Vinyan (2008, directed by Fabrice Du Welz)

There was a time in the late seventies and early eighties during which jungle horror flicks were all the rage. Most of those were cannibal films though. Of course, Cannibal Holocaust was released during that period of time, as was Cannibal Ferox. The larger percentage of those films came out of Europe, mainly Italy.

So it's interesting to see a new jungle horror film come out of Europe again. It's not Italy this time though, it's France, which has really been establishing a strong horror tradition over the last few years. The "French New Wave Horror" is a phrase people who follow the horror genre have gotten used to seeing and hearing. If you're a horror fan, and you've been missing out on what the French have been doing for the last five or so years, you owe it to yourself to catch up.

Vinyan strays somewhat from the formula we have come to expect from this new wave of French horror films. It's not a gorefest, and there's very little violence. So, if you've been skipping the latest crop of French horror films because they are too violent and bloody, this might be better for you.

What I can't tell you is that less violence or less blood make this film any less disturbing. It's not going to make you squirm in disgust the way something like Inside or Martyrs did, but it is disturbing all the same.

It's about a couple who lost their son in the tsunami in Asia, six months prior to when the film begins. Visiting the home of a friend who is holding a fund raiser for some kind of aid foundation or charity (it's not completely clear what they do, but it's not all that important either), they're shown a video of an area in Burma which was hard hit by the tsunami. During the video, Emanuelle Beart's character, Jeanne, is convinced she sees their son walking away from the camera in the background of one of the shots. Though not completely sure his wife isn't losing her mind, Rufus Sewell's character, her husband Paul, agrees to go and look for their son.

To get to Burma from Thailand where they live, they unfortunately have to employ the aid of human traffickers. This makes for an extremely uncomfortable situation. And off they head from Thailand to the jungles of Burma, looking for a child who may or may not be alive.

Rufus Sewell gives a great performance here. As a husband, not sure of his wife's continued sanity, and at the same time, hoping beyond reason that maybe she might be right and he might find his son, there are some really heartbreaking and hard to watch scenes of him just trying, begging his wife to see reality or just trying to decide what to do. Sewell seems to only end up with roles as villains in the States, but he proves here, beyond the shadow of any doubt that he could be a leading man and carry a film on his own.

Emanuelle Beart, is also amazing here. I never doubted for one second that she actually believed her son was  alive. It wasn't a matter of being dishonest with herself about the possibilities, but an absolute certainty that he was alive. Whether or not she is losing her grip on reality, you'll have to watch and decide for yourself, but there isn't a false moment in her performance.

If you don't believe that relationship, and the dynamic between these two people, the film goes nowhere, is terribly boring and doesn't matter to you at all. Luckily for Fabrice Du Welz, you do believe it, every step of the way. Du Welz does a really great job of establishing the mood around these characters, which creates something interesting. At the center, there's this story which is really about these two people, who have lost a child, are trying to cope with it and do what they think is right, and hold on to each other. But, because of everything the story and the director surrounds them with, it becomes something very different from the films we've seen before that follow a very similar storyline. From the opening credit sequence  Du Welz establishes an unusual, creepy, alien kind of feel, that follows these two characters throughout the film. There's some really interesting cinematography here, interesting use of color and deep darks against bright lights. Filming on location in Thailand also helps to make this film really live. There are some sequences in the beginning of the film which couldn't work if they'd been using a European city as a double for Thailand, and sets would have just looked ridiculous. And the jungle photography is gorgeous. I don't care how strange and weird or unusual this film portrays the events in the jungle. I still want to go to the jungle to see anything as incredibly beautiful as the location looks here.

Vinyan is an interesting film. It starts out as what seems to be an interesting, intelligent thriller. It's well written, it's characters are well drawn and feel very real and you are interested in and want to follow them. Then, it turns into something else along the way, which I found equally interesting. I have no doubt there are folks out there who would not find this enjoyable. They feel cheated when films take a hard turn the way this one does. I've seen it done poorly in some films, but here it's done well and it changes the tone of the film, but it cuts even more directly to what's at the heart of the film, these two people, trying to understand how to deal with the pain of having lost a child. What it becomes is surreal and hallucinatory in an interesting way. The symbolism is probably a little thick for mainstream American audiences, but I think there's a part of the genre/horror community who would enjoy the kind of uncomfortable, unsettled feeling it produces, even if some of the symbolism escapes them. I have a feeling some of it escaped me, but I still enjoyed it.

Bronson (Nicholas Winding Refn, 2008)

That's not Charles Bronson the star of the Death Wish films, as you can see. This movie really has nothing to do with him, except that it's subject changed his name to Charles Bronson in the midst of a life which has seen him dubbed England's most violent criminal.

Bronson is a film about kicking ass. That is to say the character is interested in nothing other than fighting with prison guards. Seriously, that's it. The film itself is interested in nothing other than kicking ass in the level of quality with which it's made and the way in which it presents this extreme character. Both succeed.

Bronson is the story of a man born Micheal Peterson, who at nineteen commits an armed robbery and is sentenced to seven years in prison. As of the release of the film, he'd spent 34 years in prison, 30 of which were spent in solitary confinement. According to the film, he's never actually killed anyone. He attempted to kill a fellow inmate in an asylum though, because he wanted to get back to prison, where he could fight guards. When his victim lives, he's remanded to an asylum for the criminally insane, where he proceeds to start a prison riot. The film focuses on this man, his actions and  his drive for recognition, which is to say, he states at the beginning of the film, "I've always wanted to be famous" and that's about all the explanation you're going to get for why this guy is as completely set on fighting everything, but especially prison guards.

Because Bronson himself is the story, there isn't a very straightforward narrative here. It's also being told to us from his perspective, so to say the narrator is somewhat unreliable, is an understatement. But, there's no blame here, no self pity, none of it. Bronson is recalling these incidents or this tale, as if he would have changed none of it.  The only time it seems he's asking for or trying to get any pity or empathy from the audience is the point in the film in which he's locked in an asylum, being heavily sedated constantly, and unable to be in prison, fighting with guards, as he'd like to be. And in a way, you do pity him. Seeing this guy being reduced to a drooling pile of goo is what I imagine it would have been like to see Churchill rendered mute. Churchill had a gift for words, not only speeches, but in the many other phrases and exchanges which have become part of legend and folk lore. In the film, Bronson seems in the same way to have been made specifically with fighting prison guards in mind.

And that's part of what makes this film interesting. It's suggesting or Bronson was suggesting in writing the book it was based on, that he is a kind of artist whose canvass is violence and publicity. The way he and the film are portrayed, it seems kind of true. And if you can consider it, a feature length, well funded motion picture has been made about the man dubbed England's most violent prisoner, before his death. There does seem to be a certain PT Barnum sense of publicity to this guy.

Being treated to performances like the one Tom Hardy put in portraying Bronson is an extremely rare experience. Hardy's portrayal creates a character who is thoroughly charismatic, and potently disturbing. There's some strange combination here which bespeaks Woody Harrelson's Mickey Knox, Robert Deniro's Travis Bickle, Eric Bana's Mark "Chopper" Read, Denzell Washington's Alonzo Harris and Heath Ledger's Joker. Bronson is a madman, an anti-social maniac anyone in their right mind would be terrified of face to face, but in so many places during the film, you find yourself rooting for him, and hoping that he either gets the nothing he wants or straightens up enough to have some kind of life and do something with the boundless energy and charisma we see. There have been whispers of Tom Hardy playing "Max" in the next Mad Max film, and now I understand why. Though I'm not sure he'll ever come across a part this good again, Hardy is an amazingly talented young actor. Reams of hyperbole have been heaped on this performance since the films release, and in one of those rare cases, it's almost not enough.

Technically, it's a spectacular film. I've read and heard some other reviews and opinions about the film which fault it for being a little too stylistic, but given the subject matter, specifically Bronson himself, that seems to be exactly what it should be. There seems to be a growing tide of film loving and critical folks who find some fault with the kind of stylistic visual tone this film has, which I don't completely understand. If thematically, contextually, and so on, it gets in the way of the story or it overwhelms the characters, that's a problem. But, just because it's become something we're seeing in films more often than we did in the past, doesn't mean it's time to throw on your hipster ascot and make with the hate. It works here, to good effect, in part because the film is coming to you or being told through Bronson's perspective, and that would be an extremely stylized perspective. Scenes of Bronson on a stage, narrating events, while wearing old time vaudevillian harlequin make up, to the roar of a loving crowd, make perfect sense in the context of this character, because he is a completely bug nuts, out of his mind, showman. I could have watched those scenes alone for a long time. Whether or not you agree with director Nicholas Winding Refn's choice to make the films as visually stylistic as it is, you can't say it isn't done well. The regular shifting from deep, strong, vibrant colors, to the institutional blues, greens and grays works well, especially because there's enough texture to every shot that even bathed those institutional colors each composition looks interesting. In the short period of the film covering the 69 days (the point at which he changed his name to Charles "Charlie" Bronson, in order to sound tougher in the underground bare knuckle fighting circuit) Bronson was at one point free from prison, the art direction and costuming are excellent, providing a real sense of time and place. Technically, it's a beautiful film.

Bronson is an extremely entertaining film. It belongs right along side Natural Born Killers, Chopper, and in a kind of strange reversed sense, Fight Club. It's subversive, in an intelligently belligerent way that would have only been entertaining for a short period of time, had it's star and resulting main character not been so magnetic and charismatic you can't take your eyes off him for a second. The lines it draws between criminal and celebrity in keeping with the themes of Natural Born Killers and Chopper. The ideas about identity, violence and masculinity follow very much in line with the ideas in Fight Club, in a strange sort of way. One thing I do have to warn perspective viewers about (because we're weird about this stuff here), there is a lot of male nudity in the film. Bronson doesn't just enjoy fighting guards, he gets bare ass naked to do it, so they can't grab his clothes, and often smothers himself in paint or whatever else he can to approximate grease. If you can't see anything but cock when there is an adult male on film, you need to grow up, and you need to skip this film.  I enjoyed Bronson thoroughly, and I'm going to be going back to check out the films I think are it's thematic and characteristic brethren again specifically because of it.

Out Of The Ether, 11/10/09

We've got a slew of good stuff to get to.

Let's start with my favorite thing, a movie to get excited about. I love few things more than stumbling across an article on some site that makes me excited about a film for one reason or another. This is one of those things. Ravenous (previously known as Burning Bright), a film about a girl, with her autistic younger brother, locked in a house with a hungry tiger during a hurricane, might not be a horror movie specifically, but sure as hell could be something extremely exciting to watch. A TIGER(!!!!) chasing a girl around a house could prove for some extremely tense situations, and in the hands of someone who could really handle the material, could be a really fun film. Apparently, from the review over at Bloody Disgusting, that's exactly what it is. I'll be looking forward to this, and trying to see it as soon as possible.

 The Spiderman 4 news is and rumors are starting to swirl. Expect to here this for the next year. Marvel certainly has their hands full with Iron Man 2, Captain America, Thor, and The Avengers films. It might actually be good for the old web head that this franchise was started before Marvel figured out that they should be the one's in creative control of their properties, and not letting the studios put out crap like The Fantastic Four. Anyway, in Spiderman news, we're getting conflicting reports regarding casting. over at IGN, they're reporting that Rachel McAdams is in talks to play Felicia Hardy a.k.a The Black Cat in the next celluloid installment of Spidey's adventures. For those of you unfamiliar with the Spideyverse, Black Cat is thief, and occasional challenge to both Spidey and Peter Parkers loyalty to Mary Jane. I can definitely see this being a very Raimi story, unlike Spiderman 3, which wasn't a story Raimi ever wanted to tell. The conflict in reports comes from /film, where they're reporting that Romola Garai is auditioning for the role as well. Basically, it seems like no one has the role, but we can count on the fact that casting has actually begun, there's a new female lead involved, and there's good chance that lead is Black Cat.

Another huge franchise is making some news as well. Guillermo Del Toro will be suiting up to play a unimportant background character in The Hobbit, which he is directing and Peter Jackson is producing. Ian McKellen, John Rhys Davies and Viggo Mortenson are all saying they'd like to return to hallowed Tolkien ground of Middle Earth. IGN is carrying that story here.

 In news that for me falls into the category of "THERE REALLY MIGHT BE A GOD AFTER ALL!!!", Ain't It Cool News is reporting that Steven Spielberg and Will Smith are not going to get the chance to do an adaptation of the manga Oldboy, which Chan-wook Park has already directed an insanely incredible South Korean version of. The title of the article is How Tough Is Hollywood? I actually like both Steven Spielberg and Will Smith, so I'm not going all "I hate A list Hollywood because I think I'm a hipster deuche bag", I just don't see these guys being able to do anything nearly as effecting and downright mind boggling as has already been done, and I don't really think it's necessary to remake films just so Americans don't have to read subtitles. See the original or miss out.

Hears a question, did you like Se7en? If so, you might be happy to hear that David Fincher and writer Andrew Kevin Walker, the team who brought you the detective team of Morgan Freeman and Bradd Pitt chasing Kevin Spacey's serial killer only to find Gwyneth Paltrow's head in a box are teaming up again. I'm happy about it. The Reincarnation of Peter Proud is apparently a remake. Thanks again to Ain't It Cool News for bringing us news that is actually cool.

Darren Aronofsky came into national recognition with his first feature, Requiem for a Dream, and proceeded to piss almost every one of those people who had high hopes for him in releasing The Fountain as his second feature. His third film The Wrestler drew critical praise and may have given Mickey Rourke a shot at an acting career which allows him the opportunity to play more than just an over the hill tough guy. Now, he's working on a new project, The Black Swan. The story of a ballerina whose chief rival may or may not be a figment of her imagination has attracted Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, Vincent Cassel and Winona Ryder. AICN again.

I've been looking forward to this one for a little over a year now, and the date of release is getting ever close. Terry Gilliam's newest The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus has a new poster, which /film has had the good sense to post. I really can't wait to see this one.

James McTeigue's feature directorial debut was V for Vendetta, a film I absolutely love and adore. It may not be fashionable anymore and it may not be "cool", but I do. His latest, well, the chances are pretty good that it's not quite as philosophically or intellectually grounded, but it sure looks like it's going to be one hell of a good time for martial arts/action fans. Check out the new clips for Ninja Assassin over at BD.

There's also a new one sheet for the Christina Ricci, Liam Neeson film After.Life. Follow the link here, to find it and some other images from the film.

The first decade of the millennium has brought us a number of films which haven't had a theatrical release, but have found large followings in their humble straight to DVD roots. There is probably no better example of what the combination of word of mouth, internet buzz and some respectable backing by a distributor creating a monster than Hatchet. I enjoyed the film, but I'm not among it's legion of rabidly loyal fans. Either way, it seemed appropriate to post a link to the first poster art release for sequel, Hatchet 2.

Two of the directors who made my Decade of Horror list have new films coming out soon. Chris Smith, who brought us Severance, is now visiting The Black Death upon us. The film is the story of a group of men trying to bring a woman believed to be the demonic source of the plague to her exorcism. BD has stills. Brian Yuzna has a new 3-D feature on the way called Amphibious 3-D. You can get a first peek at it here.

I've been reading and hearing some pretty good things about Macabre and would like a chance to get to see it myself, but since I'm in Richmond, that chance may not come until it hits DVD. But to you folks who may be in a location more friendly to non-multiplex movie going, here's something about it.

And finally, Dead Snow the festival hit featuring zombie Nazi's is coming to wide release DVD. So far, it's been a Blockbuster Exclusive, which kind of sucks for those of us who enjoy freedom of speech and choose not to spend our money at Blockbuster. We're all going to get a chance to see it and buy soon. Get the details for that and the DVD for Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 here.

The Hallowed Holiday Spirit

As my good friend G.W has already noted, over at his blog Secret Mountain Laboratory, our favorite holiday is fast approaching. You can't find a better set of suggestions to prepare for Halloween than G.W. has brewing over that the Lab. El Senor' Ferguson has recently  suggested a set of short films to help get you in the mood for the holiday. I'm jumping in to add my two cents and suggest some feature length films to help you get ready for the wonderfully insane holiday we love so much.

10) Let's get the obvious out of the way from the start. Halloween. In 1978, John Carpenters little film that could was unleashed on the unwitting suburban masses. Inspired by a combination of Hitchcock films and Italian giallo's from the 1960's, Carpenter takes every bit of slow build suspense he can and stuffs it into the suburban setting. The titular Michael Myers became a part of the cultural vernacular, a film franchise was spawned, and it scared the hell out of teenagers everywhere. If you've never seen Halloween, you're missing out. I'm betting that you've probably not seen it because it has the reputation of being the beginning of the slasher genre. Here's what you don't know. Unlike the imitations that came afterward, this is a nearly bloodless film. Halloween doesn't rely on blood and guts to achieve it's aims. There's some great cinematography in this film, as well as the completely awesome, over the top Donald Pleasance  performance that's incredibly entertaining. Jamie Lee Curtis is introduced to movie going audiences as Laurie Strode, the character fans of the series that followed couldn't wait to get to see again. If you've never seen it before, it can really still throw the fright into people. 

9) I'd put this higher up on the list, but it's the only of the films that is in theaters now (opening nationwide this weekend). Paranormal Activity is a great scare. That's really all there is to it. If you were ever one of those kids who dared your friends or were dared by your friends to go running into the local house with the haunted history attached to it, Paranormal Activity feels very much like that. Except, you're an adult now, and you're just not used to being that damned scared anymore. It's pulse pounding, suspenseful and the film succeeds in making you basically do that to yourself because it shows you so little. I've been beating the drum for this movie for a few months now, and I'm not going to stop because it has gotten a nationwide release and it has already become incredibly successful for the $15,000 it cost to make. I've been beating the drum for this film, and have continued to because it is just that fun to watch. GO SEE THIS IN THE THEATERS NOW!!!! 

8) Halloween is a fun holiday, and it should involve some kind of imagination, that kind you used to have when you were a kid. That's why Phantasm makes the list. It's all about imagination. Don Coscarelli did a great job of putting something on film which is familiar enough to keep you going, but which has enough imagination that it really takes on a kind of dream like quality. It's not for everyone, for that reason. You're not dealing with a reality you understand, but it is a reality which does have all of it's own logic, and sticks to it. Coscarelli manages to really get the feel of that childlike imagination into the fabric of the film, and that's not a small thing for any film, much less one started, and completely in such a D.I.Y. kind of way. I also can't get away without mentioning the seventies vibe to the film. It makes for some good laughs now. Angus Scrimm puts in a great performance as The Tall Man, a character which has developed it's own cult following in the horror community and the festival circuit.

7) Speaking of fun, another ghoulishly good flick for the Halloween season is Night Of The Creeps. This one is finally coming to DVD and Blu-Ray on Oct. 27th. We've got an alien invasion film, a zombie film, bits of slasher film, and fifties B movie all wrapped up into one decidedly absurd package by one Fred Dekker. You might not be familiar with the name, but the chances are that if you're in your early to mid-thirties (or are just a film geek like me), you've heard of The Monster Squad, Dekker's other film from the 80's. Night Of The Creeps is a lot less kid friendly than The Monster Squad, if only for the level of gore thrown about. Take heart if you're a non-horror lover, most of the gore in this one is strictly for gags. It's both a send up of the B-movie monster flicks from the fifties, and a loving homage at the same time. It's got a little bit of everything and is generally well made enough, and doesn't take itself seriously enough for most people to enjoy it.

6) It's time to get a few genuinely scary flicks in, because after all, it is Halloween, and what better time of year to allow yourself to get the pants scared off of you from the comfort of your own living room. Hence, I give you The Shining.Aside from the obvious, the things people always say about The Shining being terrifying, Jack Nicholson being brilliant, Kubrick being one of the greatest film makers of all time, and the beauty of the location and cinematography, there's something else I absolutely love about it. When I talk to people who don't generally like horror films, it's invariably the exception they make. When you bring up The Shining, they'll say, "That was a great movie. It scared the crap out of me." In other words, it's one of the truly rare gateway films the horror community shares with the rest of the film community, The Silence Of The Lambs being the other big one.  There's never a bad reason to watch The Shining. This and the next film were the first two horror films I ever saw, and they scared the living daylights out of me. From that point forward I was hooked.

5) I've met a few people who have seen The Exorcist and claim it was not at all scary. Somehow, I don't believe them at all. If nothing in this film unsettles you or downright scares you, I'm going to throw in the suggestion that you may not be human or you may really need to go in and talk to someone about that. I saw this for the first time when I was ten or so years old. Some of you might be thinking that is way too young for a kid to see a film like this. Unfortunately for my parents, I'd picked up a voracious reading habit, and believe me, there are much more disturbing books in the world than this was a film. I was looking for them. 1984 probably frightened me more than this at that age, and probably still does. The point is, I can remember seeing both The Exorcist and The Shining and being scared to pieces as a kid, and never wanting them to end. This might be a strange twist of personality, but there seem to be a lot of us out there, so I'm not too worried. It was the very first blockbuster film, also incredibly controversial (the two were probably connected), and remains a must see for all up and coming horror fans. It also touches somewhat on some of those weird, strange superstitions that Halloween and many of it's traditions have come from. Namely, keeping evil spirits at bay. Maybe a Jack-o-lantern would have done Reagan some good, but somehow, I don't think so. Truly scary stuff. Kudos to Dick Smith for a make-up effects creation and William Friedkin for a film that a miscarriage, fainting, vomiting, and people leaving the theaters in tears have all been attributed to. Beyond all of that though, like The Shining, this is masterful film making. There are some actual adult, serious themes at work in the film, beyond just the creature effects and disturbing nature of the content. There are also adult performances (something missing from too many of the contemporary scare flicks). Every performance in this film is outstanding. Some of you might know that for a good while, I usurped the name Damian Karras as an nom de plum on the intrawebs. That was specifically a tribute to the character and the actor who played him because this film and the character are so perfectly crafted. As a side note, if you don't know much about Jason Miller, the actor who portrayed Karras, his is an interesting story in it's own right. He was a Pulitzer Prize winning playwright, among other things.

4) The classic. The one. The only. Night Of The Living Dead gripped audiences and changed the course of cinema history. That might sound a little hyperbolic. If you think so, consider this, Night Of The Living Dead was originally being shown as a Saturday matinee, basically for children, because that's when horror movies were being shown in 1968. If you haven't seen the film, I can tell you this much, the difference between the horror films which had been shown to kids in matinees then and what NOTLD was is the difference between Star Wars and Schindler's List. Both of those films are about saving people from oppressive regimes. One of them is light hearted, fantasy, the other is a grim, horrifying, and emotionally traumatic. Night Of The Living Dead got yanked from the matinee spot as soon as critics got their shot at it, as it should have. It then went on to become the first of the Midnight Movies, achieving cult status and establishing the idea that there was a population of people out there who specifically wanted to see films that were out of the mainstream. It's been placed in the Library of Congress National Film Registry as a film deemed "historically, culturally, or aesthetically important." This is serious horror. I also contend that without it, the independent film movement we all enjoy so much today either wouldn't exist or at the very least, wouldn't be something which could be accessed by people outside of the largest metropolitan areas. It's one of those rare films that changed everything. Here's the reason it makes the list of Halloween horror flicks: we're still celebrating Halloween. Horror films still make big, big money. We still get dressed up in costumes, put out jack-o-lanterns, give out candy and all of that stuff. Given the difference in what we know now scientifically, and where we are religiously (almost all of these customs date back to pre-Christianity), why the hell are we still doing these things? Night Of The Living Dead, the film and it's history are a better explanation for that than any sociology textbook could ever give. It's the tie between those ancient fears and our modern society and what they have in common. A bonafide masterpiece.

3) From the horrifyingly unsettling to the horrifyingly absurd. Dead Alive is one of Peter Jackson's (you know, that guy who made that trilogy for nerds and geeks called The Lord Of The Rings) early works. A.K.A Brain Dead, depending on where you live, this is often referred to, as the line on the poster says, as "the goriest fright film of all time". But, this is in no way a serious film. Dead Alive has more in common with The Three Stooges than it does Night Of The Living Dead. All of the gore in the film is meant to make you slap your forehead and exclaim "oh WHY?!", not make you wretch. It's fun stuff, and Brain Dead may have been a better name for the film because it is essentially brain dead. The only intent here is to make you laugh at how gloriously insane and gory this film actually is. Jackson uses some semblance of a plot about a monkey from Skull Island (oh yeah, he did that remake about the huge monkey as well) which is dragged back to New Zealand as a zoo attraction. Well, apparently anyone it bites becomes a flesh eating zombie. Our hero, on a clandestine date, finds his smothering mother has been following him when she's bitten by the ugliest simian you've ever seen. From there, things go downhill, and it's funny as hell. It's really fun stuff from a man who later proved himself to be a master film makers, and who horror fans are happy has shown he sure has a love for gore.

2) This film laid the groundwork for so many that followed, it's hard to leave it out of  any list of horror films. But, considering the general tone of the film, it fits here on a list of Halloween films. It's fun, kind of scary, kind of weird, experimental, and do it yourself, imaginative film making at it's best. Evil Dead 2 is as much Three Stooges as it is horror film, it's the #1 reason Bruce Campbell has become a cult hero, and it was the very first suggestion that Sam Raimi could possibly be a master film maker.  I saw this for the first time when I was probably fourteen or fifteen, and my reaction to it was, "I didn't know you could do that in a movie!" and not just in the sense of the incredible gore (because there's lots of it, again comedic in tone), but in the way the story is told and in the cinematography as well. There is a kind of kinetic quality to this film that is extremely rare. It just seems to be moving along at an incredible pace, that even when the on screen action slows down, it's either in service to the comedy or the suspenseful aspects of the film. This is just a great, fun, incredibly inventive film. 

1) There's a new king in town. As of this year, Halloween has a new favorite film for the season. Will I always love John Carpenter's Halloween? Yes. Will it always have a special place in my heart because it was one of my very first and longest lasting "favorite movies"? Absolutely. But, the thing about Trick 'r Treat is that it's an anthology, with every film being related to something that is directly related to so many of our different Halloween traditions. It's a lot of fun, extremely well made and the love for both this style of film and for the holiday itself are palpable in viewing the film. Like Paranormal Activity, this film made a big splash at the film festivals and got picked up by a larger studio, and sat on the shelf for two years. This didn't get released to theaters specifically because the studio was afraid to release it opposite any of the Saw films, which have ruled the Halloween box office for some six years now, possibly a seventh if this year continues the trend. I can't think of another film which is so specifically about Halloween, and which tells it's stories with such skill. In short, it gets the top spot for the combination of great content related to Halloween, and really good film making. Trick 'r Treat is the kind of film that needs more support and more attention from the masses. If you're of the mind that horror has become too focused on torture, degradation and lost it's eye for the fanciful and fantastic, this is perfect for you.