Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows

Dir: Joe Berlinger

Did I say The Prophecy? Oh I meant this sequel.

There are some films where you can admire the idea more than you can admire any of the content, and for me, this sequel is one of those things.

Rushed into release by an eager studio, Book of Shadows presupposes the idea that the original film was just that, but that hasn't stopped flocks of people turning up at Burkittsville hoping to either get a look at the Blair Witch, or just steal some stuff featured in the film. Interestingly that was indeed what happened after the release of the original film. No matter how many times people stated the film was fiction, someone would always steal a sign, more than likely to sell on Ebay.

So a group of people turn up to spend the night in the 'Haunted' woods, and they black out. They find their recordings are hidden in some foundations (Just like the tapes from the original film) and when they return to view them, they realise they weren't acting themselves, and that something else has influenced them...

I remember when this film was first released, excited not only by the prospect of further Witchin' adventures, but by the fact that the Writer/Director Joe Berlinger was at the helm. Berlinger is a noted documentary maker who not only made the stunning Paradise Lost, but the Metallica documentary Some Kind of Monster  (Highly recommended even if you don't like Metallica, which I don't). Listening to his audio commentary I can see why Berlinger was excited too. He'd turned in a script that was largely psychological horror, and there's certainly something in the idea that a group of people can effectively 'black out' over the course of the night and not remember their actions, no matter how deranged. But the studio took the finished film, re edited it and threw in a ton of gore shots to appeal to the kids.

Now without the tinkering of Artisan do I think the film would've been THAT much better? It's hard to say, though I certainly think it would be remembered more fondly than what it is. The film, in its current state, does contain some effective chills and I did like the constant nods to the original film and the mythology. And if Berlinger is to be believed, then the original film would've contained an air of ambiguity all the way through (Drawing parallels with his Documentary roots). Still, there's a lot of clunky dialog here, and one or two supposedly big 'scares' that just don't work at all. But despite all that there's still glimpses of Berlinger's original script that make it through, particularly a scene later on where the group turn on each other, climaxing in a nasty neck break. The idea of suspicion turning people into a group of rabid witchunters (Natch) isn't new, but the scene gets extra depth when you recount Berlinger's earlier documentary.

Still, I don't know what it is about this film that has me returning to it. I certainly can't disagree with anyone who lists the film's flaws. I can see them but they don't bother me. There's just something ABOUT Book of Shadows that keeps me coming back every year or so, and you know what? I'm perfectly happy to.

Marble Hornets: A Mystery

So I'm cheating a little bit today. In Lieu of a film (I'll make it up to you guys I promise), I'm going to give a little push to this Internet oddity.

Obstensibly an ARG (Or is it?), Marble Hornets to give it a name, is a series of short videos that detail an amateur film maker who's being stalked (though he sometimes doesn't realise it) by a long slender man in a black suit. It's also remarkably effective, and something that could only really take place on the Internet.

The story, such as it is to date, goes as follows...

A Youtube channel is started in which the creator (Let's call him MH) details how his friend 'Alex' was shooting a student film called Marble Hornets for his film class. During filming Alex's behavior gets increasingly erratic, until he ceases filming. MH eventually convinces Alex to hand him over the tapes, with the idea to continue the film. Shortly after Alex vanishes and the tapes are not really thought about again.

Fast forward to 2009 and we finally get a look at the tapes. In it we find just what got Alex so rattled...A gent who's been nicknamed 'The Slender Man'.

You can find the first video here. The rest of the videos, titled Entry #1, 2, 3 etc can be found at the same page.

What's most effective about the videos is that though they're only 2 minutes or shorter, they're really quite effective at what they set out to do. If any has seen the film Signs, you'll know that the most memorable scene is the one where we see the video from a children's birthday party. Now imagine 14 videos of the same thing, that's what we're dealing with


There's also a palpable sense of mystery about the whole thing. MH set up a twitter feed and things are starting to go askew there as well. Interestingly another youtube user named totheark has started creating video responses to the original videos, and curiously of all, shows events from one of the original videos from a different perspective.

I've detailed my love of mystery before, and this is no exception. I'm already awaiting the next incarnation of 'The Slender Man'. And I'll be sure to check outside my windows tonight...

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1941)

Directed By: Victor Fleming

Robert Louis Stevensons' classic novella 'The Strange case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde'  has been adapted countless times (Some 120 times if we're just throwing out numbers). Today we look at probably one of the most well known incarnations.

The thoroughly American Spencer Tracy plays the thoroughly English Dr Jekyll in this adaptation. Taking place in a gorgeous looking, and largely matte painted London, the film continues the standard story that nearly all of the stage and film adaptations have done before and since. Dr Jekyll, looking to explore the 'soul' of a man, takes a potion that lets his uninhibited side live...and look a bit of a mess.

As a nitpick, there's never really been an explanation as to why Hyde appears so differently to Jekyll. Even in the original novella Hyde is described as looking younger than the Dr. Surely if both men were one and the same then their appearances shouldn't differ? Still in this version at least the transformation isn't all that drastic, and it's largely Tracy's layered performance that carries the idea of Hyde, more than the physical make up.

An idea discounted by Stevenson himself but again one that carries through all adaptations, is that the transformation is largely a sexually deviant one. It's not an uncommon thought though, and the Novella has been seen to be a comment on the Victorian Man's hidden Homosexuality at that time. Coincidentally, the Novella was written the same year that Parliament passed a law banning Homosexual sex, and many references are made to Hyde entering and exiting Jekyll's Lab through "The back entrance". Further to that, save for very minor characters there are also no Women in the story, instead the focus is largely on Mr Utterson, a friend of Jekyll's who is investigating the identity of the largely elusive Mr Hyde. Indeed, there are many allusions to eroticism in this adaptation, particularly the first time that Jekyll takes his 'potion' and has a fever dream. In that he's seen maniacally whipping Horses which transform into his fiancée and a somewhat 'loose' woman he met hours previously. Of course he continues whipping.

For 1941 the film really does explore the sexual aspects perceived to be in the Novella. Hyde develops a seemingly sado-masochistic relationship with Ingrid Bergman, the very heavy implication being that he beats her and regularly rapes her.

Though it came out largely in the midst of the Universal Horror series of films, this film really amps up the psychological aspect (Similar to the earlier The Invisible Man) as opposed to the easier 'Hyde runs around brutally killing' aspect that a lot of versions seem to follow. Tracy's Hyde is nothing more than a sadist and not a monster in the classic sense of the word.

There are one or two issues that remain, one is that Tracy is just slightly too old to be the spouse of the much much younger looking Lana Turner. Indeed as IMDB informs me, Ava Gardener and Lana Turner were initially cast in opposite roles, before Gardener thought they should swap. If they had retained their initial roles then the age difference wouldn't be such a problem, as it is now Jekyll comes across as something of a sexual deviant before taking his potion.

The other problem is Gardener's dubious accent. It switches multiple times, between her native accent and a hybrid of Irish/Scottish. Though I'm used to hearing bad accents, there's nothing more jarring than sitting through a dramatic scene and thinking the actress sounds Jamaican.

Still, the film proves to be enjoyable enough without losing it's way like last nights effort, and in reality anything that even partly takes place in a foggy London gets an automatic thumbs up from me. Furthermore it's a shame that Critics and even the stars of the film disowned it when it came out. Indeed, Tracy thought his acting career was over after it was released, he considered his performance that bad. I like to think he caught it on TV years later and looked back at it fondly because he really is that good.

The Old Dark House (1932)

Directed By: James Whale

So I had this flick lying around and thought I'd pick it for day 2's viewing. On the whole I liked it...sort of.

So it's kind of a stretch to call The Old Dark House horror. It's more like a bizarre comedy of manners which amps up a thriller element in the end, and even that seems like an afterthought. So much so that's I'm not entirely sure what transpired. Still, it's hard to imagine audiences back then being convinced by the film's final third.

The film comes fresh with a horror tag mainly due to the presence of Frankenstein Director James Whale, who's reunited with his star Boris Karloff (In a largely silent role - save for some grunts).

So, the story. In brief, the Waverton's (Played by Raymond Massey and Gloria Stuart) are traveling through "Rural Wales" as the synopsis tells me. Along for the ride is Penderel (Melvyn Douglas). Caught out in a horrendous storm they seek shelter in 'The Old Dark House' of the title. Once there they engage in a darkly comic battle with the denizens of said House. Part way through, another couple arrive (The Male being Charles Laughton, future and one time Director of the masterpiece Night of the Hunter). Then we learn of creepy people living on the top floor, and then we enter pretty standard thriller territory. Film abruptly ends.

The film does start off well, I'll give it that much. Though I can't say if that's down to legitimately good filmaking or whether it's because I have such an affinity for classic Universal Horror films. It's simplistic, but there's something I like about seeing a film shot entirely on a back lot, probably in California, while it pretends to be set in somewhere that's probably only a few hours from my front door. Still, it's nicely written early on, and though the mystery elements start to creep in it's a lot more fun to watch the cast engage in some nice verbal sparring, also with it's stormy weather and it's long dark corridors, The Old Dark House seems one of the earliest precursors to Gothic Horror that I can remember.

It's hard to imagine how audiences would've responded to this film in 1932. Though Melvyn Douglas is nicely charming, it's simply too hard to buy that he and one lady in particular manage to fall in love and get engaged literally one hour after meeting each other (If that). There's a remarkable scene where Douglas tells Lilian Bond (Playing Gladys Perkins) that he wants her "Body and Soul", if only for the fact that it's completely shoehorned in without a care in the World. It's about then that the film comes off the rails and enters the afore mentioned 'thriller' territory.

Still, there's not a lot to add about this film. It's nicely made as always by Whale (One shot has a character tell a story while their face is distorted by Mirrors, creating a nice effect) and it's acted competently enough, though to be honest Raymond Massey and Gloria Stuart are largely non entities on the page. Stuart (Who plays the older version of Kate Winslet in Titanic) seems to do nothing but run into Boris Karloff and shriek, where as Karloff doesn't seem to do anything but bump into Stuart and stare at her.

Bizarrely enough the film opens with a note from the producer stating that the Boris Karloff in this film is indeed the same Boris Karloff that played 'Frankenstein', and as such is a testament to his acting. Though to be honest, in both roles he's hired to do nothing but wear make up and look menacing. So maybe it's not that much of a stretch.

Also of note, the film was later remade in 1962 by Schlock Master William Castle with a decidedly more comic slant and with a largely different plot, and is all the better for it.

Drag me to Hell...Again.

DIR: Sam Raimi

Welcome back dear reader! 31 one nights of Horrors (And some other oddities thrown in) and we're over the first hurdle. October is an exciting time to be a Horror fan, and as the nights draw in and I have to start putting the heating on, there's nothing better than cosying up with a Horror flick...or 31.

So today is Drag me to Hell, and it should be noted that this is my second viewing. My first is detailed on my OTHER Blog (I'm starting a blog for everything I like, up next...Kitchen Utensils) here. So while my initial thoughts are over there, we can just go into thoughts on my second viewing here.

So...what's changed?

Well I don't think I jumped once this time around, and that's really a shame. I can't really think if that's because I didn't have a Cinema to watch it in, or just because I know when all the jump scares are coming. But on this occasion, the "Spook A Blast" didn't quite get me.

Like the Final Destination series of films, Drag me to Hell strikes me more as a community film. Something you watch with friends and a little bit of Alcohol. Half the fun is in watching someone else squirm, and watching someone else jump. Watching it alone and without the benefits that Alcohol can bring, I found it an ultimately enjoyable but lacking 90 minutes that has an occasional mis use of CGI, but still comes recommended.

So, what worked?

I liked both Justin Long and Alison Lohman more this time around. Long in particular not only plays the unforgiving role of 'Skeptical Boyfriend' but is almost non existent on the page. The fact that he sells the role as well as he does makes me wonder what would've happened if Raimi gave him something else to do.

Lohman works best here though, and watching it again I noticed how she plays the sweet innocent girl as more of a facade than something that's actually real. It seems more that her character WANTS to be the nice innocent girl next door, but is instead perhaps a little more calculating. As usual though I could well be overthinking things.

So that's almost all I have to say on Drag me to Hell. My initial thoughts have not changed much past my initial viewing. If you're going to see the film then see it with the lights down and a lot of friends, you'll thank me afterwards.

It's OCTOBER!

I'm sure I'm telling you dear readers what you know already, but today will be the first day of our 31 nights of Horror...again. I'm not sure how we're going to work this, but I'm going to try and get my reviews/views up right after I've seen the film(s), but in the event of that not working (Or me falling asleep) I'll update the next day.

Stay tuned and I'll be back later with film numero uno.

We're BACK! (A Dinosaur Story)

Ok so first off an apology. I didn't do my roundup from last year (And give out the imaginary rewards. Here's a hint, worst film would've been 'Manos' - that film haunts me).

I might still crank that out but we are going for a second year in a row, another 31 films and I might even throw in some Halloween oddities.

Until then keep this thing bookmarked and follow me on Twitter (Just tap that little icon over on the right side of the screen).

It's going to be a crazy October.