Patio Movie Massacre!

On Oct. 12, I attended my first horror movie massacre! I had a BLAST, found out about some great horror movies I was totally unfamiliar with, and learned I can watch about 11 movies in a row before falling asleep. Get in the spook-tacular spirit by watching a few of these flicks, or just read my pontificates. More reviews on Thursday!

Edison's Frankenstein (1910)
Director: J. Sterling Dawley
Starring: Augustus Philips (the Doctor); 
Charles Ogle (the Monster); Mary Fuller (woman)

This film is perfect for starting a horror festival because it demonstrates the scope and power of the genre. Film projection was not invented  in order to scare audiences--but it still certainly did (people thought a train would come out of the screen and crush them when first viewing Lumiere's Arrival of a Train). Twelve years after the film's invention, Thomas Edison produced an adaptation of Mary Shelley's popular novel. The story is greatly simplified (it's 12 minutes long), but to good affect. Two weeks after Dr. Frankenstein goes to college, he discovers how to create life. However, his experiment is flawed because the evil that lurks in his unconscious mind is refracted through his monster. Essentially, horror stories are battles between good and evil. Frankenstein's mission becomes ruining the doctor's life, and accomplishes it by killing the girlfriend. Horror is about the fears in the inner depths of our minds ruining things like love and sex. It's about the unkillable demons inside our brains. Special effects create probing images to reach our unconscious mind, seen even in this early film. The creation of Frankenstein seems to be a wax statue melting in reverse but it looks very creepy/drippy. It mimics the frightening nature of birth. And finally, horror soundtrack further probe into our hidden minds. This too is evident in Edison's Frankenstein. At the festival, the soundtrack  was played by a live organist, but the restored version features a small orchestra. In both versions the melodramatic spookiness highlights the emotion. It's the bumps and howls in the night that scare deepest because there's no way to fully know, see, or visualize them. As early as 1910, horror genre troupes emerged...

Frankenstein Meets Wolfman (1943)
Director: Roy William Neill
Starring: Lon Chaney (Wolfman), 
Bela Lugosi (Frankenstein's Monster)

And the troupes became established  quite quickly, say twenty years later with the release of the Universal monster classics in the 1930s. But by 1943, the troupes were quickly breaking down to parody, as evidenced in Frankenstein Meets the Wolfman. That's not to say this movie is bad, it isn't. It's fun watching for all 70 minutes. But, it's exactly as silly as the title aludes. Some graverobbers free Wolfman from his tomb, so he goes on a month long lunar killing spree. The man--not the wolf--seeks help from a gypsy witch, who suggests Wolfman go see Dr. Frankenstein--a specialist in supernatural science. He complies, only to learn Dr. F is dead! He decides to trounce around the old Frankenstein castle and see if he can find the doctor's old notes to improvise a cure. Little does Wolfman know, hidden in a block of ice is Frankenstein's monster! The two fight a little, then a plan is made by another eccentric scientist to cure Wolfman during a Halloween festival by putting his energy into Frankenstein Monster. The scientist goes crazy, super-charges both Wolfy and Frank, and the two fight for real this time. Thankfully, the bumbling town drunk destories the dam, which crumbles the castle, and the film abruptly "The End"'s. The film had nice direction, great use of shadows, and pretty cool sets for the drastically cut budget of the original Frankenstein or Wolfman. Undoubtedly though the best part about this film is Lon Chaney's performance. He really makes the idea of being a werewolf horrifying because he plays the part so convincingly. At it's core, Werewolfism is about losing control of your body and watching yourself do horrible things with your own consent. Chaney is so in control of his face, movements, and body, he can act out of control and chaotic. This is why being a werewolf would be horrific.

Tomb of Ligeia (1965)
Director: Roger Corman
Starring: Elizabeth Shepherd (Rowena/???)
Vincent Price (Verden Fell)

By the 1960s, however, the genre began to try new things. Like Ligeia, is true Gothic film classic. Rowena finds Verden, an eccentric millionare widower living a mysterious night-life in a monolithic English abbey. She marries Verden hoping to ease the tortured man's soul, but instead finds herself victim to ghostly consequences! While the film's final twist is uncover-able, it's still pretty good and makes the film a lot scarier on second consideration (like a Gothic story--of course, the film is based on Poe's 1838 "Ligeia"). Vincent Price offers a great performance in a serious role, but Elizabeth Shepherd commands most of the film's screen time as a sympathetic protagonist (what if you moved into a big spooky house?). The film also has a black cat animal actor who's quite spooky. The film's strongest merit though is it's color compositions.Shot on a location of an English abbey with beautiful cliffs, the Gothic mansion is visually dense and decorated with occult Egyptian artifacts. Fire is a visual motif, and shots are framed around a crackling fireplace at the bottom of the screen. I wonder if the actors' makeup started to melt standing next to that raging fireplace. Black and white can be haunting, but Ligeia shows that color can display depth in ways light alone can't. Plus, blood just isn't scary if it isn't red...

Martin (1978)

Director: George A. Romero

Starring: John Amplas (Martin)

My favorite film of the marathon, undoubtedly because I share its name. Yet also because it's the most brutal portrait of a vampire, or any monster, I've ever seen on screen. Is Martin the dark one, Nosforatu, like his grand-uncle's prophecies claim? Or is he just a serial-killing rapist with a blood fetish and the self-preservation of a master psychopath? The film does a great job of keeping this ambiguous. It's also very scary. In the most realistic fashion possible, the film shows how the real murder and seduction by a blood sucker would unfold. Martin sticks his victims with a syringe, rapes them in their sleep, and cuts their vital-veins to drink the blood. The film is also a meta-commentary on the horror genre itself. Martin is obsessed with the unreality of vampires in movies; his mantra, "There's no such thing as magic!" So garlic can't hurt him and he can't turn into a bat. However, faith still holds much power in the movie because faith can make you go insane. Martin's uncle sincerely believes he can't kill his nephew or have him committed because the devil will set him free. Martin believes he can't be stopped because he's an 85 year old undead bloodsucker. The insanity of belief is parodied to full effect. The film could even be an extended commentary on drug use. With every kill, Martin readies a syringe full of concoction; he shakes without regular blood consumption; he is not in control of himself, rather driven by his need for the sanguine. The film shows the transience of humanity addicts must face--once your addiction consumes you, you become a primal predator. But, for Martin, not without remorse. At one point in the film, he strives to be a normal person by finding love and having sex with a still-conscious woman. In the end though, this love is his earthly demise as seen in the film's abrupt and shocking ending.This movie was very good, it felt like a horror art-film. It made me scared, it made me sad, and it made me think. I mean it when I say it's just as good as Dawn of the Dead.

Dead and Buried (1981)
Director: Gary Sherman
Starring: Sheriff Dan (James Farentino)
Dr. Dobbs (Jack Albertson)

A campy 80's classic. A small town is secretly run by a murder-worshiping cult who murder tourists! The cult photographs victims in moments of death and torture! Plus, the town mortician is up to something very suspicious! Will Sheriff Dan must uncover the truth even at the cost of his life? I don't want to give away too much of the movie's plot because a) there's not much to it and b) the film's twist is really great. This makes the movie feel like an EC comicbook unfolding on screen. It's funny and gory throughout and the special effects are effectively creepy--especially those related to preparing mortuary corpses! Director Gary Sherman gave a Q&A after the film and thanked the crowd for laughing, stating that the film was initially intended to be a horror-comedy. as he and Dan O'Bannon (the film's screenwriter as well as the screenwriter of Alien) planned. They were instead forced to make a straight-horror flick by the studio (so of course, O'Bannon disowned it) but much of the humor  shines through after decades of ironic appreciation. The film features the final role for Jack Albertson (or, the grandpa from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory). He definitely gives the best performance despite waiting to die of cancer while on set. This movie is good, but not transcendent. Watch it sometime if you're drunk.

April Fools Day (1986)
Director: Fred Walton
Starring: Deborah Foreman (Buffy/Muffy), 
Tom Wilson (Biff 1.0)

I think this movie is too meta for it's own good. The whole premise is, these rich kids go to a lake house for a weekend. After a prank goes awry and their friend gets hurt, they promptly forget about it. They see more pranks but ignore them. Then, someone gets murdered. Then everyone gets murdered. Then it's revealed the main character is actually the main character's sister! Then it's revealed that everything didn't happen at all! April Fool's! The entire movie is just a prank...or is it?! It wasn't supposed to be! Again, the director, Fred Walton, was in attendance for the screening. He said the stupid studio cut out a whole third act where the kids who were pranked take revenge on the pranker by murdering her in cold blood...or do they! Another prank! This movie's stupidity is it's only charm as it's quite boring to watch. The gore is bland. The characters are all goofs. And it deliberately tries to be predictable to eventually (after a long time) defy expectation. This movie is funny, but not scary, and not especially worth watching. You can find a Tom Wilson working on the douche-bag character that eventually becomes Back to the Future's Biff--or you could just watch Back to the Future much easier, as this mediocre film is deserving hard to find. Only search this one out if you hated Scream 1 & 4, but love Scream 2 & 3.