Fright Month: Frankenstein (1931)

Yet another non-scary scary movie. I'd never seen this movie before, but I knew all of those bits and pieces that have been embedded in our cultural history--Dr. Frankenstein creates a monster out of old body parts and brings it to life, shouting "It's alive!" with his trusty hunchback (not Igor, but Fritz) at his side, and terror ensues.

I read the book just over a year ago, so I already knew that the original story differed quite a bit from those tidbits mentioned above. But I was hoping the movie would impart some thrills and chills, especially since not many of my other Fright Month flicks did.

Too bad my hopes were dashed. I found nothing creepy or frightening in this movie. But even though it was lacking in tension, it was still an interesting and entertaining film. Probably one that everyone should watch at least once. I mean, it's a classic, right? But now that I've seen it once, I'll probably be stopping there.

I must admit that, though it may not have scared me at all, this movie did create quite an iconic image of Frankenstein's monster. This is exactly the way everyone pictures it.

Fright Month: The Broken

I'm not as freaked out as I was during the last part of Session 9, but here's another creepy one. Gina McVey sees a girl driving by on the streets of London, which wouldn't be a problem at all except for the fact that the girl looks exactly like Gina. She follows her double, and things get weird. I like weird. (And surreal, and mind-bending, as the netflix synopsis describes this movie.)

If you pay attention to a few small details, what should have been a big surprise at the end isn't so surprising. But I will be kind and not tell you what those details were, because if you're looking for them  you're sure to notice them. And being surprised is always more fun, isn't it?

During the first little bit of the movie nothing is very scary except for the music. In fact, it seemed a bit silly with tense, dramatic music and no reason for it. But I suppose they were setting the tone. And, as long as I'm complaining, I'll mention that I could have done without the sister-in-law-in-the-shower scene, which was a bit over the top in an otherwise subtly tense movie. But overall, I give this one a couple of thumbs up.

I am left wondering . . . why? And glad in the knowledge that my kitchen is directly on the other side of my bathroom mirror. There's nothing scary in my kitchen.

Fright Month: Session 9

Fright attained.

You already know that abandoned insane asylums creep me out. Of course that's the setting for this movie. A five-man construction crew is hired to clean the place up, and then . . .

. . . things start to happen.

The first 40 minutes were a bit slow. The next half hour started getting interesting. But the last thirty minutes? Oh my goodness. Let's just say I'm trying to keep my back to the wall.

I may be sleeping with the lights on tonight.

Fright Month: Children of the Corn

I'm having trouble finding a scary movie. I was just sure this one would give me nightmares and maybe even put me off eating corn for the rest of my life, but no. I'm not scared to look behind me. I'm not even any more frightened of my kids than usual. I did jump a time or two during the movie, but not significantly.

Of course, it didn't help that Hud was scoffing throughout the entire thing. But even I had to laugh when he made fun of the main character, Burt, by saying, "You're getting your [butt] kicked by corn."

At the end of the movie when the car was full of cornstalks but the viewer was supposed to be lulled into thinking it's all over, it suddenly hit me: I know Steven King's stories well enough to know there was probably one more surprise lurking. Sure, I was right, but it was a pretty weak one.

Chalk another one up for my "it was a disappointment but at least now I've seen it" list.

Fright Month: Nosferatu (1922)

This was kind of a misfire as far as fright is concerned. I think the main problem was the music. Sometimes the soaring orchestral score added to the atmosphere; more frequently it lent an almost unacceptably comedic air to the movie. Some of the music was really beautiful, but most of the time it didn't do a thing towards upping the creepiness factor.

There were at least three songs I totally recognized, and it's driving me crazy because I can't figure out what they were. I tried looking online for information regarding the score, but all I could find is that this movie has had a variety of scores, and the one I heard is most likely not the original.

A far cry from Edward Cullen, eh?

Maybe I'm uncultured, but I think this is the first silent film I've ever watched. It's got some serious over-actors (I was wishing that something would wipe that beatific smile off Jonathon Harker's face, and was quite pleased when the phantom stagecoach driver did the trick), though I suppose that, without the benefit of speech, some overly-dramatic body language was of necessity. As were, it seems, crazy eyebrows (see Renfield).

Citizens of 1922 must have been some seriously slow readers. Those title cards were onscreen for far longer than necessary.

I wonder why they changed Mina's name to Nina?

Fright Month: The Amityville Horror (2005)

In honor of Halloween, I have lined up a few scary movies for this month. We're off to a chilling start with the newest version of The Amityville Horror.

I read the book by Jay Anson probably fifteen years ago. Of course, it's been so long that I barely remember it, but I do have a vague memory of feeling fairly doubtful that it was actually a true story. Although the original DeFeo murders undisputedly happened, this movie did nothing to dispel the idea that the paranormal activity that the Lutz family were supposed to have experienced might have been drug-induced, or a ploy to make a buck, or a combination of the two. But I have to admit that is one creepy-looking house! It's as if it has evil eyes.

I think the movie changed quite a few things as compared to the story told in the book. The father of the family took much more of a Jack Torrance turn in the film, and I don't remember all of the business about torturing Native Americans hundreds of years ago.

At least the movie was pretty creepy, unlike Paranormal Activity. I mean, I'm not expecting to see dead people reflected in my bathroom mirror, and I never did spill my wine, but the movie carried quite a bit of tension.

I'm not sure why I was thinking this would be the original version--maybe because I don't remember ever hearing that there was a remake--but I was kind of disappointed when I opened the netflix envelope and found that this movie was released in 2005. At first I was thinking I might want to watch the original too, but now that I've watched the 2005 version I'm thinking I probably won't bother. Unless you tell me it's necessary.

Best parts: the scenes of Ryan Reynolds without a shirt. MMmmmmm.

Hit Girl is in this one too!

Paranormal Activity

Least scary "scary movie" I've ever seen.

Horror is not my usual genre, but I saw previews for the sequel which made me curious enough to watch the original. Maybe I built it up too much in my mind, but this was nowhere near the creepfest I imagined it would be. What did not happen was that necessary suspension of disbelief. Perhaps if I were a fan of reality TV this movie would have given me more of a fright, but as it was--with all unusual activity announced by that "paranormal hum," and no creepy music to set the mood--the subtle "scariness" going on was too easy to dismiss as someone off-camera jerking on fishing wire. I even watched this by myself, at night! Of course, I locked all of the doors in the house before starting the movie to avoid any unpleasant surprises, and I left all of the lights on, but I think those were unnecessary precautions. The doors are unlocked now and I have no fear of anything unusual opening them.

Of course, I haven't tried to go to sleep yet tonight . . .

Cloverfield

This was one of Hud's picks, but I had heard enough about it that I was curious. I knew that it was a sort of Monster-Attacks-Manhattan movie, but that was about all I knew; for some reason I had the mistaken idea that "you think it's a monster but it's really something else" and I waited throughout the entire movie to find out what the "something else" was, only to be sorely disappointed.

This movie reminded me of The Blair Witch Project--not at all because of the plot, but entirely because of the jerky hand-held camera work, along with the "oh my gosh I'm so scared" acting throughout.

It's a good thing it was short. I couldn't have sat through much more of it. Not because it was too scary (it wasn't), not because it was awfully boring (it marginally kept my interest), but because how much of the same thing can you watch over and over again? Monster wreaks havoc, people run and scream (mostly away from the danger but a scant few straight towards it) repeatedly. In fact, 35 minutes into the movie, I asked Hud, "HOW long is this movie again?" It could have ended at 40 minutes and I would have been satisfied.

We watched the "alternate endings" and they weren't sufficiently different from the acutal ending to be of any interest. My husband's take: the best thing about the movie was that it had a character named Hud. In fact it took some getting used to, hearing them hollering "Hud" over and over again! Too bad Hud got munched up by the monster right before the end.

I do have one question about the movie. What happened to Marlena? Did she EXPLODE??