It’s staggering how many of Stephen King’s stories have been adapted for the screen. There have been some great ones and some not so great ones. Christine probably sits somewhere in the middle. I mean there’s only so much you can do with a movie about a killer car. So considering the premise, Christine succeeds in providing plenty of chills and spills. Of course, it doesn’t hurt when you have horror auteur John Carpenter at the helm.

Set in the late 70s, Christine is the story of Arnie Cunningham (Keith Gordon) a nerdy young man with only one close friend from childhood, a jock named Dennis (John Stockwell). Arnie is tormented at school and lives a demeaning existence until his discovery of an old red-white Fury car that he buys for practically nothing. The car is beat-up beyond all belief, but Arnie works hard to fix it until it’s brand spanking new. He receives help from a crusty old man played by Robert Prosky who lets Arnie work on the car and store it in his garage. As the car goes through a transformation, so does Arnie becoming a rebellious motorhead. Eventually, the car takes control and starts to “take people for a ride”. If you know what I mean… I mean they get killed.

Christine does a fine job of building up these characters and making them likable. Keith Gordon and John Stockwell are both characters we get behind early on and care about. There’s nothing particularly cliched about the story or its progression. Of course, John Carpenter’s direction and music give the film an atmospheric touch. I was surprised and still am by how competent of an adaptation this is.

Christine was a modest success and received fine to mixed reviews upon it’s release. Honestly, I think it’s a lot better than most give it credit. John Carpenter actually made a car scary, that’s something. Christine may not be one of the more notable King-adaptation-titles, but it’s frightful fun and does the source material justice.

John Carpenter contemplates whether or not this movie needs Kurt Russell.

Today, we head back to camp with the infamous cult favorite Sleepaway Camp. A seemingly typical slasher flick on the surface, Sleepaway Camp features one of the most infamous twists in horror movie history. For years this ending has terrified teenagers, but I have a confession to make. I hate the ending to this film. Now let me explain why.

Continue reading →

I’m a big Psycho fan. I might even go as far as saying “I am psycho for Psycho“. So I couldn’t stand the thought of Norman Bates being reduced to anything less in a cash-grabbing sequel. Of course as time goes, curiosity grows. So about a year ago I sat down and watched Psycho II starring; Anthony Perkins, Vera Miles, Robert Loggia, and Meg Tilly. My thoughts? Not that good but not nearly as bad as I expected. Anthony Perkins is still mesmerizing in the role of Norman Bates and the story has some intriguing twists and turns. Unfortunately, the execution has nowhere near the same suspenseful flair that the original had.

Psycho II picks up 22 years after the events of the first film. Norman has been released from a mental institution under the suggestion of his Doctor (Robert Loggia) and has been given a job at a diner near the Bates Motel. Lila Loomis (Vera Miles) comes to Norman’s hearing to protest his release but is turned away and Norman moves back into the Bates Motel. Back at the motel Norman finds it is now run by a sleazy manager named Warren Toomey (Dennis Franz), but fights his urges to kill and continues his new life. He meets a handful of colorful characters at his new job including the kind and elderly Mrs. Emma Spool (Claudia Bryar) and a young waitress named Mary (Meg Tilly) whom Norman grows close to. Of course Norman continues to battle his inner demons and people start dying. But is this because of Norman? Or is this there another murderer?

Spoilers Ahead
When it comes to the climax of the film, Psycho II takes some liberties with the series that I’m not a fan of. The big twist at the end being that Mrs. Spool (the old lady at the diner) is actually Norman’s mother. She explains that Mrs. Bates was her sister that raised Norman because she herself (that’s Mrs. Spool) was institutionalized. Once Norman was released she made sure that he would have a job, a home, and that no one would ever hurt him again. So she started murdering everyone who was making Norman’s new life difficult. But Norman doesn’t take kindly to the news and kills Mrs. Spool, once again becoming a “Psycho” and setting the series up for another sequel.

I respect that writer Tom Holland (who would later go on to write/direct the great film Fright Night) wanted to tell a small, character-driven story, but I’m not a fan of his big twist. Especially when you consider the fact that author Robert Bloch actually wrote a sequel to Psycho in 1982. That story was about Norman Bates discovering there was a movie being made about him, so he goes on a killing spree on his way to Hollywood. It’s hard to say if that would have been any better, but I think it would have been a far more interesting jumping off point. Still, I feel a lot of love from the makers of Psycho II. In fact, director Richard Franklin had contacted Hitchcock years before while he was attending USC and actually became friends with the esteemed filmmaker. I’m sure he wanted to respect the original, there was just nowhere for the story to go. I’m not sure if anyone could have made a sequel to Psycho that could have felt justified. It’s a classic film that already explored the full potential of the character. Yet they still made two more and a remake. Sometimes I wonder who the real psychos are.

Even in his 50s, no one could rock a turtleneck better than Anthony Perkins.

I know what you’re thinking, “This movie has to be terrible!” And maybe you’re right. But in all honesty… I liked this movie. Sounds crazy even to hear myself say it but it’s true. Slumber Party Massacre doesn’t aspire to be anything more than mindless entertainment and on that level it succeeds. The kills, combined with an independent retro charm made this movie a lot of fun. Those expecting a bunch of babes bouncing around in skimpy lingerie will be slightly disappointed. This movie is not a sexploitation film (though there is a shower scene) and I wouldn’t say it’s demeaning to women. As a matter of fact, the writer and director were both women. While the antagonist is a man with a big power drill. Hmm, power drill… A phallic shaped object. Could Slumber Party Massacre be the first feminist slasher flick?

The setup: Eighteen-year-old Trish’s parents are going out of town so she decides to throw a slumber party. She invites her friends; Kim, Jackie, Diane and the new introverted girl Valerie who just doesn’t fit in with the group (Oh man, feelings and stuff.) Meanwhile, mass murderer Russ Thorn has escaped from prison and goes on a killing spree with a power drill. Why? Cause it’s awesome. Eventually the stories converge and all hell breaks loose in this off-the-wall, late-night massacre.

The film was produced by Roger Corman’s New World Pictures and written by feminist author Rita Mae Brown. Intended by Brown as a satire on the slasher genre, the studio preferred to play it as a serious story. Kind of disappointing when you consider they changed the vision of someone who actually had an original idea. Luckily, the film still retained some of the humor from Brown’s script and resulted in a fun flick nonetheless. Director Amy Holden also got her big break on this film (if you can consider Slumber Party Massacre a big break) going on to some success co-writing the movie Beethoven, an equally if not more terrifying film. The acting here is wishy-washy, but still manages to float by. In a way it’s the almost amateurish quality that makes this film so enjoyable.

I get the vibe that Slumber Party Massacre probably featured a lot of first-timers in different capacities. When working for Roger Corman it wasn’t uncommon for talented newcomers to be given an integral role on a film even with little experience. That was one of the great qualities of Corman. If someone showed any kind of promise he gave them a shot. Thus Slumber Party Massacre had the fresh feel of youth, rather than something that was hashed out by indifferent fogeys trying to make a quick buck. What this film lacks in content it makes up for in style and exuberance. Slumber Party Massacre has the classic feel of a late night drive-in movie. Not that I’d know anything about that. The only drive-in movies I’ve ever seen are Small Soldiers and The Truman Show. Both were very scary.

Can you find the dead body in this picture?

This next title resonated with me because “The Entity” is what I call my cat. Aside from that, I didn’t know much about The Entity going in. I’d seen it featured in horror magazines, I’d seen horror fan Martin Scorsese speak positively about the film as well, but regarding premise or what kind of film it was, I was in the dark. Now I know The Entity is a paranormal thriller based on the real-life experiences of a crazy woman in the ’70s. I say crazy because ghosts aren’t real, so you can’t really say any movie about ghosts is “Based on a true story”. The paranormal activity in The Entity involves shaking rooms, droning guitar sounds, blue lightning, and ghost rape. I know that sounds like a wild ride, but it isn’t. This is like the Hall of Presidents of horror movies.

Barbara Hershey stars as Carla Moran, a single mother with three children (one of which seems way too old to be her son) who one night is raped by an unseen force. She tries to forget the event but is then visited, again and again, driving her near the brink of insanity. She seeks help from a well-bearded psychiatrist Dr. Sneiderman (Ron Silver), which is possibly the most Jewish name I’ve ever heard and attempts to overcome these spirits by any means possible. It sounds basic enough, but it’s not half as flashy as you would expect. Director Sidney J. Furie even goes as far as to say the film is not horror, rather a “supernatural suspense thriller”. I say that’s bullshit. The Entity is a horror movie, it’s just a horror movie where nothing happens.

Most of this film is either Barbara Hershey screaming and being attacked by invisible ghosts, Barbara Hersey being consoled, or Ron Silver arguing with stuffy shirted scientists. Everything connecting those scenes is dead space. I understand that they’re trying to tell a “believable” story but film is a visual medium. Give me something to look at, anything! Look at Paranormal Activity. It goes for a sense of realism but it’s still entertaining. That’s because it’s a finely tuned balance of unique visuals and good pacing. This movie is two hours of practically nothing. The only real positives here are Hershey’s performance and Ron Silver’s beard. Certainly not terrible, just tiresome.

This picture has like visual metaphors or something.