Apartment 143:The Found Footage Genre and our Obsession with Reality

I find that straying from a formula once in a while will lead to shockingly great results.  This can applied to just about anything in life.  How you approach your job, how you exercise, cooking.  In fact cooking for me is a combination of a stressful activity and a momentous achievement.  I am pretty limited in what I can make, so if I try something new, I tend to follow the instructions as closely as possible.  The only time I get a little risky with my cooking is when I make overstuffed potatoes.  I have found that substituting crushed red pepper for black pepper give them a bit of a kick and is a nice combination with the other spices, I also add a full cup of sharp cheddar cheese instead of the half-cup, it makes it cheesier and I am from Wisconsin, cheese makes everything better.

ANYWAYS...horror films are like this as well. For the most part they follow a pretty strict recipe for success.  Once in a a while you get a film that goes outside of the blueprint and improvises and it either tastes delicious or it gets fed to the dog.  The found footage genre has yet stray from it's formula, and that formula has become extremely predictable, not scary, and completely broken.

2011's Apartment 143 follows the found footage genre to the "t."  A crew of parapsychologists (which includes "Spanish" from Old School) arrive at an apartment complex which is pretty much abandoned, except for the apartment they are about to set up shop in.  We are introduced to a family, a father who is to eager, yet reluctant to have the crew their, a stand-offish teenage daughter, and of course a little boy.  From than on, we watch them set up every camera and device while explaining what everything does to both the little boy and the audience, as if we have never seen one of these films before.

The middle part of the movie is boring and excruciating to watch.  We wait for random moments of fright, something unexpected to happen and jump out at us.  In which we are treated to shaking walls and odd noises.  We of course get a psychic or medium involved and someone gets possessed.  There is, of course, more to the story than we are initially told, and it gets painfully told to us at a snails pace.  The last act of the movie, the action finally intensifies, we find out the whole story, and of course there is a "scary" and jumpy ending.

This formula has been basically used since the Blair Witch Project.  It hasn't changed and has become extremely predictable, there was never a moment where I went, "well I never saw that before in a found footage film."  To top things off, not once was I scared, even in the moments where the film was building tensions, I knew that when the camera pans around for the fourth time, there will be something there that is supposed to make me jump, but it didn't (well, maybe a little but that is due to the loud noise that accompanies the fright moment).

Unless changes are made, this genre will never truly frighten anyone anymore.  Of all the found footage genre films, The Blair Witch Project is probably the scariest (however, it's still a really boring film until the very end), now granted a lot of it had to do with the marketing of the film (there were quite a few people that thought what they were watching was real).  But there were other elements to that film that made it much more frightening then any of it's contemporary clones. 

For one, there was a continuous steam of camera activity.  There weren't any cuts at all unless the camera was turned off by the operator.  The whole reasoning behind why the found footage genre should be scary to us, is that we (the audience) are seeing what the characters experienced in true form.  If you watch Apartment 143 and other found footage genre films like Paranormal Activity, there are actual cuts in the action, or all of a sudden it's the next day. Watching these films, you are not experiencing what the characters are really experiencing, you are experiencing what a movie company or what someone somewhere cut together a bunch of film they found to be interesting.  Not to mention, there's always different cameras showing us a part of the action, it's not one camera that we see, in Apartment 143 there are multiple camera's and multiple angles, it's giving us an unauthentic look at the events that occurred.  Basically, someone manipulated the film to fit an audience, and the whole point of watching a movie like this, the reason it should be scary, is that it wasn't tampered with, we are experiencing the true horror that the characters would have seen through one camera.

Another thing that drives me crazy with this genre is the addition of sound effects.  Sound effects are typical in all scary movies.  For some reason, it's an audible cue that if what you are watching doesn't scare you visually, a loud shrieking noise is guaranteed to lift you off your seat. The Blair Witch Project didn't rely on that, which is what made it authentic for audiences, there was no cue as to what when a scary moment happened, which sometimes worked well, like the ending, it came out of nowhere.  Other times, it didn't work and you kept questioning what you were looking at, but, in a sense, isn't the unknown more frightening than the known.

Another pitfall of the genre is the story. Every story is the same.  A group of investigators that are combination of skeptics/crazy believers go to a home and meet a family or a person that has been experieicng things they can't understand.  Nothing happens for 45 minutes except maybe a kid talks to thin air or a chair moves. Story reveals some "shocking" twist that is really responsible. The ghosts or spirits become more violent or more rambunctious. Finally there is a final showdown and an ending that reveals a ghost that jumps out at the screen.   

It's a story that may work the first time, but every found footage genre follows this formula and it's getting sickening.  Apartment 143 strays a little in that the story becomes vague and nothing concrete is revealed. The doctor believe that one of the characters was schizophrenic despite what they experienced.  I am not sure if that was the film's intention to make you guess what was really going on, or if it was just poorly written, but the film still followed the same formula for the story.

A way to improve the genre would be to start the scares off right away.  Stop with the mind-numbing introductions of the characters and the team of investigators.  The unnecessary middle act of nothing happening except dumb conversations that progress the story slowly are excruciating  Pick up the pace, the audience, tends to fall asleep, and everything is so predictable, that we are just waiting for the climax ending.  Also, stop trying to throw the audience off with some twist in the story, and either have the characters clearly win or lose, no more "surprise" endings revealing a ghost that jumps out at the scream, or some monsters heavy breathing.  These films are starting (if not already) insulting the audiences intelligence.

The genre needs an overhaul.  I am not sure if V/H/S is anything different, but it looks promising, but I am going to go see that eventually.  But, why does this genre continue to thrive, and why do people feel the need to see the same repetitive movie over and over? From a studio standpoint, these movies are cheap and easy to make.  There's not a lot of production involved, for the most part these movies are cast with unknown actors to give it more of an authentic feel.  If people go see the movie in droves, the studio makes it's money back and than some (just ask the maker of Paranormal Activity how they are doing). 

The other reason why this could be scary or something why horror fans (and I am speaking about newer horror fans here) are drawn to this genre, is that reality television has become the norm.  Kids today that grow up watching horror films are so used to the Real Worlds, America's Next Top Model, Hell's Ktichen that story telling and fictional boogeymen are just not scary anymore.  The Freddy Krugers and Michael Meyers of the genre are similar to Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, if they don't exist in real life it can't be scary.  Now haunted houses, ghosts, possessions.  Since these are paranormal events that are documented as  having happened, this is scary to the audience.  They realize that what they are watching is just a movie, but what they are watching is a)shot from the perspective of being real, and b.)something that has supposedly can happen in real life.

We watch Rock of Love with the perception that what we are watching is reality.  By contrast however, almost all reality is scripted and planned, but it's the perception that gets us to either think Brett Michaels is awesome and living the dream, or that he is a dirt bag and these women are idiots.  The found footage genre is no different.  It gets the audience by creating a plausible situation based on how we watch t.v.

In a way we have all become voyeurs, a society obsessed with how others are living their lives.  That's why reality television works, we are interested in other people's lives that are not our own.  Now we are interested for different reasons, we like seeing celebrities look like real people (or just make asses of themselves), we like to fantasize about the lives they are perceived to be living, we like to watch them fail.  For horror fans, it very well could be we want to see what happens when people are faced with ghosts.

Even though we know it's not real, some people project themselves onto the characters that are being haunted, they want to see how they may react based on how a real person acts.  Shows like Ghost Hunters don't help the situation at all.  It makes people once again, watch the show because they feel that something real is happening, and this is the appropriate way to act around it.

However, in most of these films they are displaying the inaccurate ways of handling these situations, so if we do take our ques from the found footage genre like we do from reality t.v, we all better pray that a ghost never invades our home.



Follow @JayB405

Introducing a Villain Without Ruining The Core Concept: Poltergeist II: The Other Side

A poltergeist is typically defined as a noisy ghost. In Poltergeist II: The Other Side, the definition of the term poltergeist is essentially non existent. Sure, it retains it's original ghost story elements of the first movie, but it also gets turned into a boogeyman stalking film. I'm all about mixing up the formula for a sequel, especially if you are basically planning a franchise, what's discouraging, is when a sequel or film in the franchise completely strays from the formula or disregards the previous works.

Now if you have never seen Poltergiest II: The Other Side (when I type “the other side, I keep getting that fucking Areosmith song in my head), let me bring you up to speed by back tracking a bit to the first film. The Keeling family start experiencing poltergeist activity in their home. Chairs moving around lights turning on and off. But the experiences start to become a bit more violent and the ghosts kidnap the youngest daughter Carol-Ann. And bring her to another dimension.

We than find that the the house was built over a cemetery by a corrupt developing company that “Coach” (Craig T. Nelson) works for, (he's the father/husband). The ghosts (poltergeists) are the dead people still buried underneath the home. However, there is something called The Beast, that has, taken a shine to Carol-Ann and will not give her up easy. However, in the end of the first movie Diane, crosses into the other dimension and saves Carol-Ann with the help of Tangenia the psychic, and Coach.

Now, fast forward to the sequel and a year later. The Keeling's are living with Diane's mother who happens to be clairvoyant, like Carol-Ann, and Diane (who has denied it her whole life). In any case The Beast has found the family and has decided to take on a human form to stalk the family in the form a an old “Skeletore” looking fellow named the Revered Kane.

It turns out Kane was a preacher and a bit of a whack job in the 1800's that led his followers to their doom. They had sealed themselves in a tomb because Kane told them it was the end of the world (completely unclear if the whole sealing themselves underground was supposed to stop them from perishing, or maybe they thought God would take them first. This logic makes no sense to be honest) ANYWAYS.... he got it wrong. Unfortunately, Kane wouldn't let anyone out of the tomb, so they all perished. That tomb just happened to be under the cemetery that was underneath the Keelling's old home.

Apparently Kane and his followers haven't quite figured out that they are dead and have not crossed over, and when Carol-Ann crossed into their world in the first film, they got a taste of what life was like, and they want to taste it again. In the end the family has to ban together to confront Kane once and for all. Protected and aided by a Native American Shaman Taylor, “Coach” leads his family to the field of battle for a final showdown.

The film itself is actually very creepy and despite the fact the formula changed from ghost story to ghost story with a central villain, it's still very effective. It was a subtle change to the original concept of the film, but it was 1986, central villains or boogeymen were pretty critical in horror films. Even though we are introduced to a main “bad guy” the film keeps it's integrity, and doesn't stray from the core story at all.

Now Poltergeist had three films in the series, and for the most part it stayed true (the third one Carol-Ann lives with her aunt and uncle in Chicago in a hotel. Kane finds her and there are a lot of mirrors and Lara Flynn Boyle).

The horror film genre does this the most, changes the concept or structure of a film within the franchise, and I am not talking about re-makes or it's current term being used “reboot.” Either by introducing a new bad guy (like Poltergeist II) or abandoning the entire original concept of the film.

But Poltergeist II succeeds because it doesn't direction, in fact the addition of Kane, enhances the story. Where some films, by straying from the core concept end up hurting the franchise more than anything else.

For example Halloween III: The Season of the Witch, has no Michael Meyers. How can there be a Halloween film without the central fucking evil character. In fact the film has no relation to the mythos of the original existing films, it's all about an evil corporation that develops a mask that will melt childrens' faces when they watch a particular commercial.

In no way shape or form did this movie help the Halloween series. In fact, most people don't even consider it part of the films “cannon.” If the film would have been called something else (you wouldn't have been able to call it Season of the Witch, there were no fucking witches in the film) it might have been an alright movie, but it was not.

Thankfully, the addition of Kane didn't ruin the concept of Poltergeist. However, the addition of Lara Flynn Boyle in the third film, almost tanked the entire series.

Also, just because it was in my head

The Unnamable: The Necronomicon, One Breast, and a Dangerous Mission to Rescue Our Basketball

When I was a kid, my best friend lived next door to a very strange family. It was two men, and I am still unclear on the relationship between them, but I am fairly positive it was a father and son. We were sort of spooked by them, as their behavior was rather creepy. It wasn't uncommon to find the older of the two men somewhere around town sleeping or resting under a lamp post. He would also drive around on his bike and root around people's trash on the curb. More than often he would some “gems” and drive them back to his house. The younger one used to drive around in a shitty beat-up rusted truck and do the same, (he would handle the bigger items, since his questionable father, was on a bike). Our folks used to joke they were like the real life Samford and Son, but white.

The real creepy thing theses guys pulled, were they would sit on their front porch and just do nothing. They would drink beer and wouldn't talk to each other, never say hello to the mailman, or even say hi to us if we passed by. I am not even sure if they were people watching, from what it looked like to us, they just sat there in silence and drank beer on the front porch.

One thing my friend and I had pretty much agreed on as kids was that if a ball went over the fence in their back yard, it was gone, there was no retrieving it. For one, the fence was at least seven feet high, and the boards were so close together so you couldn't see what the fuck was in their back-yard. Our parents had pretty much warned us not to go over there, claiming their back-yard might have broken glass or worse yet, the brothers might catch us. This became that house on the street that kids would dare each other to go ring the doorbell, but no one would, or could because they'd be on the porch drinking beer.

For years, we had successfully avoided tossing a ball over the fence until one summer evening when we were in high school, (it was a basketball, not sure anymore about the particulars on how the ball sailed over the fence). In any case we ruled out knocking on their door to ask if we could get our ball back. At this point in our lives we had already believed in the stories we were either told by people or telling other kids, (I want to say at this point we were fairly convinced that they were cannibals and had a torture chamber in the basement, I want to say we saw The Texas Chainsaw Massacre that summer).

Now, we could have left the ball over there, but this was the the basketball. This ball had been used by the two of us in every important basketball game since we were 10-years old. Every game of one-on-one, horse, or around the world, this ball was used, and we were going to be damned if we were going to let it go that easily. So, we decided we were going to get the ball back at any cost....sort of.

We determined it would be foolish for both of us to hop over the fence, cos if we both got caught, we would both be dead. We figured whoever was going over had exactly one minute to locate the ball and one minute to get back. But who was going over? We decided to settle it democratically. We shot for it. We decided to use the spare basketball (this ball really sucked, no grip, leather peeling off, virtually no bounce), and played a game of horse so to speak. First person to miss a shot was going over.

For some reason at that moment we both turned into Mich Richmond (I always thought he was a phenomenal shooting guard) We were both intentionally trying for impossible shots, Behind the hoop, in the bushes in the corner, behind the gate that led to the back yard, we would make sink every single shot. It was like fate was trying to tell us not to go over to that house. But, sadly, someone had to lose...me.

So, I got a boost from my friend and over the fence I went. I landed on the ground with a thud and, I can't even make this shit up, possibly three feet from avoiding was am open bear trap! These fuckers had open traps littered throughout their back-yard. Not only that, but a few traps had manged to catch at least one rabbit and two squirrles. If that wasn't scary enough, their back-yard looked like that scene in The Hills Have Eyes where the guy goes roaming around area with the parked cars and there is all this shit just laying around. Boxes, pieces of metal, bicycles that had no wheels, tools, I was honestly prepared to find a dead body.

After my initial shock and watching my step, I somehow saw the coveted orange spehere just ahead of me in a vacant spot in the un-mowed grass. I quickly navigated my way towards the ball, extremely cautious of any open traps and reached down to pick up the ball. As I raised my body and looked towards the back of he house I saw the old man. Just standing in front of the back door with a grizzly unkempt beard, faded green baseball hat, ratty and stained blue-jeans and red t-shirt. He didn't say a word or make a any facial expression, his hands calmly at his side. My eyes widened with horror and my heart felt like it was going to explode out of my chest.

Now, what I did, goes against all logic and it was purely instinctive. On my right was the seven-foot fence. On my left was another seven foot fence. However, straight across of me was yes, the old man and behind him a house with a torture chamber hidden in the basement, but to the left of the house was a clearing with no fence whatsoever, in fact, I could see their front yard which led to the road.

I tucked the basketball under one arm like a runningback in football and put my head down and sprinted for that clearing, screaming my head off. There may have only been four other times in life I ran faster than that. I wasn't stopping for anything, no defensive line would have ever brought me down, in that instince, I was like Mike Alstot when he was in his prime for Tampa Bay. I could have ran though a brick wall I was going so fast and hard.

I didn't look to my right at all, I avoided all eye contact with the old man, just kept my head down, screamed as loud as I could and ran for it. I got past their house and yard and onto the front road in Chris Johnson 40-yard dash time, I made a quick cut to my right and continued to run into my friends yard. I dropped the ball and yelled that we had to get inside. We both ran inside the house, locked the doors and I recounted what I had seen in their back-yard.

The old man, or his son never came over, never told my friends parents that we were in his yard, nothing was sad. When I think back on that, I still find that the back-yard was totally fucking bizarre, the fact that the guy just stood there was creepy. However, blazing through a yard full of traps might have been one of the top five worst decisions I had ever made at that point in life.

We told that story to friends of ours during that summer, and none of our friends really believed us. They would dare each other, or worse, we would dare them to go into that back yard, but no one ever did.

The 1988 film The Unnambale starts out with a dare, but doesn't end so well. The Unnamable was based off of a short story from H.P. Lovecraft that finds a woman in the 1800's that gives birth to a monster that kills it's family and is forever banished to live in the house.

Fast forward to 1988 and house is located near some snooty college and the whole monster thing is now kind of a weird legend. The legend is kept alive by student Randolph Carter, who does his best impersenation of every or any Sherlock Holmes figure. (actually he reminded me a lot of the character Agent Cooper from the Twin Peaks series). Carter tells his chums Joel and the bumbling freshman Howard (never explained why this goofball freshman is hanging out with two seniors) this tale. Joel doesn't believe him, and on a dare decides to spend the night at the house.

Well you guess it, legend is true and he dies. When he doesn't arrive the next morning Howard becomes frantic and attempts to convince Carter that they should go to the home and check on Joel. Carter, is convinced that Joel is pulling a prank and wants nothing to do with it.

Enter in Wendy and Tanya, Tanya has a crush on Howard, however Howard has a thing for Wendy, Wendy wants nothing to do with Howard (I hope you got all that). Wendy is actually kind of a bitch and convinces Tanya to accompany her and two frat guys, Bruce and John, on a field trip to before mentioned house because the frat guys tell them that is where a sorority the girls are planning on pledging is going to be doing their initiations. Apparently, the guys were going to show them were all the pranks were going to be.

As the gang heads to the home, Howard finally convinces Carter, who has been doing tons of reading in the library about folk tales to go up to the house. With the monster on the loose, it's now up to Carter and the witless Howard to save the day.

The rest of this $350,000 budgeted flick contains a killer, shrieking yetti, trees that save the day, and Wendy only showing one breast (seriously, they take the time to do this elaborate scene where frat boy John gets the blouse off, but only reveals one breast? Where was the second one? Not to make it an issue, but than there were wardrobe malfunctions throughout the rest of the flick where the right breast was only shown).

The Necronomicon also makes an appearance. If that name sounds familiar you would be correct, on more levels than you would imagine. For most of us, the Necronomicon first appeared in the Evil Dead series. A book bound in flesh and inked in blood, contained burial rituals and demon resurrection incantations. If the dead were ever to get a hold of it, the living would be in some serious shit.

So, that would be where most of us would know the Necronomicon from. However, it's actually in a lot pieces of pop culture. Just by doing a google search, here are some other places where this dastardly evil book have appeared. In T.V shows such as The Simpsons and Aqua Teen Hunger Force. Other films such as Cast a Deadly Spell. Video games like Max Payne and Quest for Glory: Shadows of Darkness (I owned this game and it was extremely fucking difficult and I never did beat it because there was an error in the game...never knew how it ended, but I totally remember the part about the Necronomicon). Also, it appears in pieces of music, mostly metal bands such as Iron Maiden and Metalica, but also the rapper Tech N9ne (apparently the song is about making a Christian read the Necronomicon to their kids on Christmas)

The idea of the book actually came from H.P Lovecraft, so it actually does fit this film, since the movie is based off of his story.

Believe it or not, three years later there was a sequel to this movie, with an even bigger budget (I believe they had a million bucks to work with). But, I have to wonder if they start off again with a group of kids daring each other to go near the house. I don't look back to often on that day the basketball went over the fence. When I relive it in my mind and see the old man just staring at me, I think of all the ways that scenario could have ended badly. I am just glad no one ever took us up on our dare to sneak in their back yard....those bear traps in the back could have seriously fucked someone up.

Phantasm:Tall Men, Jawas, and Dudes Who Save the Day

Phantasm is a film I saw as a teenager and it stuck with me. I had nightmares for days and troubles walking to and from school (I had to walk by a cemetery, which, if have not seen the film, I'll explain the relevance in a bit). As an adult, it still gives me the creeps, for some of the same and yet different reasons. But it also makes me think that's it a rather unique film if not for one particular aspect.

For some people, Phantasm is a film that is kind of a mess at points. The story is kind of all over the place, there things that happen plot wise that don't make sense, there are dream sequences that randomly happen, and steroid injected dwarfs that look like jawas from Star Wars.

If you can get past this, it's a very creepy and surreal film. The film constantly makes you guess what is really happening. If what the characters are experiencing are real, or just in their minds. Most of all the film is responsible for one of the more visually striking and scary boogeymen of all time, The Tall Man.

Is he human, an alien, a monster, you never know? In fact little is known about him, except that he extremely strong (he can pick up loaded caskets by himself), he controls an army dwarfs and killer flying spheres, and he somehow manages to show up in places unexpectedly. Oh, and he's a runner, he will chase you if you try and dash away (if you end up watching the sequels, there is a back story, but I find that it's more intriguing not knowing much about him).

The character is played by the actor Angus Scrimm who played it masterfully. His physical presence is terrifying. He's obviously tall, but his extremely scary facial expressions, movements, and sheer screen presence sends a cold wave through your body. When I see random pictures of him, I get a little freaked out, in fact if I met him in real life, I would probably run the opposite direction. There have been exactly five boogeymen that I have been afraid of in life, and The Tall Man is one of them (I am not revealing the other four, that is private).

The film itself is rather morbid. It centers around two brothers, Jody and Mike, that are alone due to their folks death. Jody, who is in his early 20's and a musician, has been charged with taking care of his brother, but longs to get away and get back out on the road. Mike, who is 15, is scared his brother is going to randomly leave him (probably due to their parents death) and constantly follows Jody wherever he goes.

A band-mate of Jody's dies in the beginning of the film, Mike follows Jody to the funeral. From there Mike see's The Tall Man, and beings to witness strange things around town. Eventually we find that The Tall Man is taking the recently deceased, and other residents of Morning Side Funeral Home, and somehow turning them into jawas, er, I mean, dwarfs, that he intends to ship off to...another dimension, planet, world (that part, is unclear). Mike, Jody, and their friend Reggie the Ice Cream Man, take it upon themselves to stop the evil Tall Man.

The movie ends with one of the greatest cliff-hangers in horror film history, and honestly left the viewer with tons of questions. But these questions do have answers, the sequel was released in 1989 and two more films came after that, however, they never needed to be made, they could have left the viewer guessing what they had just scene.

The thing I find unique about the film, and this something that does not happen even if today's horror films, is that the protagonists are completely male dominated. That was one of the things I found scary as a kid, I was watching a kid basically a year or two older than myself battle and run from an evil being hell bent on murdering him and his friends. That's pretty heavy to think about, if you are 14 or 15 and being thrust into a situation where you have no parents, your only ally is your older brother and friend, and someone is trying to kill you, it's pretty fucking frightening.

But this is also one of the most awesome things about Phantasm. It's such a rarity in a horror film to have the protagonists be a male, let alone a trio of males. Lot's of people like to claim that in horror films the idea behind the heroine is that the filmmaker is empowering the woman. The female protagonists has been watching her friends, her lifelines in a sense, get hacked up one by one, in the end she find a power deep within her to fight through her fears and defeat evil.

Most males in horror films usually have “dead dude” written all over their face. They are typically fueled by hormones which impairs their better judgment and end up easy targets for psycho's. But this paints a detrimental effect on males, and filmmaker might not be realizing it. On one hand it's great that getting in touch with their feminine side, girl power and all that. On the other they make men out to be completely imbeciles in the face of danger and emasculate them.

In Friday the 13^th every male character dies, doesn't even put up much of a fight, and the main character was a killer. In Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, the main dude Jesse, was a complete wimp, who opted to run away and cry for help, rather than stand up for himself. Strength from a male is rarely displayed in horror films. They make irrational decisions and display selfish immaturity in the face of danger. Now, part of this could be that most male's in horror films are usually between the ages of 17-21, which, albeit, is the standard age bracket for male immaturity. But is this an accurate reflection of the male species? Do we cringe and hand the reigns over in the face of supernatural danger? I would like to think in real life, we don't, but Hollywood would have us believing differently. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not basing female empowerment whatsoever, but I find it refreshing when once in a while, some dudes are able to band together and take down the forces of evil, (it honestly makes me feel, cos if this shit happened in real life, based on horror films and my gender, I am pretty much a goner).

But Phantasm displays three young men who don't back down or run away. In fact they face danger head on, granted some of their decision making is still poor at some points. But the point is, Mike, Jody, and Reggie are a rare breed in horror films. Male heroes, that guys can look up to.

Most people that watch horror are of the male persuasion (sorry gals, that's just kind of how it is). From a role model standpoint, we don't have many dudes to look up to. Sure Bill was a nice guy in Friday the 13^th, he seemed like a real sweat-heart, but he ends up attached to a shed door by bows and arrows (Bows and Arrows is a tremendous record by the Walkmen if you ever get a chance to listen).

It's a assuring to males to watch their own kind save the day and live, as opposed to watching every guy in the film end up dead. It shows that men are not afraid and that we can fight evil and protect the ones we love.

Beware of the English Language: Pontypool

Transforming into a zombie usually requires a zombie to basically sink it's teeth into you. Thus forth, turning you into a walking, decomposing corpse  that has an insatiable appetite for either human flesh, or brains (really depends on what zombie film you are watching).  2008's Pontypool (originally a novel Pontypool Changes Everything from Tony Burgess) completely changes the entire concept.

Pontypool is not necessarily a zombie flick.  The film takes place entirely in a radio station in a small town in Ontario.  The first half of the movie is basically a psychological guessing game where local morning anchor Grant Mazzy and his producers Sundney Briar and Laural-Ann are getting reports from a field reporter (who is really there fake helicopter/traffic reporter) Rick Roberts, that people are rioting and causing violent outbursts.

Grant is eager to put it on air, but without knowledge of what is really going on, Sidney is reluctant and wants to find out more info. As the film goes on more reports are coming in from both Grant, and outside sources. However, since they can't see anything (as well as us the viewers) we don't know what is really going on.  It could all be a hoax for all they know, in fact, it almost feels like a War of the Worlds radio broadcast. But rumors of quarantine, terrorist groups, and Rick Roberts eye-witness account of people starting to eat people, are making the trio in the station more edgy and less prone in believing this is just a gag.

More light shines on what's happening on the outside as a new character  Dr. Mendez sneaks into the station and informs them about what he understands.  Now, this is where it gets slightly difficult for the viewer. At this point Laural-Ann has seemed to go a little nutty, staring at a wall and babbling to herself.  According to the doctor this is how it starts.

We come to find that some sort of airborne virus has been released, and words in the English language (but not French for some reason?) trigger some sort of effect that turn people into blood thirsty maniacs.  We see this as Laural-Ann has now decided that she needs lunch.  She mindlessly hurls her body against sound proof glass (the new trio are held up in the radio stations broadcast booth), she doesn't talk, she doesn't try to communicate, she just tries to get through the glass.

The part of the movie that is confusing is what words really do trigger this effect?  There is a scene in which Sidney starts to contract the virus and Grant says something to snap her out of it.  But, it wasn't clear, and the ending is even more unclear as Grant and Sidney attempt to disassociate words from their true meaning  "Kill is to Kiss."  This seemed to work on Sidney, but we as an audience have no idea if it worked on the infected population, as the government basically drops a bomb on the quarantine area.

The film ends with some crazy end credits that imply that Grant and Sidney survived, but how?  Who released the virus? How the fuck do you really cure it, and what sets it off? To many questions in the film that hopefully the novel answers.  Or, there is an intended two more films in the series, but who knows if they are sequels or prequels.

One thing I was impressed with, was creating a zombie by a different means.  I honestly believe the zombie genre has been played out.  You can't do much that is different with the genre.  They all start with either being a government weapon that fell into the wrong hands or got leaked somehow.  Or, it's Halloween and the dead have decided they are hungry.  Than, the whole transfer of becoming a zombie is pretty standard,  either by blood transmission or being bitten, (however Night of the Creeps immediately comes to mind in regards to setting itself apart for the zombie transformation).

I liked Pontypool's idea of turning language against us.  Everyday we speak, whether it's for our job or socializing, we verbally communicate everyday, it's an essential part of our existence.  Not only that, but we require others to verbally communicate with us.  Not just in personal interactions, but in entertainment.  Sporting events, music, podcasts, if an actual virus existed that could turn language against us, we'd all be pretty screwed. We rely so heavily on verbal communication it would be nearly impossible to just completely cut it off.

Imagine a world where if you spoke, it could have dire consequences. The reliance on email and texting would be at an all-time high, (if you thought cell-phone company's and internet providers screwed you on your monthly bill, imagine if this was a reality).

It would change our whole way of life from working to interacting with family, teaching, and even learning how to read!  That would be one of the biggest things effected, if you were not able to speak to teach children how to properly read...the whole language would die.  Which therefore means writing would die, and communication would be lost forever.

It's a scary scenario, thankfully, and hopefully unlikely.  I have terrible penmanship and for a man with an English Degree, I have awful grammar.

An American Werewolf in London:David Schwimmer Would Make a Convincing Werewolf

After watching 1981's An American Werewolf London the only thing I kept thinking throughout the film was that the protagonist David, could have been played by David Schwimmer, you know the guy who played Ross in Friends.

The protagonist/antagonist David Kessler (played by David Naughton, I know a lot of David's here), was extremely similar to Schimmer's character Ross, in that the mannerisms, vocal tone, and just general presence were so strong.  Ross was sweet, funny, bumbling, necrotic  and sometimes just plain dumb.  This was exactly what David was like in An American Werewolf in London.

Now Friends didn't begin until 1994 and I doubt Schwimmer was channeling anything from this film into the character of "Ross."  But, when we watch AAWL you see all those characteristics in David Kessler.  Right from the get go of the film he is likable and carries a bit of charm.  After the attack he displays neroticism, which is understandable considering he is having nightmares and seeing his dead friend Jack, (in the beginning of the film Jack is killed by a werewolf while David in merely injured).  However, he displays a mixture of sweetness and bumbling American just enough that the head nurse that cared of him in the hospital, eventually takes him home and sleeps with him, (close a Ross and Rachel moment).  Even the conversation between Jack and David is reminiscent of a conversation between "Ross" and "Chandler."

Even how David reacts to the news that he is a werewolf, is more than likely how "Ross" would have reacted.  Unbelief and the search for a logical explanation until it is to late.

Writer director John Landis probably wanted me to be scared when I watched this movie.  I unfortunately was not, but I have never really been frightened of werewolf movies.  Silver Bullet, The Howling, all kind of ruined ever since I watched Teen Wolf, (you are no longer scared of werewolds when they become the star player of the high school basketball team).

Not to say this was not an excellent movie. This movie inspired the Academy to start an award for best make-up design.  Michael Jackson was so blown away by this movie, that he personally acquired John Landis to direct Thriller. (If you watch this movie, and if you can remember the video for Thriller at all, there are tons of similarities).  But instead of being scared, I ended up thinking about the other cast-members of Friends.

It got me thinking if they were cast in a horror film, what role would they play?  Would any of them survive?  Would one of them be the villain? I am strictly speaking of course of the Friends characters that they portray.

The easiest of the remaining "friends" to come up with this conclusion was Matt LeBlanc or "Joey."  "Joey" would be easy, if he were in a horror film he would be hacked up in the first fifteen minutes. You know "Joey" is going to sleep with someone, and by the "rules" or nature of horror films, if you have sex with a psycho around, you have to die.

"Phoebe" I imagine playing the unwilling villain, a Carrie type of character.  Unlike "Ross" who has no clue he is a bad guy, "Phoebe" fully realizes what she is doing.  A gal that gets pushed over the edge and made fun of for being quirky one to many times, she would show up to the gym or show, covered in pig's blood and mentally just burning the place to the ground. She would have no remorse and leave no bully unharmed.  Than, possibly end her own life in the end, or go take down a slaughterhouse next.

"Chandler" would end up being the nice guy in the film that makes to many jokes and is sickenly nice, while his other friends are total douche bags. He is the guy that the damsel in distress usually falls for, but wonders, "how the fuck did he end up with this crowed?"  He would help ward off the bad guy for a while, some how get injured or knocked out, and than come around at the end of the film.  Or worse, or I guess in "Chandler's" case more predictable saved the female lead, who would probably be "Monica."

Oh yeah, "Monica" has "survivor girl" written all over her. She's tough yet vulnerable, baby crazy but wants a decent man (lucky you "Chandler"), and constantly takes the high road and tries to save everyone else.  What is funny about this is Courtney Cox-Arquette, who portrays "Monica" has been a major character in the Scream franchise, and is anything but my description.  But, if "Monica" were in a horror film, she would be duking it out with the monster at the end and saving the day. Afterwards, she would make pie.   

"Rachel" would end up playing the annoyingly hot chick in a horror film that you hope gets naked but never does. She will meet her untimely demise, but not until the very end of the film. She would be the gal that would be nasty to the "survivor girl," and hardcore flirt with her secret crush, even though the secret crush wants nothing to do with her.  She will end up making out, or even sleeping with some surprise dude at a party,(although we will never see the sex scene due to a contractual agreement.)  But shortly after she will be the very last victim of the psycho, but she will have annoyed us enough with her presence that the audience is actually thankful her head has been split into two pieces.

America's favorite "Friends" dispatched and dispatching.

Campbell & Coscarelli: Transcend Bubba Ho-Tep Beyond Cult Status Before it Got There

n the horror film genre, there are certain types of films that are designated as “cult” films. Cult films, if you are not familiar with the phrase, are movies that don't necessarily do well in the box office, but end up developing a large fan base through the combination of video sales and word of mouth. Re-Animator, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Dawn of the Dead, are considered some of the most classic cult films in horror. Even non-horror films such as Donnie Darko and The Big Lebowski are considered cult films.

These films tend to have one if not a few things in common; low budget, bad special effects, less than stellar acting, major plot holes in the story, inexperienced directors, and possibly an incoherent ending (The Big Lebowski may be an exception to this, I feel it was just marketed incorrectly by the studios).

Even though these seemingly bad things happen in the above mentioned films, they end up finding an audience that appreciates the work. The special effects might not be mind blowing, or even close to realistic, but the story, the idea, the images of terror, that is what the audience appreciates. Take, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the way the actors deliver their lines is almost comical but when they catch a glimpse of Leatherface, there terror they display becomes real. That entire film could be crap (I happen to think it's pretty well done) but the scenes in which Leatherface appears, gives the film credibility in that the audience collectively bonds with each other in their fright. All experiencing nightmare together.

It's that collective bond that usually formulates after a few years. For example you may have been one of ten people to go see Dawn of the Dead (the 78' version), now you geek out when you meet someone else that has seen the film and enjoyed it, (the internet has made it a little easier to find like-minded souls on these matters). But it's a terrific surprise when you meet someone that enjoyed the same film that got trashy reviews and generally dissed by the majority of the population. In a sense, cult films are like high school nerds that go to college and become popular in their dorm, sometimes having festivals revolve around them (more in the case of the film than the nerd).

In 2002, a film was released that featured the greatest cult film actor paired up with arguably the greatest cult film director. That movie was Bubba Ho-Tep, those two giants of the “B” movie world were Bruce Campbell and Don Coscarelli. The film found an audience over time, but transcended cult status before the label was even placed on it.

Bubba Ho-Tep was made for a paltry million bucks and shot in 30 days (which apparently, according to Campbell in an interview is a long time for that amount of money). Cocsarelli ponied up most of his cash and actually was able to save money by having some of the special effects done as favors.

The concept of the film was taken from a short story written by Joe R. Lansdale. 68-year old Elvis Presely (portrayed by Campbell) has been stuck in a nursing home for the last 20 years. However, prior to his “death” he had switched places with an Elvis impersonator named Sebastain Huff, who died after the switch. With no way of proving he's the real Elvis, the nursing home staff believes he is Sebastain. However, his mistaken identity and cancer (on his penis) are not his only problems. A soul-sucking mummy has chosen the nursing home as his feeding ground to sustain his life. Elvis decides to team up with Jack, a black man who believes he is John F. Kennedy (portrayed by Ossie Davis) to save the nursing home and destroy the mummy.

It sounds ridiculous right? In fact, there are parts that are. Watching a 68 year-old Elvis battle a mummy with a walker and a bad hip is hilarious. But this film goes beyond Elvis verses a mummy. There's a tremendous amount of depth to this film, something that some cult films lack. Evil Dead for instance is a great film that's both scary and fun to watch, but there isn't much depth behind the fact that a bunch of college kids release an evil in the woods that comes for their souls. Bubba Ho-Tep forces the viewer to take a break from the absurd and concentrate on character depth.

Bruce Campbell turns in probably the best performance of his career. He, with the help of Coscarelli, create an Elvis that, if he were alive, would probably be pretty damn accurate. A lot of rock journalists and pop-culture writers like to make off-kilter jokes that Elvis did himself a favor and killed himself when he did because he was starting to lose it (these writers don't blatantly come out and say this, but it's implied. I often wonder in five more years will the same jokes be made about Kurt Cobain?).

In the film, Elvis is lonely, disgraced, regretful, and ponders on the past and his loved ones. All this is displayed through not only the narration that is done by Elvis, but through the mannerisms and facial expressions that Campbell gives to the character. His voice is a spot on imitation of Elvis, and the look is so realistic as to what a washed up dying Elvis would look like. But you really see and feel the emotions of a once American Icon fallen into disgrace. The look of embarrassment when his nurse helps him with his “thing that they do.” His voice carries a tone of sadness and the need for companionship when he talks about Priscilla. These tragic emotions and powerful performances are not displayed in your typical cult horror film.

At this point in the essay, if you don't know who Campbell or Coscarelli are you are probably asking (I am giving myself some credit that you are still reading this essay) two questions: Who the fuck are these guys and if this movie is so damn good, why hadn't I heard of it, or why didn't it do better? Valid questions, and I will tell you.

First off, we will start with Bruce Campbell, mainly because most people have heard of him, they just don't realize it, and secondly, because Coscarelli and the second half of that above question go hand-in-hand.

Campbell, as I have stated is the king of cult films. He played Ash in the Evil Dead trilogy (for those of you that didn't know this Army of Darkness is technically Evil Dead 3, which is by the way, the one that most people have seen). He was also in two television shows that very few people watched, but will dress up as characters from when they go to Comic-Con. They were The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. and Xena: Warrior Princess. He's also had roles in other cult films such as Maniac Cop, Escape from L.A and Darkman. Currently, he plays the role of “Sam Axe” on the USA Network show Burn Notice, which in itself is sort of a “B” rated espionage show.

Campbell has always had terrific acting chops. He's always been able to diversify his roles and find steady work in Hollywood, even if he's not a household name (this is true because I asked one of my ten supervisors at work if they knew who he was, and they said no. I than mentioned Burn Notice and than a light bulb came on). But Campbell has made himself a nice career in doing roles and movies that he is interested in.

If you never heard of Coscarelli, it's a little more understandable. Coscarelli doesn't have the volume that Campbell has, but what he does have is arguably the most popular cult horror film franchise in history, the Phantasm films. If you never heard of the film or it's three sequels, it's okay, (also if you never heard of The Beast Master, his sword and sorcery franchise, that is alright as well, it's a cult film for Dungeons and Dragons nerds).

Phantasm had just about every element you would expect in a “B” rated horror flick. Over dramatic line delivery, confusing story, an unnecessary jam-session. But it was genuinely scary with an uber creepy soundtrack, one of the scariest central villains ever created in “The Tall Man,” and one of my favorite cliff hanger endings in a movie. The movie constantly made you question everything you saw, you were never sure if it was real or a dream sequence. It confused the hell out of it's viewers, but years later found a core audience that clamored for more.

The movie could have stood on it's own. There was no need to really make a sequel unless Coscarelli wanted to expand the universe. Major studios knew this, they saw the potential and wondered what kind of a product they could get if they gave Coscarelli an inflated budget (Phantasm was made for $300,000), quality caliber actors, and a larger distribution.

However, Coscarelli never wanted his vision to be tampered with. He turned down projects such as Conan: The Destoryer, A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge, Silver Bullet, and he even passed on the 2003 Texas Chainsaw Massacre reboot. Mainly because studios wanted to interfere with his creative process. So therefore he expanded on Phantasm and The Beast Master movies.

Since 1998, the Phantasm series has been put on hold. At one point New Line offered to produce the next movie but wanted a straight up reboot. Coscarelli didn't like the idea and shelved the project until he could afford to make a part five the way he wants to.

That's why Bubba Ho-Tep is so special, it was made by a film maker with uncompromising vision. A man willing to sacrifice a larger audience release, so that the finished product would be appreciated when it fell into the proper hands (those hands could be anyone really).

Unlike most cult-films, Bubba Ho-Tep was initially recognized for what it was. Both Campbell and Coscarelli were either nominated or won many independent film awards, including the Bram Stoker Award given Coscarelli for best screenplay. In their minds (particularly Coscarelli) it's better to be recognized by your peers and people who enjoy watching movies, as opposed to making tons of money and sacrificing art.

It's a movie that could have been easily done by a large studio. Tom Cruise would have been cast as Elvis, while Danny Glover would have played Jack (although Ossie David may have still gotten the role). There would have at least been four more explosions, the mummy would have been all CGI, the soundtrack would constantly play Elvis songs, and it would have been PG-13 as opposed to R, so the studio would attract a larger audience.

But it didn't need it, just like it doesn't need the “cult” status slipped into it's description to attract people to watch it.