100 Days of Horror Day Thirty-Nine - "Fright Night!"

I woke up in a very odd mood this morning, folks. Usually, I am in a shitty mood when I wake up - until the latte slides down the gullet, that is. But today I woke up somewhat hyper and KIND OF in a good mood. Odd for me. I hate to wake up in a good mood frankly because that means the day can't possibly get any better; in fact, it's more than likely gonna go downhill.

So I am trying to enjoy it while I can.

Anyway, today's selection is a fun, fun, fun movie - another one from the 80s and another classic from that era - "Fright Night!" I'm going to enjoy talking about this movie below, so hop on over to The Skinny and I hope everyone can enjoy this toothy flick themselves!

Fright Night (1985): Directed by Tom Holland. Starring William Ragsdale, Roddy McDowell, Chris Sarandon, Amanda Bearse and Stephen Geoffries.

The Skinny: This original take on the vampire myth has Chris Sarandon as Jerry Dandridge, a well-to-do vamp taking up residence in suburbia. But as the hookers start to pile up dead, neighbor Charlie starts to sniff around, enlisting the help of Peter Vincent - a washed up horror movie host - and his best friend, the demented "Evil" Ed.

What's Good: What a great movie! Seriously, Chris Sarandon is the perfect blend of charm and menace (like any good vamp should have), William Ragsdale is boyish charm personified, and Stephen Geoffries (who went on to become ... wait for it ... a gay porn star) is absolutely hilarious. There are so many ideas out there for vampire films, and the idea of one trying to "blend in" is a great one - except in this one, the bloodsucker can't help but revert to form and start in with the killing. And Roddy McDowell, always a good time, does his best nebbish ever since he donned the monkey makeup as Cornelius in "Planet of the Apes." Frankly, the casting is what makes this film and there isn't one misstep in the group. The script is also tightly wound and director Tom Holland keeps the action up front and never over the top. It's vampish delight from start to finish.

What's Bad: As with most 80s-era movies, the music leaves something to be desired. Not the score, but the "background" music in a few scenes is just ridiculous 1985-era overproduced, L.A. synthetic nonsense. But this is well before Hollywood realized that you could make a killing and a major impression with a well-stocked soundtrack. But the rest of the film is a winner - maybe not so much horrifying but definitely well-acted, well-directed and with some great makeup effects.

Why We Like It: This was one of those movies I watched over and over again as a teen with my own vamp obsession. I have warm fuzzy memories of this movie from the Cinemax days and when I wound up buying it on DVD a few years ago I was so pleased that it held up - both as a piece of my past and as a quality vampire flick that a lot of people just don't know about. That is, until the stupid fucking remake (in 3D, I might add) comes out next year. I want to say "not even interested," but I just read that Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Red Mist from "Kick-Ass" will be playing "Evil" Ed, so that gives me some kind of hope.

Memorable Stuff: There is a great use of practical effects when Ed - now a vampire - is staked by Vincent while in wolf form and slowly returns to a human state to finally die. It is not only disturbing, it is emotionally agonizing, because you can truly see the fear and regret and horror in his eyes as he slowly bleeds to death, his hand reaching out to Vincent for help. It's an unforgettable tableau.

100 Days of Horror Day Thirty-Eight - "Shadow of the Vampire!"

SATAN, BABY! SATAN!

Yeah, another late 'un this Monday folkies, and that just couldn't be helped. I was busy writing dumb stories about stupid things that no asshole is ever gonna read. AND I GET PAID TO DO IT! So I ain't really complainin'.

So I watched "Kick-Ass" TWICE yesterday. I know this is a horror movie blog but you should still see this flick. It is just undescribably deliciously good. As far as superhero/comic book adaptations go, this may be my all time favorite so far (except for "The Crow," which itself walks the line between horror movie and comic book adaptation).

And on to today's flick, another film that walks a line - this time between horror movie and period drama. But "Shadow of the Vampire" is disturbing, nonetheless. Check The Skinny-ism below, people-isms!

Shadow of the Vampire (2000): Directed by Elias Merhige. Starring John Malkovitch, Willem Dafoe, Cary Elwes, Eddie Izzard, Catherine McCormack, Udo Kier and John Aden Gillet.

The Skinny: More of a meditation on making a horror film than a horror film itself, "Shadow of the Vampire" follows ambitious 1920's German film director F. W. Murnow as he travels to Slovakia to film his masterpiece, "Nosferatu." The key to his film, however, is the performance of the eponymous vampire by Max Schreck, who is either a real vampire or is taking this acting shit way too seriously. Based on the filming of the original "Nosferatu," released in 1922.

What's Good: Once again, we have a film in our midst with an Oscar nod - for the mind-shattering performance of Wilem Defoe as Max Schreck/Nosferatu. First appearing as Schreck "in character" as Nosferatu and never letting the (alleged) ruse drop, Defoe's Schreck teeters between blood-sucking fiend and an asshole who won't relax when the camera is off. And when the director slips in the occasional frame from the original "Nosferatu," I dare you to tell me the difference between the original Schreck and Defoe. Go on, I dare you! Can't do it, can you? I thought not. This is really a serious and ambitious film that creates both a unique vampire story and a story about two men who will go to any lengths to achieve their goals - Murnow and Schreck. The rest of the cast is picture perfect, including Cary "Farmboy" Elwes and the always cool Udo Kier. And check Eddie Izzard out, acting his comic ass off! It's an enjoyable film that has some truly disconcerting moments in it, lensed in both moody sepia-tinged color and in grainy black and white for the "movie within a movie" scenes.

What's Bad: I have no complaints about this film whatsoever. It's a modern classic and everyone should check it out, if only to howl as Defoe chews the scenery to pieces with his big fake vampire choppers. TA TA TOOTHIO!

Why We Like it: Because it's excellent: the cinematography, the eerie score, the razor-sharp performances - it's absolutely amazing. Truth be told, though - it's Defoe's performance that keeps me coming back every time. I hush the room whenever he's onscreen so I don't miss a single gem of dialogue (plus, in true horror movie fashion, he's used very sparingly until the very end). And as to whether or not he actually is a vampire ... I leave that up to you, gentle viewers. Because the film enters some kind of opium-induced fever dream in its final reel and fantasy and reality cease to be separate entities. Have an absinthe and some laudanum and enjoy!

Memorable Stuff: There are many great scenes in this film and scads of awesome dialogue that I wish I could just rattle off. But the best part is where the producer is grilling Schreck on his "vampirism," and the actor - after telling him he cannot remember becoming one of the undead - snatches a bat out of the air and drinks its blood. The stunning look of horror on the producer's face, and his strained response ("the German theatre NEEDS people like you, Schreck!") is worth the cost of 50 tickets.

100 Days of Horror Day Thirty-Seven - "The Devil's Rejects!"

Late late late today, rabbit, but with good excuse! I have been sitting here all morning catching up on movies I have yet to see, courtesy of a 1 terabyte hard drive given to me as a present by one of my best friends, Brian "Barney" Barr. He hooked this brother up by stocking the damn thing with over 600 movies, old and new. So since 6 this morning I have watched "Borat," "Public Enemies" and "Kick-Ass." All procured by purely legal means, of this I am certain.

That and I had a pot of Maxwell House this morning and that shit has me jacked up, there's so damn much caffeine in that crap!

So before I delve into today's selection, let me just say this: I have now come to the conclusion that Johnny Depp is the finest actor of his generation. He is amazing.

And with that, I bring you to Day Thirty-Seven's selection, the new modern cult classic - Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects." One of the best in 20 years or more. I tell you all about it below, yes. The Skinny, it's called. Check it.

The Devil's Rejects (2006): Directed by Rob Zombie. Starring Sid Haig, Sherri Moon Zombie, John Forsythe, Bill Mosley, Leslie Easterbrook and Ken Foree.

The Skinny: This follow-up to 2003's "House of 1,000 Corpses" has the Firefly Clan - Otis, Baby and that lovable clown Cap't. Spaulding - on the run after the cops invade their home and take Mother Firefly captive. As they decide on their next move, they leave chaos and violence in their path, all the while dogged by the brother of the sheriff they executed in the first film.

What's Good: In all honesty, the bizarre violence aside, this is not really a horror movie. "Corpses" was Zombie's take on slashers like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and Band of Freaks movies like "Last House on the Left." But "Rejects" plays more like Terrence Mallick's "Badlands" or Nick Cassavettes' "Straw Dogs" than it does a camp ride like "Corpses." But that's okay, because Zombie packs the script with quotable one liners and long speeches that delve deeply into the subconscious of the three killers. We also see tantalizing clips of the chemistry between the members of this bizarre family as they get to interact during car rides ("tutti fucking fruity!"). And while many of the other ancillary are only there to die as violent foils at the hands of our psychos, it's still a fun and - most times - disturbing ride. Peppered with character actors both big and small, "Rejects" is never boring and only partially laborious.

What's Bad: It gets a little tedious at time, watching these crazies torture over and over again with utter impunity - even if they do get their comeuppance (of sorts) in the end. For that very reason, a move like this has a very slim chance of appealing to a mass audience. Yet it made quite a bit of money, so it must have appealed to someone.

Why We Like It: What can I say, I'm sick. I love Capt. Spaulding, I love Otis, I love Baby ... damn it I love the whole sick movie from start to end. Who ever said I was wrapped tight?

Memorable Stuff: There's a lot of cool and very dark stuff in this film, but the bottom line most memorable thing is the end. I won't give it away for those who haven't seen it, but it has all the potential to bring a tear to even the most jaded of eyes.

100 Days of Horror Day Thirty-Six - "Scanners!"

WILDER, WILDER! FASTER, FASTER! PSYCHO SLUTS MEET PARTY CRASHERS!

Greetings one and all on this fine late-August Saturday morning. This is the kind of day where you throw open the shutters (do people really do that?), lean out the window, take in a deep breath of fresh country air, then go back to bed until payday.

Unfortunately that reality won't wash, so here I am sipping cheap ass coffee and sharing my bottomless well of movie insight with you wonderful folks!

Hard as it is to get excited about being alive in general, I am actually quite excited about tonight's flick - 1981's "Scanners!" Check The Skinny and I hope you get to enjoy this campy classic yourselves.

Scanners (1981): Directed by David Cronenberg. Starring Stephen Lack, Michael Ironsides and Patrick MgGoohan.

The Skinny: One of Cronenberg's earliest entries into his Body Horror series, "Scanners" stars Stephen Lack as a homeless man imbued with powerful psychic energies. As a shady corporation seeks to gather the so-called "Scanners" for their ranks, a renegade scanner is killing off agents and people one by one.

What's Good: Well, any 80s era film with Michael Ironside in it is quickly shifted to the top of the retro pile. The man is a badass, whether it's as Ham in "V: The Final Battle" or Jester in "Top Gun" or as assassin Richter in "Total Recall." But more on the Man Himself later. "Scanners" is definitely one of those films that walks a very thin line between crap and gold, with a decent lean in the former's direction. While Cronenberg went on to many more fantastic movies ("Eastern Promises," anyone?), "Scanners" was most definitely him working out what works and what doesn't onscreen. And there are many parts in he movie that DO work - Cronenberg knows how to build suspense and elevate pulp into drama. Shit, I better move on to ...

What's Bad: When the film doesn't work, it sucks out loud. Bad lighting, bad acting, bad dialogue ... but don't get me wrong, it's a decent idea and a movie you should see once, if only for one of its opening sequences. The problem is, Cronenberg doesn't seem to know what the movie wants to be. Is it sci-fi, horror, a mystery or some bastardized version of all three? Well, that's exactly what it is, and for that reason it appears at times that Conenberg's finger is not exactly on the pulse of this movie's plot. Just let yourself succumb to it once and you'll find yourself laughing at inappropriate times and staring slack-jawed at other times. And if you don't pay attention to the ending (and the many, many bad sequels - none of which Cronenberg had anything to do with), then you might actually enjoy this little slice of exploitive 80s celluloid.

Why We Like It: I believe I stated that in the open salvo - Michael "Bad Assery Abounds" Ironside. I love his big bald head, his tight jawed way of speaking, and his crazy eyes and expressions that somehow summon early Jack Nicholson to mind. In fact, as a kid I used to get him and Jack all confused. Now I know better - one is a fantastic actor who cannot be imitated or duplicated. The other is Jack. Also, there are some great special effects, including the previously mentioned one that I will discuss in greater detail with ...

Memorable Stuff: A DUDE'S HEAD GETS BLOWN THE FUCK OFF HIS GODDAMN HEAD! This scene has been discussed/parodied in every aspect of American pop culture, from SNL to "South Park" to "Wayne's World," and with good reason. It's shocking, sudden and graphic - I ain't even sure the MPAA would allow a scene like this in a modern movie. The effect was achieved by filling a latex head with cow livers and then blowing it to bits from behind with a shotgun and it is chillingly realistic. I mean, of you slow it down you can see bits of brain and eyeballs and flaps of skin flying everywhere - a bit like the R. Budd Dwyer suicide but with fewer panicking newsmen.

100 Days of Horror Day Thirty-Five - "Christine!"

You know, if it isn't one fucking thing, it's another.

Here's what I want to do in life: make my loved ones happy, and enjoy myself in the process. And - granted, I've caused some problems and I am dealing with those problems as we speak - it always seems that once things start to MAYBE feel like they MIGHT be getting SLIGHTLY SOMEWHAT BETTER in one area, something pops up in another. Like trying to kill off a cancer that just keeps coming back and somehow manages to stay one step ahead of the doctor.

It makes day-to-day living extremely difficult when your life is in constant turmoil, to say the least. It surely makes stupid things like this blog seem utterly unimportant and inconsequential.

But yet here I am doing it.

Today's movie is another of my favorites. And like so many other directors from the 80s, for a while there John Carpenter was at the top of his game. After "Halloween," he had other smash successes with "The Fog," "The Thing," and this adaptation of the Stephen King novel of the same name. Check out The Skinny below and thanks again. Tomorrow it's another classic Cronenberg movie - 1982's "Scanners!"

One more note: don't take people for granted. Ever.

Christine (1983): Directed by John Carpenter. Starring Keith David, John Stockwell, Alexandra Paul and Harry Dean Stanton.

The Skinny: Based on Stephen King's novel about a haunted 1957 Plymouth Fury, "Christine" stars Keith Gordon as geeky Artie, who falls in love with a rusted hulk of a car. As the car is slowly restored to its former glory, however, his friends and family start to believe that his obsession with "Christine" is an unnatural one. Those fears are confirmed when his enemies start to wind up dead in auto-related accidents.

What's Good: This is actually the first Stephen King novel I ever read, so I was eager for the film when it came out. And other than a few pacing problems and of course a condensed version of the complete story, this is a reasonably faithful adaptation. The two best parts of the film are Keith Gordon, who is perfect as the protagonist Artie. As he goes from Uber Geek to Mr. Cool through his association with the car, Gordon carries the transformation in subtle ways - in his posture, the roll of his eyes, the way his jaw sets in anger. And the second part for me is the way the car transforms and moves from damaged to undamaged. Today, it would be done with CGI and would look like the fucking "Transformers" when it was all said and done. But being made in the early 80s means real practical special effects, and Carpenter pulls it off perfectly with tight close-ups and reverse film techniques. In fact, I've heard tell of a new version directed by Davis Slade ("30 Days of Night," "Twilight: Eclipse") being produced by Platinum Dunes - Michael Bay's production house responsible for the recent spate of horrible remakes of classic horror films. In 3-D. Fuck me running.

What's Bad: It is a very stripped-down version of the novel that removes the idea of the car's former owner being evil and instead focuses on the car itself being the embodiment of evil. This is told in an opening scene that almost feels tacked on after the fact where an auto worker is killed by the brand new car as it rolls off the assembly line. It's a fine idea, but one that's been done several times already - in everything from B-Movies to episodes of "The Twilight Zone." It also doesn't account for Artie's personality change - in the book, LeBay - the former deceased owner - starts to possess Artie. In the film, he just gets more aggressive and pissy for no real reason other than maybe he feels really good about himself now that his car kills people for him. And like I said, there are a few pacing issues in the middle of the movie, and a few plot holes if you think too hard about it. But for the most part, it's a quality scare.

Why We Like It: It's probably my second favorite Carpenter film after "The Thing." And like I said, it holds a special place in my heart because it started my love affair with King and that has lasted over 25 years.

Memorable Stuff: My favorite scene is the first time the car shows Artie that it can regenerate. He stares into the headlights with an almost sensual look in his eyes as fenders pop out, windshields and mirrors reform and the missing hood is miraculously restored. It's a good use of camera and effects and continues Gordon's excellent performance.

100 Days of Horror Day Thirty-Four - "Scars of Dracula!"

SEE IT! HEAR IT! AND ACTUALLY FEEL IT! WAITING TO RIP YOUR FLESH APART! WARNING! THE ACTION IS RAW!

So, like I said about yesterday's flick, "The Serpent and the Rainbow," being boring in the final third? Yeah, well that's where I fell asleep yesterday, too - right when the "action" starts. But I feel I didn't miss much except some shitty special effects and decidedly un-scary scenes.

I don't feel I need to backtrack and watch it again, because I have seen it a dozen or more times - hell, I was tossing lines of dialogue back at the television throughout the whole damn thing ("It is a terrible thing, the first time you cannot tell good from bad. Then, it is this very thing that sets you free"). Hey that's good, I'm putting that up as a status update!

Anyway, today's film is a great classic Hammer Films hoot - 1970's "Scars of Dracula," with Christopher Lee (the finest actor to don the cloak EVER, except for Bela Lugosi) once again as the Count!

Read "The Skinny" below, bitches, and rave on with it! RAVE ON WITH IT! SATAN'S CHEERLEADERS! KNIVES AND POMPOMS! KNIVES AND POMPOMS!

Scars of Dracula (1970): Directed by Roy Ward Baker. Starring Christopher Lee, Jenny Hanley, Patrick Troughton, Michael Ripper and Dennis Waterman.

The Skinny: One of the eight (actually seven, but that's a long story) Hammer films to feature Christopher Lee, this was actually supposed to be a franchise reboot on the heels of "Taste the Blood of Dracula," one of my all-time favorites. After an unrelated resurrection scene, Dracula returns once again to terrorize the villagers of the nearby town, slaughtering every woman and child and wreaking havoc against his lifelong mortal enemy - the church!

What's Good: As I have said previously, I enjoy just about all of the Hammer House of Horror films, for a variety of reasons. One, they reuse actors that I absolutely love, like Lee, Peter Cushing (that's Grand Mof Tarkin, for you "Star Wars" adherents), Ralph Bates, Roy Kinnear and plenty of others. And two, they're just so BRITISH I love them. The use of garish reds for the blood, the Stentorian voices, the dramatic nostril flares - yes, these movies have it all. This film actually gives Lee the most to do and say in the role since the original Hammer "Dracula" reboot in 1958. There's just something comforting and homey to me in these films and I think it may be because when I was a young teen I would spend the night at my grandmother's apartment to keep her company on Saturday night. And once she went to bed, I would of course watch SNL, but here in the Philly market, a local horror movie show came on right after, called "Saturday Night Dead," starring Stella, the Maneater from Manayunk. And these Hammer films played endlessly on that show - rarely was there a quality film, they were all B-Movies from a bygone era. But I loved them all, I truly did.

What's Bad: Well, now that's a loaded question. Yes, it's cheesy, it's overacted, it has crappy if any special effects ... but again, that's what makes it good. I can't sit here and disparage about these films on an individual basis. I enjoy them too much for that.

Why We Like It: We loves it, Precious, yes. For all the reasons above and more. Lee is just fan-fucking-tastic as Dracula. He's suave and charming but when it's time to bare his fangs, Lee is menace and violence embodied. His eyes bug out of his head, literally, and I get chills every single time.

Memorable Stuff: When the villagers find their women and children dead in the church while they were out trying to burn Drac's house down is an absolute chill. It's well staged and shows us just enough to make us sick to our stomachs at the very thought. And that, ladies and germs, it what this shit is all about.

100 Days of Horror Day Thirty-Three - "The Serpent and the Rainbow!"

Time for more morbid musings from your Morose Host with the Ghostly Most!

And there you have it ...

Today - for those of you playing along at home - I must sadly substitute the scheduled feature, the Hammer horror classic "The Blood on Satan's Claw" with something else. Because although I know at one time I had "Blood" in digital format, it seems to have disappeared. If I locate it, I will put it back on the list further down the line (by replacing one of the more obscure films like "Bucket of Blood") because this is a GREAT film and one I was looking forward to watching.

So in its stead, we shall view the 1988 Wes Craven misstep, "The Serpent and the Rainbow." I say misstep because up until this point, Craven was horror's new master who could do no wrong. Then he did wrong. Check The Skinny below and read on, ravers!

Tomorrow's film is another Hammer horror classic starring Christopher Lee as The Count in "Scars of Dracula!" I CAN'T WAIT!

The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988): Directed by Wes Craven. Starring Bill Pullman, Paul Winfield, Cathy Tyson.

The Skinny: Based on ethnobotanist Wade Davis' book of the same name, Bill Pullman stars as a scientist sent by a pharmaceutical company to research an alleged drug that turns men into living zombies. While on the search for the elusive "zombie powder," Pullman outs his very soul at risk in the name of science as he exposes himself to Haiti's voodoo subculture.

What's Good: Craven had one hell of a run in the late 70s/early 80s. "The Last House on the Left," "The Hills Have Eyes" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street" are quality movies that still to this day other horror directors strive to achieve. Then, in an effort to separate himself from Freddy and the slasher film phenomenon, he tried to adapt Wade Davis' great book about his experiences in Haiti. The problem is, Craven attempted to interject some of the very stuff he was trying to get away from into this horror thriller. Pullman is great (as usual), even when he butchers the French Creole language. And Brent Jennings and Zakes Mokae as Louis Mozart and Dargent Peytraud are both credible and great fun to watch. And the first two-thirds of the film are compelling and very watchable. As Pullman is dragged deeper and deeper into the cultural miasma of Haitian religion, we see him slowly come unraveled as his faith in science is tested against occurrences beyond his comprehension. But then ...

What's Bad: In the final third of the movie, in a seemingly desperate move to "horrify" the goings-on, the film lapses into dull, run-of-the-mill horror tropes. Suddenly, people have mental powers and there is a battle in the dreamscape (I think) that is more psychological than physical, and it's just boring and not scary. The ending is as pat and as dry as two day old pizza crust and it robs the rest of the film of its ambition to disturb on a deep, psychological level by tossing monstrous bad guys at us instead of real terror.

Why We Like It: I actually do like this movie - in fact I watched it a lot as a teen, and even read Davis' book. I think I like it because I like Pullman and he just about always gives a credible performance. And like I said, the first two parts of the movie are great, packed with drama and terror and great performances all around, especially from the always solid Paul Winfield. It is one of those films that has its great moments but falls apart under its own logic as it spirals out of control and tries to bring Slasher Film ethics to a wider audience.

Memorable Stuff: When Pullman gets a face-full of the zombie powder and stumbles down the open streets of Port Au Prince, eyes bleary, hands grasping strangers for help, only to be buried alive ... that's intense shit. And the camera follows him into the coffin and stays as he slowly emerges from the Zombie powder's trance and starts to pound and scream., See, Craven knows how to scare the shit out of us when he wants to! Also, the opening scene of a funeral with torches and big scary Haitians covered in crazy voodoo body paint are fantastic, but set you up for the disappointment in film's final moments. It's still worth a look, if only once.