SLASHER SMACKDOWN #2: PROM NIGHT (1980) vs. PROM NIGHT (2008)

As much as I love first wave slasher flicks, I will be the first to admit that my love for them has as much (if not more) to do with the IDEA of the flicks as it does for their execution. Take 1980's Prom Night, for instance. Not a bad flick. An obvious Halloween rip-off, Prom Night is one of several impressive Canadian slasher movies that hit theaters in the early 80s. Slasher archetypes abound: the Bitch, the Clown, the Virgin, the Jerk, and the Final Girl (played by Jamie Lee Curtis herself!). This film is interesting primarily as an artifact of a moment in time when the 70s were dying, the 80s were being born, and pop culture was a mishmash of the two. I can tell you that by the time this movie hit theaters, Disco was dead in my age group, but the Prom in the movie (themed "DISCO MADNESS!!!") is an over the top disco fantasia. While those wanting gore in their slasher films will be disappointed overall, this film does blow an impressive gore wad in one brief but fantastic slash sequence which leads to a prom panic and stampede: the Jerk gets decapitated and his head rolls down the disco-lit catwalk meant for the prom king and queen. It's an amazingly tacky sequence, but well-executed and fabulous! Also, the stalk and slash sequence where the Bitch gets offed is great until she actually gets killed and you can't see a thing. The fact that you're actually rooting for her by the end of the sequence is a testament to how well it's done, but there's no pay off: it seems like a wasted opportunity. Overall, this movie is a great time capsule with good production values and a decent amount of suspense. It's very glitzy and glam in that late 70s/early 80s way (think the 2nd half of Boogie Nights), which is probably why it was a sizable hit upon release (raked in nearly $15M on a $1.5M budget. BTW $15M 1980 dollars = $38.5M 2009 dollars, which ain't chump change). Some might argue that the best thing about Prom Night is its poster, and they'd have a decent argument: I mean, I love the way that leather-gloved fist holding that mirror shard pops out at ya. In the end, though, Prom Night is an entertaining, low gore, high camp, uber disco flick for those who like that sort of thing.

Speaking of posters that are arguably better than the movies they are designed to promote, 2008's Prom Night is pretty much in the same class as the original when it comes to glam, glitz and execution. Which surprised me, cauz I was all ready to trash the new version until I rewatched the old version and realized how tame it was. The new one does have an impressive poster: kind of glam and grime at the same time, promising you some kind of sexy, messy shit. Unfortunately, it fails to deliver. The new Prom Night is a slasher movie for Tweens. It's well-made and decently-acted as far as slasher movies go...but sadly limp, with no gore and a teeny tiny barely noticable amount of suspense. Basically, the film fails too hard to be enjoyable. But that's not its biggest crime.

There are 2 types of slasher flick fans: those who are in it for the gore, and those who respond to the subtext, which just happens (coincidentally) to be illustrated by the gore. :p I fall into the latter group. People who are in it for the gore are the people who get off on watching movies like Hostel. I am not one of those people. I am not a huge splatter fan. The thing I love about slasher movies is that they are all about subtext. First wave slasher flicks represent a collective fear of punishment for the wild, carefree, druggy, sexy ways of the baby boomers. "If it feels good, do it" may have sounded like a good code to live by, but those of us in Gen X had the feeling that if we really lived like that, we'd ultimately be punished for it. So the killers in first wave slasher flicks are really a metaphor for not only our collective guilt and shame about sex and unchecked inhibitions, but for what became AIDS in real life: the other shoe dropping. Up on screen, our guilt and shame stalked and slashed our contemporaries while we had to beat it off (no pun intended) to survive. Up on screen, AIDS came in the form of Jason, and other killers just like him.

So, what's the subtext being delivered in the new Prom Night for its young audience? First off, the killer is a TEACHER! Those evil teachers! In a baseball cap. With a goatee. He's like the evil killer from the 90s! Ooooooh! BTW, the only other teacher depicted in the film is a LESBIAN GYM TEACHER with a crush on the main girl (Amber VonTussle from the Hairspray remake). The main characters deride the lesbian to Amber ("She's so into you." Snicker, snicker), which seems totally unnecessary when all the dyke is doing is being supportive, since Amber's got a tragic backstory that I won't go into. So far, the subtext of this film is aimed at conformist heterosexual assholes who hate teachers and gays. Then you've got your sassy black girl who so wants to be Prom Queen, right? Like, she never shuts up about it. And she keeps saying that if she wins Prom Queen then that'll be making a statement for black girls everywhere, blah blah blah. Which is all fine and good. But then, what does she do? Right before they're about to announce Prom King and Queen, the bitch goes upstairs to have sex with her boyfriend. Which, when you read this as subtext, is TOTALLY EFFING OFFENSIVE, right? It makes no sense. So basically she's like this sassy little black girl living in a white world, and she's really likable up to the point where she ditches her dream of being prom queen (not to mention her chance to be a game-changing role model to future generations of sassy young black girls living in a white world) to go upstairs to do her boyfriend. Because...I don't know, pleasing her horny boyfriend is more important than being crowned Prom Queen? Or...black people can't help but succumb to their primal sexual urges? I'm not quite sure, but whatever it is, I'm not buying it. Before actually screwing her boyfriend, however, she leaves suddenly b/c she realizes she's seen the killer and must warn the others. And her boyfriend takes out this ring after she's gone, like he was gonna ask her to marry him, if only she'd stayed...and fucked him. It's fucking RETARDED. Remember, subtext. Then, she goes from being the sassiest black girl in the slasher universe to being the stupidest slasher bitch of all time, and she basically breaks down into hysterics and gets murdered more brutally than any of her contemporaries in the flick. Later on, after it becomes rather obvious that she's been murdered, her boyfriend sits down on the curb outside the hotel and cries, clutching the ring, looking up into heaven as if to say: if only I hadn't tried to fuck her first. It's retarded. And don't even get me started on the hapless latina hotel maid named Maria...


Anyway, the plot doesn't matter, it's your basic Disney-fied slasher b.s. The white blond Aryan girl almost gets killed but not quite, and then everyone around her gets killed, and then she almost gets killed again, but then she gets SAVED BY THE COP. Which is more total bullshit! She's supposed to save herself! That's the whole point of a slasher movie, right? Final girl and all that? HELLO! But no. This being a Tween slasher flick, girls are being taught that they must be SAVED to survive. IT'S LAME!


Then there's the making of doc, which I was stupid enough to watch. Let me tell ya, after the director very defensively tried to rationalize the lack of gore in the movie ("It's so much more effective to see the characters react to the violence than it is to see the actual violence!"), and dismissed the original as having absolutely nothing to do with his fabulous remake, or reimagining, or whatthefuckever, ("The only thing these movies have in common is the title!") he went on to try to compare this piece of garbage to Se7en and Silence of the Lambs. That's when I realized he is a FUCKING TOOL and I just got done watching A PIECE OF SHIT. He’s all, "It’s not just a slasher movie, it’s so much more: a cop thriller, a killer on the loose, a coming of age drama..." BITCH, PLEASE! It’s a half-assed slasher movie with a big budget and no balls that got rated PG-13 and should have been rated G! A movie that reinforces homophobic, racist and sexist stereotypes and teaches kids (the obvious intended audience) that conformity and 1950s gender roles are what's most important to survival in this world. Hey Mr. Director (Nelson McCormick), you know what? You suck! And so does your movie.

In the movie's defense, I'll say this: It's shot and acted well. It's got the actress who played the crazy fake-pregnant wife of the music teacher on Glee Season 1 as Amber's aunt. And while there is no gore, there is violence, and the violence is, at times, disturbing. I must also say, in all fairness, that it did go on to rake in just under $44M on its $20M budget. Whatever, it still sucks.


Anyway, the winner: PROM NIGHT (1980). Not because it's one of the greatest slasher flicks out there, but because (1) The new Prom Night's subtext totally sucks ass, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna promote a movie that teaches girls that conforming to regressiver gender roles is the way to go; (2) The original Prom Night has the best Disco Prom on celluloid (not to mention-which I didn't-the most BITCHEN disco dance routine by JLC and her date!); and (3) The original Prom Night's got Jamie Lee Curtis kicking psycho killer ass, teaching young girls everywhere that they can be self-reliant survivors and not hot mess victims who need to be saved by men! Need I say more?

SLASHER SMACKDOWN #1: THE HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW (1983) vs. SORORITY ROW (2009)

CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS: Whenever I revert to my slasher habit, I always worry about all of the delicate little flowers out there I'm going to offend by spending blog energy on "that trash." It's low culture, it's juvenile, etc., etc. But now I just figure: those bitches don't read past the blog post title anyway, so fuck 'em. This is for those who, like myself, appreciate the subtle nuances and artistry of the slasher genre.Budgeted at a mere $425K and later raking in nearly $4.5M within a month of its initial release, this oft-forgotten slasher nugget is, like most in the genre, flawed. The acting from many actresses is questionable, and the role of the house mother, which is one of the main characters, was completely (and noticeably) dubbed. However, the director of this film obviously had high aspirations. Unlike most slasher films, the set-up is quite gothic (a house mother with a secret; a crazy mongoloid in the attic) and the director seemed to be going for a Dario Argento type atmosphere. Argento is an Italian director known (by me at least) for his over the top Giallo slasher operas (the best known in America is probably Suspiria) which don't make much sense but look stunning. To balance out the bad you've got a film with a sense of humor, several comedic scenes, and some great chase and murder sequences, all followed by the obligatory final girl showdown and ambiguous ending. Also, in this film you at least buy into the premise: a group of stupid sorority girls, led like sheep by their bitchy head sorority sister, make a really bad decision after a prank goes awry and wind up paying the ultimate price for their bad choice. The rest of the film takes place on the day of the big graduation party being held at the sorority house, so you've got a lot of funny 80s hair, an insufferable 80s party band, and a group of sorority sisters with the most ridiculously convoluted sense of 80s fashion I've ever witnessed in one film. It's a good romp through to the end, and it contains the critical element of all the great 80s slasher films: it's FUN.
Fast forward to 9/11/2009 and the hot flaming mess that is Sorority Row. Loosely based on the original, it too is flawed, which, when it comes to this genre, is beside the point. This movie has the same sheen as I Know What You Did Last Summer and films of that ilk: its frame of reference appears to be the mid 90s. I mean, look at that poster for heaven's sake; you don't get more 90s than that. In its favor, there are some creative kills and quite a bit of man candy running around drunk and nearly naked. Also, it stars Carrie Fisher as the house mother, and any movie that stars Carrie Fisher as anything is all right in my book. Primary problems with this film are as follows: 1. The characters are all vile, so you never care which ones get bumped off and which ones don't. Since the sorority sisters are all skanky ho bags that appear to hate one another from the get go, the whole premise of them "sticking together to keep a secret to cover each others' asses" doesn't add up, and doesn't carry the movie. 2. It comes off as a vehicle for Rumer Willis, when the character she plays is only marginal until, inexplicably at the end, after sniveling and shrieking and being annoyingly weak throughout the entire movie, she experiences a last-minute power girl transformation, turns Die Hard and blows somebody away, for no apparent reason other than she's Bruce Willis's daughter. 3. While the film gives a couple of nods to the original, some story elements are obvious parallels, and there's some attempt at comedy with funny dialogue ("I'm going to the basement to turn on the power." "Ok, well I'm gonna go take a shower then."), it's played completely straight and nasty, so it's hard to tell where the irony is supposed to be planted, or if it's supposed to be there at all. 4. While some of the kills are respectably unique and gross, most of them are L-A-M-E! Never good for a slasher movie. Also, CGI kills (when done badly, as they are in this movie) just aren't that entertaining or disturbing. They seem watered down, and since this is a SLASHER movie, the kills need to be disturbing, not easy to digest. 5. Final problem is, it's one of those 90s-styled "slasher mysteries" where there are a dozen twists and turns until the end, when finally the killer is revealed, then there's a final battle, not between a Final Girl and the killer, but between the killer and 1. the Final Girl, 2. a friend, and 3. a random character thrown in to ensure a sequel. During the final battle, the killer all of sudden can't fight for shit and gets offed.

And herein lies the rub for me: I realize it's a generational thing. Those of us from Gen X and the original wave of slasher flicks liked our solo Final Girls because we're self-directed, results oriented latch key kids and we like to finish the job on our own. Gen Y, on the other hand, are all collaborative and shit, and they like to solve their problems (including their psycho killer problems) together. So, since Sorority Row is not aimed at a middle aged homosexual like myself, but at Millenials who totally have a whole different way of approaching the world and problem solving, and also apparently need everything carefully explained to them, and also apparently can't deal with ambiguity in their endings, I can't really apparently, in good faith, fault it for messing with the Final Girl thing. Even though the Final Girl is one of the primary tropes of the genre, but whatever, have it your way Gen Y you little wimps. Ultimately, the film approaches High Camp because it's pretty ridiculous, and for a slasher film, that's a GOOD THING! But in the final slasher analysis, the film fails because the scariness diminishes (instead of builds) as the film progresses, and any fun derived from it comes from the camp factor, which was unintentional.

WINNER: THE HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW (1983). Put it in your Netflix queue! It doesn't appear to be available to rent on dvd, but you can stream it on your PS3 or Xbox! :)

DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE (1931)

Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (1931) is a dazzling gem from old Hollywood that surprised me in so many exciting ways. It's one of those stories that is so embedded in our cultural history that you just assume you know everything there is to know about it. What I didn't know was how sophisticated this movie is, both in content and execution. Frederic March plays the title role, for which he won an Oscar, so that gives you a sense of the prestige the film had at the time. The director is Rouben Mamoulian, someone I never heard of but will definitely make a point of investigating. (It turns out I have seen one of his other films and enjoyed it: Blood and Sand starring Tyrone Power). Of course, the story is about a respected gentleman who, constrained by the social mores of Victorian society, decides that the only way to rid oneself of one's inner "nasty" urges is to bring them out, and then let them go. Conveniently, he is a doctor who has discovered a potion that he believes will do just that.Now, Dr. Jekyll is engaged to a beautiful, prim, respectable, rich girl and they love each other dearly. He's pressuring her to marry him right away despite her father's insistence that they wait for several months. The sexual tension is apparent in their first scene together, or, at least Jekyll's sexual tension is apparent. The subtext here is that he wants to have sex with her ASAP, and screw convention and screw her father, and he does a good job of trying to talk her into it. Of course, her virtue is stronger than his lust, and eventually wins out. The early scenes in the movie are so idyllic and stylized, the characters so noble and virtuous, and it's a great set up. It's beautiful, but it's also suffocating.

Another fabulous discovery I made watching this movie is an actress by the name of Miriam Hopkins, who plays a low class wench who's all too willing to provide sexual company in exchange for some money. Dr. Jekyll saves her from her brutish boyfriend, and she proceeds to seduce him in the first of several fantastic scenes these two have together. This movie is post Hays Code, so the overt sexual behavior and symbolism in this scene is quite a surprise. On the commentary you find out that much of it was excised for many years in subsequent releases of the film, and even upon its initial release in certain parts of the country. This is the scene in which Dr. Jekyll's inner demon is summoned, and unfortunately for the seductive summoner (Ivy is her character's name), the demon doesn't forget her.

Mamoulian used a lot of symbolism and directing techniques that frankly I had no idea were in existence at the time this film was made. Think about it: this film was shot just after the stock market crash of '29 during the Great Depression. It was practically the 20s, as the 30s had just started. And yet, this director is using techniques I thought were invented by the likes of Jonathan Demme, Hitchcock and Brian DePalma. The cap above is one example, which happens right after Jekyll and his colleague leave Ivy's apartment. As they leave, she whispers to Jekyll "Come back!" in a seductive whisper as she dangles her bare leg over the side of the bed. The men leave, continue walking down the street, discuss the business of keeping onseself respectable, and all the while her voice continues to whisper its invitation, and the image of her dangling leg never leaves the screen. The men have left her apartment, but she hasn't left their heads.

Another interesting technique the director uses is that of a subjective camera. The first time we see both Jekyll and Hyde, we see them as reflections of themselves in mirrors. Mirrors, as a matter of fact, figure prominently throughout the movie. It really is an interesting (not to mention effective) method of making the viewer identify with both the good and evil personas of the main character.

Another interesting aspect of this film is that Hyde is not a monster, as I had always assumed, but a man. He's just a man who is not constrained by the social and moral rules of society. So when he first makes his transformations, he is presented as an almost comical figure, not a monster. He's like a big kid acting out on his impulses without restraint. And this, at first, isn't scary. This part of the movie also delivers one of its best elements: the acting fireworks that goes on between March and Hopkins. Hyde tracks her down and meets her on her own turf (a tavern), where he basically overpowers her and makes her his own. The verbal and physical sparring between the two is a sight to behold. On the commentary track you learn that Hopkins was quite the diva, hated by the likes of Bette Davis and tons of other actors of her era due to her tendency to upstage everyone else. She's amazing in this flick, however, and the energy between her and March is electric.

One quick note about these subjective shots of characters looking directly into the camera at various points throughout the film to convey a wide range of emotions. I thought Demme used it to great effect in Philadephia as a way to make the viewer feel the pain of homophobia and prejudice face to face. Here, it's used to much greater effect because of the wide range of emotions the actors show you: fear, seduction, love, lust, it's all here.

Eventually, Ivy becomes Hyde's kept woman in an apartment in SoHo. This cap is great for showing how, even though he becomes uglier and more wild with each transformation, so does he become more vain and cocky. I can't say enough about the acting dynamic between these two actors in every scene they share. There are about 5 or 6 of them and they are all magnificent to behold. This film really belongs to these two characters, and specifically, to these two actors.

Mamoulian also makes use of the split screen throughout the film to highlight the dual nature of Jekyll/Hyde and the compartmentalization of his life as his two selves live out their roles. Of course, what happens is that, once Hyde is let out, Jekyll loses control of him and the two lives threaten to collide. I, as a gay man (and I doubt I'm alone in this), can definitely relate to this aspect of the story. But it's men in general who feel this type of duality, which I find interesting. I wonder if women just don't, as a rule, deal with the same type of issues of needing to control their inner wild animal, or if as a society we're just taught (and therefore assume) that it isn't an issue for them. Note that the women are not having any struggle with who they are: the virgin and the whore are separate characters who never try to escape their assigned roles. It's the men who talk about the struggle, and it's Jekyll/Hyde who acts it out. And yet, it's the women who come to represent each side of the male's identity.

This cap is from March's and Hopkins' final scene together, and it's amazing: melodramatic and brutal, it's when Hyde's emotions and instincts boil over into something beyond human. There have already been allusions to the sadistic sexual nature of Hyde and we know by this point that Ivy suffers at his hands as he satiates his perverse desires. Nevertheless, even though she's a bad girl, we've come to empathize with her and it's sad to see her demise.Going back to the idea of the women representing the male's indentities, it's interesting that the male decides to destroy that which represents his wicked self rather than the actual wicked self...

This flick is a really great rental. The commentary by Greg Mank is informative and entertaining, not just about the film but about the actors and the era. The 1941 version of the film starring Spencer Tracy is also on the disc, and it's sadly inferior in almost every way (in spite of its stellar cast, which includes Ingrid Bergman as Ivy and Lana Turner as Jekyll's virtuous fiancee). The gem here is the 1931 version, and it's certainly a sight to behold. It includes restored scenes that were thought to have been lost for decades (which you'll only know about if you listen to the commentary). Considering that this film is nearly a century old, it's amazing how well it holds up and still resonates. Aside from the obvious theatricality of it and the slower pacing of the era, it's an outstanding movie and I highly recommend it.

THE MIST (2007)

[NOTE: I'm not spoiling the ending.] While writing this post, I started to question myself. Why do I like this movie so much? Why do I still even like to watch certain horror movies? Isn't it a juvenile genre to be interested in? What does that say about me? This movie touches on one of my favorite themes: the fragility of the social contract, and what happens when an unexpected event causes society to break down.

Then I realized, hey, this isn't about ME. This is about The Mist, a FANTASTIC creepfest creature feature, which I'm sure you know is based on a Stephen King novella of the same name. The story appeared in his short story collection Skeleton Crew back in 1985. The Mist has always been one of my favorite pieces of King's writing. For one thing, it's short. The man tends to get long-winded, and he was especially long winded back in the 80s (remember It? 1100+ pages!). The movie is pretty much a faithful adaptation, conveying the same characters, themes and events. There are some changes, but it's all for the good of telling the story in 2007 America. The strange thing is, things haven't really changed all that much in this country since King wrote his story more than 20 years ago.

One of the things that makes the Mist a great movie is the creature factor. There are many "oh shit" and "ewww" moments in this flick. The creatures are pure fantasy but rooted in real world biology...they are bizarre and scary. One of my biggest fears is suddenly finding myself somewhere other than at the top of the food chain. This movie definitely exploits that fear. Some of the CGI in the movie is a bit obvious, but for the most part it works because the creatures aren't anything we've seen on Earth...but you can kind of buy them being real, somewhere, because most of them look like things we recognize: insects, crabs, etc. They're just on a different, decidedly more threatening scale.

Another thing that makes this movie work is the excellent acting. Thomas Jane is a perfect leading everyman...somewhat idealized, a natural leader, pretty much possessing the qualities that most Americans like to think they possess. The cap above is from a scene in which his son begs him not to carry out a plan to go out into the mist to get to the pharmacy for medication. It broke my heart, and you can just feel that kid's panic at the thought of losing his dad. Marcia Gay Harden is also wonderful as the local evangelical religious nut. It would have been easy to make her character a cartoon, but she plays it straight and the character is treated with respect as a person of faith, however misguided she may be. Not one cast member sucks in this movie. They are all excellent, down to the smallest speaking part.

Everyone who worked on this flick deserves a pat on the back. The direction, the way it's shot, the creatures, the actors, everything just gels. And of course, the one person who deserves the most credit is Stephen King. He puts a bunch of Americans together in such a banal setting, a supermarket, so that when the shit hits the fan and things start to go bad, much of the ridiculousness of our daily lives is hilighted just by the setting.

This isn't one of those flicks that has you jumping out of your seat with in your face scares. It's more the concept that is horrifying, the sense of dread at what's happened and how the characters are going to get out of it, if they even can. Like I said before, there are many "Ewww!" moments. A note about the ending: I had heard that this is one of those movies with "an ending," and even knowing that, I was still blown away. So will you be.

In the tradition of many of the greatest horror flicks, this movie fucks with your preconceived notions, your expectations, your mind. I highly recommend it.

There's one unintentionally funny bit about this flick, but you'll probably notice it yourself. I'll just say one word: eyebrows.

HALLOWEEN (2007)

Here's the deal: I'm a child of the 70s and 80s who hit puberty right around 1979. I was right there when slasher movies exploded...the original Halloween was re-released each October for several years (this was before home video). I remember them all, even the ones I didn't see until years later: Friday the 13th and its sequels, Prom Night, Terror Train, Graduation Day, Nightmare On Elm Street, etc. etc. Halloween and its first sequel (however much the latter was panned by critics) scared the hell out of me. When I got home one night from seeing the sequel with a bunch of friends, no one was home and the back door to our house was ajar. I can't tell you how spooked and freaked I was having just seen Michael slaughter his way through oodles of horny nurses and lab technicians.

Anyhoo, I am not a big fan of Rob Zombie's movies. I admire him as an artist, and I relate to his visual aesthetic, rooted as it is in pre-slash 70s horror. But House of 1000 Corpses is ridiculous and The Devil's Rejects was just rude. All the promo stuff I saw of his take on Halloween made it look pretty damn good: a bigger, badder kick ass Michael Myers filmed in neo-70s realist grime. Yes, I was worried that Zombie would hit us over the head with sadistic brutality and gore, which he is wont to do. But I also held out hope that he would nail it, because I think he's more than capable. Unfortunately, this movie succeeds and fails simultaneously, at least in the eyes of someone who's viewing it as a remake of a great horror classic.

On its own merits, it's a well-made film. It seems like a documentary. We get all the back story about Michael's fucked up family, his serial-killer-to-be proclivities as a kid, his trip to the booby hatch, his suffering at the hands of a cruel world. Ok, so his family life sucked, he was bullied at school, nobody understands him, he's being exploited by the doctor who's supposed to be helping him, wah wah wah, boo hoo. Lots of us have crappy lives, but we don't all wind up being serial killers, so what's the point of trying to humanize someone who's supposed to be the embodiment of inexplicable evil? Do you really need to try and convince us that he turned out this way because his mom was a stripper with hella bad taste in men (in other words: A Bad Mother)? To someone who's never seen and doesn't care about the original, this movie is fine...in fact, it would fit in quite nicely with any hour-long true crime special that regularly airs on Lifetime or the History Channel.

But to anyone else, there are problems. It is a remake of one of the scariest movies ever made...but it isn't scary. There's no suspense, no tension. By the time we get to the third act, which is basically where Zombie gets around to remaking the original Halloween, we know all we ever wanted to know about Michael, and nothing about his soon to be victims, which means that when Michael finally goes on his rampage, we don't really give a shit about what happens to anyone. And neither does Zombie. He's wasted so much time giving us all the back story (and showcasing his real-life wife as Michael's stripper mommy) that he doesn't have any time left to build character or suspense. It's as if he's going through the motions of the events that occur on Halloween night as an afterthought. Another big mistake he makes is that the girls, particularly Laurie Strode, the "final girl", are old school stupid girls who scream and run. Ok, Laurie's not completely weak, but she sure as hell doesn't come close to touching Jamie Lee Curtis' version of the strong final girl who shows a knack for surviving under stress. This one falls into an empty pool, screams, yelps and cries when she's supposed to be hiding, and pretty much sucks ass as a final girl all the way around. She's not even that likable. The gore is updated, but the girls are retroactive...it undercuts one of the primary motifs of the genre, and it ruins it.

The movie gets a lot of stuff right. The actors all do good work. Zombie's got a great eye for 70s detail. His movie is somewhat timeless in that it could be 1978 or 2008. He pays homage to the original film in several specific shots and/or scenes, but he appears to only be paying lip service out of a sense of duty to other fans of the original, not his own respect for it. Zombie treats the source material as not really worthy of revisiting on its own merits. He seems to think he could do a better job of telling the story by telling a different story. As if the original story isn't really all that important. In my opinion, this is a huge mistake on his part and the main reason his "reimagining" fails.

This movie's worth a look if you're a fan of the genre. The gore's not anything worse than you'd see on an episode of CSI. The scares are nonexistent, ditto the suspense. The kills have that Rob Zombie brutality, but they're so staged that it's not as if you're seeing a real person get knocked off. Besides, none of Michael's victims are people we've come to get a sense of or care about, so whether or not they die becomes irrelevant. The commentary's interesting, but again, he doesn't express any affinity whatsoever for the source material, which I think should have been a requirement for anyone considered to direct the remake of Halloween. Ultimately, Zombie's take on the horror classic left me cold, unimpressed, and a little bit miffed that he felt he had something more to offer than the original did. As if!

THE DESCENT (2005)

The Descent is an enjoyable horror movie about a group of friends who go cave diving in the Appalachian Mountains only to wind up trapped underground and hunted by bloodthirsty humanoid creatures.

Compared to most recent horror films, this one's excellent. The setting is creepy and claustrophobic, the acting is above-par, and the tension builds at a steady pace. Since this is a creature feature, it walks a fine line between horror and camp. This movie does cross that line and degenerate into camp on more than one occasion. Once these girls turn Rambo and start killing the cave creatures, it becomes an over the top gore fest. And each subsequent victim of the cave creatures suffers a more bloody and undignified death. But the camp factor doesn't make it any less scary or creepy.

The set design is amazing and I didn't realize how awesome it was until I saw the special features and making of doc, which is quite funny. Most of the guys who play the cave creatures are sinewy and hairless, so it's fun to watch them clown around in their monster make up in the making of doc. It's also fun to see a bunch of tough athletic chicks do some bad ass cave diving and then fight as best they can to survive once the shit hits the fan. Overall, it's worth a rental on a night when you want to be creeped out and boo!'d.