Blogs

THE WOMAN IN BLACK: A REVIEW

The star of the film is young Daniel Radcliffe. He plays a man named Arthur Kipps. He heads to a village where fear has a tight grip. The owner of the house holds a dark past; he must figure out what it is quite fast. For if he is unable to uncover the truth of the House on the marsh, his ending to this story, will be quite harsh. Will the movie have a happy end? Not all movies have to end that way my friend.

             THE CHARACTERS

Daniel, Misha, and Hinds are memorable. The rest are forgettable. Now this is just wrong. Characters in movies like this should be strong. 

ARTHUR KIPPS - portrayed by Daniel Radcliffe. Kipps is a young lawyer and widower, someone who lost his wife. He has a four year old son named Joseph whom he loves dearly. He is solemn, and quiet. However, he seems to be more than willing to help try and save the townspeople's children from this deadly specter. Radcliffe does a wonderful job with this role of a young father and lawyer. However at times you can clearly see that Daniel is expressionless where there SHOULD be emotion. Lots of it. Even if you’re in shock something other than blank nothingness would work. You care about his character, and feel immensely sorry for his great loss. And you sort of understand that pain he is going through in trying to move on from the death of his wife.

JOSEPH KIPPS - portrayed by Misha Handley. You can tell right away that for a four year old, Arthur's son is quite sharp. Always noticing how sad his father is, when he wants him to be happy. He's a sweet boy, very likable character right from the start. Yet he is rather sick, and you can't help but feel a sense of foreboding when it comes to just how long the boy will live.

The Woman in Black Review

The Plot

SPOILERS

Daniel Radcliffe stars in this thriller/horror flick. He plays young Arthur Kipps, who lost his wife due to childbirth complications. He is in danger of losing his job and is sent to a village to sell "Eel Marsh House". While in the village, he sees a mysterious woman dressed in nothing but black, and learns that seeing this woman, spells nothing but disaster for the town's residents. It may also spell disaster for Arthur Kipps and his son if he can't uncover the truth about what happened to the Woman in Black. 

A celebration of the sometimes scary, sometimes silly, but never dull Freddy Krueger and the Elm Street teens.

{"video":"","width":"400","height":"300"}

Welcome back to Halloween and Horror Movies, an October 2011 daily blog for tributing horror movies with the holiday we most associate them with, despite most horror movies having nothing to do with Halloween.

Revenge of the undying franchises! No it's about that at all. As I've said, when I think of Halloween, I prefer supernatural stories like ghosts or creatures, as opposed to real world scares like slashers. This is because while the modern celebration of Halloween has changed to a general celebration of fear and indulgence, and that in a way it has always been so, I like to celebrate it as a classic holiday of death and the supernatural. Even without Halloween its not the horror subgenre I prefer, because I'm actually not that big a fan of gore, but that doesn't mean that I don't like any movies about slashers or crime.

But I can give Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street a pass on my strange specifics, because while they are slashers, they're also supernatural creatures. Modern classic creatures on or at least close to the level of others like Dracula and Frankenstein monster, which is why I find them so impressive and I think is the reason why they've stayed popular for so long, as opposed to why people tend to forget about Mike Myers from Halloween. That being said, Halloween is a much better movie then either Friday the 13th or Nightmare on elm street, but I can admit the mythology is more fun in the other 2 movies.

Again as I discussed in my Trick r Treat review (people see it! the movie not the review), Halloween doesn't really have anything to do with Halloween aside that it takes place on Halloween for no real plot reason, and its title used to make it a 'holiday' movie. But it is one of the best slashers (if not the best according to many) to me in that 1) there's surprisingly no blood and 2) the scares don't just come from kills or jump scares. The image of Mike Myers standing perfectly still in a bed sheet with glasses on pretending to be the babysitters boyfriend is without a doubt one of the creepiest moments ever, mainly because while the iconic Halloween music does truly make the movie, that particular moment is completely silent. The other great moment is when Jamie Lee Curtis tries to get into a locked house, and you see micheal myers coming toward her from far away. It's much more affective than a close clear shot because you can actually see how far away he is.

Hello users of ThatGuyWiththeGlasse.com! You may call me Horror Maniac. I review horror films both good and bad. From yesterday and today. So, sit back and enjoy my first review, of one of my personal favorite vampire movies! Yes, I am talking about Joel Schumacher's The Lost Boys from 1987. Now, I know in some cases saying this director's name is like blasphemy, but let me tell you this film is an absolute classic. First, I will give you the character list. Then, I will give you a synopsis with no ending spoilers because I understand that spoilers can destroy a viewer's expectations. So, no worries! Anyway, here is basic character list that I will be discussing:

"Lucy" played by Dianne Wiest
"Grandpa" played by Barnard Hughes
"Mike" played by Jason Patric
"Sammy" played by the late Corey Haim
"Star" played by Jami Gertz
"David" played by Kiefer Sutherland
"Edgar and Alan Frog" played by Corey Feldman and Jamison Newlander

Synopsis:

The film is centered around Lucy moving her two sons, Mike and Sammy, from Phoenix, AZ to Santa Carla, CA. Now, you would think that this would be a great move because it is by the beach, and it seems like paradise right? WRONG! There is a high number of unsolved missing person cases, and this town is said to be "The Murder Capital of the World." Does this bother Lucy? Of course not because she has to move to her dad's house. Now, grandpa is a weird individual. Watch the film for more of an idea, but let's just say that he really plays out the meaning of the term "old fart." Anyway, after Mike and Sammy get settled in, they explore the boardwalk carnival where Mike stalks a mysterious young woman named Star. She finally let's him take her out for a bite to eat, no pun intended, until David moves in with his crazy motorcycle gang. Mike ends up spending some time with them, and even ends drinking a mysterious wine. Sammy, after visiting the Frog brothers, starts reading horror comics because these brothers think that entire town is swarming with vampires. Sammy doesn't believe this at first, but he notices Mike acting strange. He later discovers that he is becoming a vampire, which implies that David, and his crew are all bloodsuckers. Lucy and Grandpa are completely clueless, which is neat. This is the main reason why I like this film. It shows how kids and teens deal with vampires, and the result is awesome and that is all I am going to say. Understand that my reviews are meant to motivate you to go watch it if you haven't seen it!

The rest of the film basically shows the kids trying to cope and deal with the vampire problem, and let me tell you it ends up having an awesome ending. You just have to see it! It really is a great film, and I would hate to give away the ending and the one character that would give away that ending. Anyway, just see it to believe it. If you like horror, blood, vampires with a lot of suspense and a touch of comedy, then you will enjoy this gem of a movie. If you have any other questions about this film, just let me know. Otherwise, I am Horror Maniac, and I love horror movies! Until next time! Keep an eye out for more reviews!

Welcome back to Halloween and Horror Movies, an October 2011 daily blog tributing horror movies with the holiday we most associate them with, despite most horror movies having nothing to do with Halloween.

Halloween is a celebration of the dead, not the freakishly possessed by the devil. Excorist has no relation to halloween whatsoever. However, it being the embodiment of supernatural/real world crossover and its SCARY AS HELL.
The Excorcist is like a documentary if the devil possessed someone, but not just anyone, an innocent young girl. Overall the intention is what bothers me about this story. Granted the devil is the devil, but I thought he had some kind of agenda. What did he hope to gain by possessing a young girl and just have her wither away? But demonic possession and excorism is like a ritual placebo to satify the gullible, its not like the devil had a reason to possess anyone who claimed to be possessed. In the end to movie is almost all shock, especially for its time, but the tension of 'how bad is it going to be now?', kind of like the Fly, with the music and the visuals made it unbeliably scary. These days I hear a lot that the movie doesn't hold up to modern aidences. I only agree to this in one respect, the head spinning around is a little gimmicky, and his obviously a dummy, but seeing a normal girl spin her head around, combined with the acts she does and the things she says are unnerving and shocking to the point of paralyzation. But the scariest part beyond anything else is when she suddenly appears on the stairs walking on her fingers. Because its so sudden, its so fast, and its just physically and logically WRONG, it terrifies me. The movie contains a lot of the elements in a typical ghost horror movie, foreign supernatural presence shown by cold and objects moving on their own, but when a girl is literally being thrown violently around by an invisible force, I think I would probably start by LEAVING THE HOUSE!

Welcome back to Halloween and Horror Movies, an October 2011 daily blog tributing horror movies with the holiday we most associate them with, despite most horror movies having nothing to do with Halloween.

Out of all of the iconic horror creatures surrounding Halloween, my favorite is ghosts. Even when executed in the simplest goofiest ways, there's something unsettling and terrifying about things moving on their own and objects appearing where they shouldn't. Also the mythology of ghosts is widely open to interpretation and varieties. And for anyone points out that the entity in Paranormal Activity is a demon rather than a ghost, demons technically count of spirits. Obviously with Halloween being the celebration of the dead and supernatural, the top appropriate creatures to be associated with Halloween would be vampires,

First of all, I'm not a fan mockumentary 'found footage' films from a expectational standpoint. While it allows for a different kind of storytelling, most films in this style mostly are just showing us terrible cinematography and dialogue. Granted Blaire witch project scared me, and conceptually I liked Cloverfield, but mostly Im not of fan of these kinds of movies. But Paranormal activity is great and terrifying because it is a perfect execution of subtle scares. All Paranormal activity is is weird noises and small things moving on their own, and its creepy as hell, because that's what happens in every house, weird noises send us across the room when we're home alone. But that the strength of this film, Home Alone. Paranormal activity is horrifying when your watching it at home because your right in the area of focus terror. Watching it in the theater however, borders on the annoying, because while the original trailers show a bunch of people screaming, by the time I saw it was starting to get the backlash and was replaced by a bunch of douchebags screaming "This isn't scary!" I'll admit the main characters aren't the most likable or smart people, and it does take its time, but its scary and original and certainly something fresh in horror that doesn't have to do with gore, I'm a fan all the way.

Welcome back to Halloween and Horror Movies, a daily blog for tributing horror movies with the holiday we most associate them with, despite most horror movies having nothing to do with Halloween.

Frankenstein is again part of the famous run of classic horror movies in the early 1930s, soon after the creation of talking pictures. As I've said what I usually find creepy in the old movies is the silence, but the old movies by today standards while still good movies aren't that scary. Specifically I should say shocking, because plenty of old movies have unsettling moments. What's scary and remains scary in Frankenstein is the concept of bringing dead things to life. Not just bringing back something that's dead, bringing something to life that's been sewn together from an assortment of different body parts. It feels so unnatural and immoral. Frankenstein's monster on the other hand, to me anyway, is not that frightening. In fact he completely pitiable. While through his unknown strength and ignorance he cause awful things to happen, its because he is literally a giant child, trying to figure out this world and no one will help him because he looks so monstrous. Frankenstein's monster is easily one of the classic tragic figures. So this story is more tragedy than horror with its intended shock value weakened with time.

Welcome back to Halloween and Horror Movies, a daily blog for tributing horror movies with the holiday we most associate them with, despite most horror movies having nothing to do with Halloween.

Granted there's no connection to Halloween in this film, but it is part of the run of 'classic horror films' done in the early 20th century, and done by Tod Browning who did Dracula. Out of all of them, Freaks is the most controversial of its time, and while a cult classic, is one of the lesser known pure gems of early cinema. However it is one of those films that was frightening and upsetting for its time, now its not really scary at all, but it is an AMAZING film. Probably my favorite of the early 'horror' movies.

Freaks is about a group of, for lack of a politically correct term, freaks as part of the circus. The story involves a midget falling in love with a full grown women and her manipulating him to marry her so she can kill him for his money. The controversy and only real element of horror in the film comes from the amount of physically deformed people shown in the film. It has armless people, legless people, armless and legless people, conjoined twins, thin men, pinheads, and midgets. I being used to watch modern films, couldn't help thinking in some cases, "that must be a trick…" No, none of it. All real, all with real acts. There's a pair of Siamese twins that just look like their ducted taped at the hip, but no, they are the famous conjoined twins Daisy and Violet Hilton. There's also Prince Randian, a black man without arms or legs and yet could still roll and light a cigarette, which he does in the movie. But the star of the film is Harry Earles, who was also a member of the Lolipop Guild in Wizard of Oz (blue shirt), and his sister Daisy playing his fiance. The amazing thing about the film, though this may be from a modern perspective, is how the film shows the freaks as such pleasant likable even relatable people, and the real monsters being the tactless 'normal' people. Unfortunately while the actors playing the freaks were apparently well taken care of and even indulged, not many look fondly on the film or their time on it. 

Because of the shock impact of the film at the time, the portrayal of physically deformed people was all anyone could talk about, and the film was discontinued but resurfaced by the arthouse crowd in the 60s. However it barely is considered shock by todays, the film can really be appreciated now as a great story. The film almost works better as a drama than a horror movie, but the ending really is soaked in old horror movie iconography. Most people might recognize the famous line issued from this movie "ONE OF US. ONE OF US." Freaks is a masterpiece that mainstream audiences have never seen.

It is thought that the earliest roots of Halloween can be traced to Celtic Pagan rituals. While with no fixed date, near the end of the year when the days get shorter, there was a period of time, not sure if it was only one day, where the border between the world of living and the world of the dead is the thinest, thin enough for spirits to cross over. So people would bring offerings to keep the spirits from causing trouble, the first instance of "trick or treating", and yes there were sacrifices, but usually animals. There would also be fortune telling with the remain of the animals, specifically predicting who would die. The reading of the prophecies of death can be thought as the origins of ghost stories.

So what movie can be thought as a representation of this element of Halloween, well not perfectly, but I can only think of one.

THE WICKER MAN

Hello everyone, Cecil here. I've had this show for a while on my site and on various forums. I figured I would also share here. Hope you enjoy.

Horror films have a tendency to go a little crazy sometimes in an attempt to top themselves.  Here are 12 clear cases of that happening...

So I’m happy to say, it’s been over a year since the first “Horror Banana-nanza”, and somehow, I’m still chalk full of horror movies that need reviewed. One that I’ve meant to get to for going on three months is a tepid little piece of garbage, 1981‘s “The Prowler.”

I guess I shouldn’t be so harsh. It was directed by Joseph Zito, the man responsible for Corey Feldman’s “Friday the 13^th IV: The Final Chapter.” Also involved in this movie is the wunderkind himself, Tom Savini, with some of his best work. The effects are amazing. The story on the other hand, not so much.

The movie opens up in 1945, right after the war. A vet comes home to find his former girlfriend messing around with another guy, so he kills them both. And then, flash forward to the future. Some guy, dressed in full army garb, is killing more people. Why? Same reason that every horror icon kills people. Misplaced revenge.

There are some completely unforgettable lines. For instance, when Pam, the main character, tells her boyfriend that she’s going to go inside an apartment by herself to check it out, his response is, “That doesn’t seem like a good idea.” No shit, Sherlock.

The kills are pretty gruesome. A girl gets pitch forked in the shower, and left there until the end of the movie. Another girl is killed in a pool in a brutal sequence. But there are things that don’t make sense, such as when the camera follows a couple down into a basement as they do what most teenagers do in horror flicks. The thing is, they don’t die. In fact, there’s no mention of them at all after following them down.

The killer, well, I suppose you could call it a surprise, but it doesn’t take a genius to pick him out. All in all, this is one of the better slashers, and it came near the beginning of the genre’s explosion. The production values are through the roof. I suggest it though only if you like goofy slasher stuff. And of course, you know I do.