Child's Play (1988)

It is amazing how this film has become a cliche in such a short amount of time. I watched this tonight on the 20th Anniversary edition DVD which came out a couple of weeks ago. For some reason this is the first time it is available in widescreen format. That is terrible but shows how these kind of movies have been treated and are viewed by the film community. We will get into this type of thing more throughout the month because this happens to be the case with several films.

So we already know that this film gets no respect, probably not even from you. Rightfully so, this first film is much better than all of the others, but because MGM owns it, as opposed to Universal who owns the rest of the series, its DVD releases have been limited and not part of 2 different box sets that have been put out by Universal.

This film is notably darker than the rest of the series, and you can tell that they are actually trying for some sort of message against marketing to children. This is apparent from the way that Andy (Alex Vincent) wears a "Good Guy" outfit for most of the film, has Good Guy cereal, a Good Guy tool kit, and still isn't satisfied until he has a Good Guy doll. I know that the original intent of the first draft of the script was to be a lot more overt about this message, but once it got the studio treatment it was able to be molded into the unique piece of horror cinema that it is today.

Like it said before, it is considerably darker when compared to the rest of the series, maybe because it was by a decent director who at least knows his genre, Tom Holland. Having made Fright Night (1985) three years prior, he showed that he could sustain an above average reputation in the horror genre. However, he only directed what unfortunately has turned out to be the least seen of the series.

It had been quite awhile since I had seen this movie, considering I had been waiting for a widescreen DVD to show up. Now that I have been reunited with one of my favorites, I am reminded of how good it is. It is so unique, especially for the time in which it was made. At the height of the slasher film era for horror, this film came out did something no one else was doing. It is one of the few deviations from the slasher conventions set-up by past efforts like Halloween (1978) and Black Christmas (1974), another of course being A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). But what Child's Play does is gives you characters that you actually care about, uses uncoventional murder methods (not a single stabbing...technically), and incorporates a voodoo aspect that, though over the top, gives an excuse for the supernatural occurences.

What this all does is come together in a series of events that lead you into uncharted territory for an 80s horror film. In the end you are left with a mother and son and two police officers that defeat the killer doll. (Sorry to spoil it but you should be slapped if you haven't seen this already.) This is something that must have been mind-blowing twenty years ago. The slasher film is so famous for objectifying women and making one of them defeat the killer in the end that the term "final girl" was coined by Carol J. Clover in the book Men, Women, and Chainsaws (1992). Also, as Carol Clover would like to ignore, this film does not objectify women, in fact, there are no fallic symbols in the film.

As far as critical response for this film, Roger Ebert actually gave it a thumbs up. I can respect that. Gene Siskel gave it a thumbs down. I can respect that. What I can't respect is the people that get up-in-arms about the fact that the only minority in the film was cast as a victim. This wasn't done on purpose, the story is still believable, and white people died, too. If you are looking for racism in movies, you will always find a way to spin it in your favor. If you think this film is racist because of that, please don't watch it.

Finally, this film is great just because it is one of those movies that you can watch in a serious way, or as a joke. If you want to be scared by it, there's a good chance you will be; if you want to laugh at it, it gives you plenty of opportunity. Whatever you choose, just acknowledge that it is a well made film, that is unique. You may not think about it, but there is no other movie that is like this at all. Which brings us to tomorrow's film...

Oktober Horror Fest

I have not been faithful to this blog already, but I'm going to make it up this month. While many cable channels have about a week's worth of cramming horror movies down your throat at the end of October, I'm going to dedicate the whole month to a slow, steady digestion of the best horror movies out there. Each of the 31 days in October will be dedicated to a different horror movie, which I will watch and post something (review, praise, fun facts, further viewing, etc.) about each one, each day. This is by no means a countdown to the best, nor is it a list of the best in any order. I have chosen many of my favorites, but I also want this to be a broadening experience for my horizons as well, so there will be at least a week of movies I haven't seen. Below I have posted a schedule. Hope it suits you... It suits me. For those of you who actually read this: try and watch some of these when I do and respond to what I say about them. I know you can't watch all of them; I'm going to have a hard time myself. With perseverance and that most powerful of Captain Planet ring powers (heart!...it comes with a monkey) we will drudge through this most awesome of tasks.

*All the following are subject to change

Wed 1 - Child's Play (1988)
Thurs 2 - Pumpkinhead (1988)
Fri 3 - High Tension (2003)
Sat 4 - It (1990)
Sun 5 - The Amityville Horror (1979)
Mon 6 - Critters (1986)
Tues 7 - Demons (1985)
Wed 8 - The Shining (1980)
Thurs 9 - Re-Animator (1985)
Fri 10 - From Beyond (1986)
Sat 11 - The Exorcist (1973)
Sun 12 - The Gate (1987)
Mon 13 - The Others (2001)
Tues 14 - Cemetery Man (1994)
Wed 15 - Frailty (2001)
Thurs 16 - House (1986)
Fri 17 - Session 9 (2001)
Sat 18 - Dark Water (2002)
Sun 19 - The Evil Dead (1981)
Mon 20 - Phantasm (1979)
Tues 21 - Maniac (1980)
Wed 22 - The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Thurs 23 - Dawn of the Dead (1978)
Fri 24 - Puppet Master (1989)
Sat 25 - Psycho (1960)
Sun 26 - Hellraiser (1987)
Mon 27 - The Thing (1982)
Tues 28 - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
Wed 29 - Halloween (1978)
Thurs 30 - Friday the 13th (1980)
Fri 31 - A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Funny Games (2008)

I will start with the film that inspired this blog. I had seen the original Funny Games (1997) about a year ago. I was horribly disturbed, but I thought it was great nonetheless. The filmmaking ability it takes to affect adults so deeply is nothing short of phenomenal. Michael Haneke is clearly no slouch when it comes to directing.

So why would Richard Roeper say "If there is one movie from 2008 you should avoid at all costs, that movie would be Funny Games."? This means that he recommends Meet the Spartans (2008) over this film... But let's give him a chance. Maybe he will intelligently explain why he hates this film so passionately. "Funny Games has some self-indulgent touches...but to what end? Are we supposed to consider this some kind of performance art, some kind of commentary on the nature of violence in the movies? You know what, by the end I didn't care...It's an ugly and pretentious film and offers no new insight into the psychopathic mind. Artsy garbage is still garbage." Ah-ha! That's the problem! This kind of film is supposed to offer up new insight into the psychopathic mind. What a ridiculous complaint. I suppose he also didn't like No Country for Old Men (2007) for the same reason, because this is apparently something he looks for perpetually.

Let's swing the focus over to Michael Phillips, perhaps, if possible, an even bigger idiot. "The original, in its own perverse way works...It's grueling as hell but it's a serious effort. I think this one feels like karoke." Where to start... So he likes the original. This is odd considering it is the exact same movie. The difference between them is, if anything, that this one is made with a much larger budget and quality (looks-wise). Roeper and Phillips

It seems these two have missed the memo that comes with this film to anybody who bothers to know what they are talking about. This film was made over ten years ago for an Austrian/German audience as a critique of the media's (and yes, the audience's) obsession with violence. Hmm...seems like something vaguely American. Of course, a German film that is this disturbing and gets next to nothing on American reviews, will not get much, if any play in America. When it does, it will only hit the arthouse crowd instead of the common movie goer at whom it is aimed. Of course, the obvious choice, once you have made it big in America with a film like Caché (2005), is to remake it for an American audience.

Many reviewers' complaints about the film is that is doesn't conform to typical suspense films. Some say it is just another in a long line of torture films, but stands alone in thinking it is art. People: films can only be; they cannot think. This film is only what you see, if you believe it is trying to be art, that must be because it is made with such talent that you recognize the beauty of it, but you also don't like how it makes you feel so you call it pretentious. God damn a filmmaker who wants to make a statement through a horror movie! These reviewers have taken their noses out of the air and put them head and all, right up their asses. Where they were once too good to recognize art in horror, they now see it and reject it.

After reading those reviews, one may think this is a horribly violent film. But did I mention that there isn't a single filmed act of violence in the film? Well there's one, but that doesn't count...you'll see. It is so psychologically affecting that it makes viewers think they saw something that they didn't. How is that not good filmmaking? Furthermore, it takes place almost entirely inside one room, with 4-5 characters throughout. Yet it is so gripping that you will actually sit and watch it with a turning stomach just from their conversations. There is no grotesque imagery, no cheap jumps, this is horror in the most pure form. If you thought Scream (1996) was all-too-possible, wait till you see this. The two lead boy tormentors are so creepy you will feel it in your guts by the time Tubby drops the eggs. You may not want to watch it again for several years, but you probably feel the same way about Schindler's List (1993). So give it a chance if you dare, I promise you won't hate it.

This film is only the newest in a long line of disturbing but extremely well-made films. It is obviously not for everybody. If you do want to see it or others that will leave you feeling like shit for many hours after viewing, see Reqiuem for a Dream (2000), Salo: 120 Days of Sodom (1975), or The Last House on the Left (1972). All of these films are so well made that you are thoroughly entertained and repulsed. They are unique in that they affect the viewer for longer than the duration of the film. This is a feat that few films can lay claim, but an important one to those of us who like unique films. P.S. The afore mentioned 4 films are all from competent directors that make a wide variety of films (they aren't just psychos).

Note: I do not advocate repeated viewings of any of the above mentioned films, nor do I advocate any viewing whatsoever of Meet the Spartans. I do advocate referring to Richard Roeper as "ugly and pretentious."

Who will critique the critics?

I will! I have recently been struck with an urge to bring to life shunned, forgotten, and critically condemned movies. I intend to do this by a system of watching, reading, and blogging. There are many movies that have been condemned by critics over the years that have worth. There are also many that few of my peers have been exposed to that are great. My mission is to bring readers an academically sound, insightful, and accessible blog that reviews not only films but critics' responses to films. It will work as both a starting point for beginning film viewers as well as the ill- and uninformed, and a counterpoint to many reviews. Mostly this blog will be a place to go for suggestions for good movies that provides reasons why (I think) they are good. I would like to think that all readers will agree with me, but I know that can never be. I don't want to be the only one with opinions here. If anyone does trek through the desert of blogs and finds this mirage of an oasis and decides they like what they see, I encourage them to respond. The most I'm hoping for from this blog is at least one person reads it and we have a regular dialogue about films and critics. The adventure begins soon...stay tuned.