

*The Haunting

*Friday the 13th

*A Nightmare on Elm Street

*The Shining

*Only Lovers Left Alive

Ok, that’s it. I’ve already watched two of these movies, so reviews will be up soon. I wanted to let y’all know what I’m doing because I’m super excited. Tell me YOUR favorite horror movies. Oh, and if we’re friends IRL and you like any of these movies, let me know and we can watch them together!!!