This week we got to watch the movie The Punisher. Which is a movie based on a comic about a man who has everything taken from him and turns into a vigilante/killer. Or as I like to call this movie, Thomas Jane put your damn shirt on! But seriously, will someone please buy the poor man a shirt? He clearly needs one as he spends a good portion of this film lacking one.
Friday, October 23, 2015
The Punisher
This week we got to watch the movie The Punisher. Which is a movie based on a comic about a man who has everything taken from him and turns into a vigilante/killer. Or as I like to call this movie, Thomas Jane put your damn shirt on! But seriously, will someone please buy the poor man a shirt? He clearly needs one as he spends a good portion of this film lacking one.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Misery by Stephen King
This week we got to read Misery by Stephen King. Which is a book about a seriously unlucky writer named Paul Sheldon who is held captive by small-town bat-shit crazy Annie Wilkes. You have seen a movie about it, but you should really read the book.
Works Cited
Friday, October 9, 2015
Silence of the Lambs
Works Cited
Friday, October 2, 2015
Red Dragon by Thomas Harris
Works Cited
Thursday, September 10, 2015
American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis
Works Cited
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Psycho by Robert Bloch
This week we read Psycho by Robert Bloch. I'm not going to lie my first experience with Psycho was the 1960 movie of the same name. I happen to really love the film, it's sequels (II, III, & IV the last one being my favorite), and even the tv show inspired by it (Bates Motel)...the remake...not so much. But today I want to talk about the movie. But I can't say some comparisons from the book to the film will be forthcoming. That said going into this I pretty much knew what I was getting into. So there were no real surprises.
I guess the best place to start for me is how different it was from the film in one key way. And that difference is all in the description. For example how they describe Norman Bates. The author uses terms like ample, plump-faced (Bloch, 4) fat man (Bloch, 19), and multiple other ways to describe how portly Norman is. It stuck me as weird. But mostly because I was more familiar with Anthony Perkins as Norman...and he's closer to willowy than portly.
Another thing that struck me was how well written it was. For example, the voice totally shifts and sounds completely different when it goes from Norman's POV to someone else's. My favorite shift is to the Private Investigator Arbogast. The way he's written reminds me so much of the typical cops in the films that came out of 1940's. The best example I can think of is the film Double Indemnity. There's also a pretty funny Famil Guy cutaway that pokes fun at this type of character. And the whole time I read anything about or from the POV of Arbogast I was there and I could see that type of character. It was pretty brilliantly done. He was distinct and different fully developed, and his own character. Norman was well written too. I just only wanted to mention Arbogast because it stood out so much to me.
There were a few issues that I had with this book. And honestly it's nitpicky stuff, I'm not going to really touch on word doubles and use of the so-called "forbidden words" because they were aplenty in this text. I only bring it up because as a writing student I'm told to look for them. But as a person and an avid reader...I just can't be moved to care about such trivialities. they weren't enough to make me not like the book. And they surely were not enough to even bother with in my opinion.
The things that I noticed as possibly problematic were lines that could have been better written. The main line I'm talking about is this one: "...all of us go a little crazy at times," (Bloch, 24). In the film it was handled much better with better effect: "We all go a little mad sometimes," (Hitchcock). For me I just think it's less wordy and more...I don't creepy, and ominous in the film. It kept the idea and lost the odd phrasing. Which goes to show how important.
There was also the issue of how dated it feels...and I'm not just talking about Norman's house. I realize that his house was supposed to be time warped. And I dug that. I'm talking about the prices of things. Let's take the motel room prices, Seven dollars for a single and twelve for a double. Do I even have to say how old it makes this book sound for me? the last time I looked at cheap motel/hotel rooms they were about forty bucks a night...and that was for a real craphole. It would have been better if that bit had been left out and wouldn't have as obviously that it was that old.
Those few flaws picked out. And there really were just a few and I really had to stretch to find something, anything that I didn't like about the book. Becuase I really enjoyed this book. I read it all in one sitting over three hours. I tore through it not wanting to put it down. I found it to have a great voice, flow, and character development. I really enjoyed this book as much if not more than the film.
Works Cited
Thursday, May 7, 2015
30 Days of Night by Steve Niles
I actually really liked this comic. That said te drawings were really weird and unique from what I am used to. Like I said I read lots of Marvel growing up....and then The Crow comics later on. But none of that prepared me for the odd way the people and vampires are drawn. They are just off. I can't put my finger on, but even the humans are just drawn oddly. Which I know comes down to style. And I don't have a problem with that. I just thought it was worth remarking on. Becuase it's the drawing that makes this comic so unique.
This book has monstrous vampires! That's right, really, real monster vampires. Thank all gods in creation for monstrous vampires. I was never going to not like this. I made my dark little darlings evil again and after the damage done by...other book series/movies who will not be named, it was refreshing and awesome. It warms my blood to see a real blood drinking, flesh tearing, murdering vampires again. I think my black little heart skipped a beat the first time I saw a trailer for the film. I know therapy I'm aware. But I can't help it. I prefer my vampire to be...savage...and dangerous. Not saving damsels in perpetual distress. Thank you, Steve Niles. Thank you sooooooooooooooooo much.
Overall story moved really quickly I would have liked to have it noted a little better as time passes...but I guess that's not really a criticism because I got drawn in any way so I guess that doesn't really matter.
I also wanted to talk for a minute of the film (Also titled 30 Days of Night). And how amazingly they capture the characters. No seriously look.
Works Cited.
Friday, April 24, 2015
The Blob (1988)
Anyway, it the spirit of full disclosure this is not the first time I have seen this film. I saw it when I was really little (hear this as 5 years old...and if you wondered why I write horror now you know why. I was corrupted ever so lovingly by my mother to adore all things that go bump in the night). My mom was a huge monster buff and if it had monsters in it then I saw it with her. So yeah, I haven't seen this movie in ages. In fact, I barely remember it. Which is weird because there are some of the most epic mullets I have ever seen in my life in this film. You would think that sort of hair travesty would stay with you...but it appears that I blocked it out...perhaps as a form of self-protection from bad hair choices.
The first thing I want to talk about this film is how sexist it really is but how under the radar it tries to be about it. The first instance is when the main female character Meg gets knocked out. I mean she literally gets bumped into a wall and gets knocked out. I'm calling BS on that. I hit a dashboard at 50 miles an hour, sustained a fracture to the skull, and frontal lobe damage, but I never lost consciousness for one moment. So yeah I found this offensive that as a girl she's deemed to be so dainty (hear this as useless and ineffective) that a simple bump to the back of her head can knock her out. They may as well have had her swoon and pass out Victorian style. Then there is the implied pending date rape...I mean that one speaks for itself and Mr. 'I have a blender in my trunk, please have a roofy-colada,' deserves every bit of what he got and more. Third why when during the scene in the sewer does the blob look like a deformed cervix (see what that looks like here)? I mean I shouldn't have to say that that is symbolic of women eating people. This whole movie really chapped my ass, that it seemed so anti-female. I left this film thinking that someone had some serious issues with women. And it really put me off.
As far as the special effects go, I feel like I had seen them all before. If you have ever seen Creepshow (1982) and Creepshow 2 (1987) you know what I am talking about. The scene with the homeless man poking the blob with a stick smacked of the scene in Creepshow titled, 'The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill.' I half expected the homeless man to say "I got meteor shit on me." It became funny rather than scary. Then there was the scene after the afore mention date rape scene that is directly ripped from Creepshow 2, titled, 'The Raft,' where an unsuspecting girl is also killed in a very similar manner. Nothing really seemed all that different than what had already been done. I was meh, about the efforts to make this unique. Also, if you haven't seen either Creepshow or Creepshow 2 I highly recommend that you do.
I also thought this movie felt very dated in how the government/scientists are portrayed. I felt very 80's to me where government = bad. I'm not saying that's not true now...I'm just saying that in 80's films it seems to scream that equation a lot louder. And g it also got used as a scapegoat more frequently in 80's films than in other decades.
I did however like the in movie satire about the Friday the 13th style movie. I like that it parodied the movie in this movie. I like that it wasn;t afraid to lampoon its own genre. That took balls so good on them. I also liked the addition of the harbinger character in the priest. I think you can't really have a good horror movie without a harbinger of doom. And you can't go wrong with the crazy priest or religious figure as your harbinger.
Overall, I didn't hate this film...but I wouldn't watch it again. I may give the next remake a whirl..hoping that it will not be so dated and sexist...but I will not be watching this one again. It's not the worst movie I have sat through. But, it definitely be the last time I watch this version of the film.
Works Cited
Friday, March 27, 2015
John Carpenter's The Thing
This week we watched John Carpenter's The Thing. A movie about an alien that mimics life forms from earth at the peril of a very beardy Kurt Russell. I've seen this movie several times and its prequel and I like them both. This film more than its prequel though.
Anyway the first thing I want to talk about is the special effects. Yes they are a little 80's and some of the creature effects are a little plastic looking. But for the time it was awesome. I just have one thing to say in defense of that. Bloodcicles. That's right icicles of blood. Frozen so fast that they are still connected to the veins that they sprang from. And it was f'ing glorious. Sure at times the blood looked like strawberry syrup...but there was just so much of it that it didn't put me off...it kind of made me want some ice cream though.
I would also like to put forth two alternate titles for this film. The first 'A Series of Bad Decisions.' Because seriously this movie would not have happened if they hadn't made so many bad choice. Bad decision number one: Let's take Ina stray dog (it's not like it could be sick or anything) . Bad decision number two: let's bring the half burnt mutated body back from the Norwegian camp (what could possibly go wrong?). Bad decision number three: Let's just let this stray dog wander about (because letting it do whatever it wants is a great plan). And last but not least bad decision number four: Let's keep the bodies around and hope they are dead. See nothing but bad choices.
My second offering for a title is 'Kill It! Kill It With Fire!' Because seriously...they got to flame throwers pretty fast. Why would they even have a flame thrower up there? I'm not sure why, and I'm not complaining (because flame throwers are awesome) but they she got to kill it with fire pretty quick.
The last thing I want to talk about is the legacy this movie has left. Show of hands, who like the Resident Evil franchise (movies or games)? *Hops up and down waiving hands* I know I do. Now look at how the aliens open up to eat. Then look at how the symbiotes in Resident Evil open up (specifically the dogs). Is see a clear lineage there. One clearly inspired the other. Which is awesome. It also shows how influential this movie really is. Aliens to symbiotes. Monsters all. What a beautiful horrifying connection.
Over all I really like this film. That said it is not my favorite Carpenter film. That would be Vampires. And if you haven't seen it you should. It's awesome. Anyway this movie was awesome, and dated or not this movie is assume too.
Works Cited
The Thing. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. Kurt Russell. 1982. DVD
Resident Evil. Dir. Paul W. S. Anderson. Perf. Milla Jovovich. 2002. Blu-Ray
Vampires. Dir. John Carpenter. Perf. James Woods. 1998. DVD
Friday, March 20, 2015
The Wolfman by Jonathan Maberry
This week we got to read The Wolfman by Jonathan Maberry. Which is a novelization of the 2010 film The Wolfman. In the spirit of honesty, I should state that I saw the movie first. Because I love werewolves. A new werewolf movie comes out of course I went to go see it. Plus have you seen the cast of the film? They are brilliant actors and they nailed it. So I went into this book knowing exactly what was going to happen and how it would end.
So for me I didn't really care for this book. But I think it's important to say what it did right as well as what I didn't like. The first thing I loved in this book was (and I know you may all die of not shock after reading this) the gore. There is so much beautiful, lovely, dripping, severed, ripping, tearing, arterial spraying gore in this book. Which is not shocker for anyone reading this. I love gore, I love dismembered appendages, blood spray, entrails that have become extrails, and heads rolling across the ground...and this book has all of the lovely bits of gore and blood that my black little heart could desire. I'm not sure however if it's because the movie has just as much (sometimes more) gore or if it's a style choice though. But since the source material has a ton of gore I am going to favor the source material as the influence here. Usually in the book assigned for class we don't get a lot of gore...but not in this book. I loved the gore. I always say it's not a werewolf book (or movie) unless a head rolls across the ground. And this book didn't disappoint. That said the film gives us a couple rolling heads so again it come out on top.
And let's get on with what I didn't like about the book. There were a lot of scenes that were added to the book that were not in the film and didn't add anything other than sex and boobs. It was very obviously something the writer had stuck in his craw when he was writing the book. I have the unrated version (as well as the rated) and never is anyone in the film naked. The scene where he gets the letter in the beginning? Nope everyone is fully clothed..drunk and a few kisses but no sex acts. Then again with Gwen in home above her father's shop...nope no boob popping out, she never even gets undressed, they have one kiss then get buzz killed by the cops at the door. So it really left me wondering why the writer felt to fabricate these scenes? They serve no purpose, They don't move the plot forward, they are just there to add sex to a book (and a film) that was perfectly fine without it. Totally unnecessary addition IMO.
On top of the fabricated added sexy stuff, they cut one of my favorite scenes in the film to pieces for no known reason. And cut my favorite line from the film. Which for me was unforgivable. What is my favorite line you ask? Here it is "Never look back, Lawrence. Never look back. The past is a wilderness of horrors," (Johnston). I just love that line for so many reasons. Because for one, it's delivered beautifully by Sir Anthony Hopkins (Whom I adore). Two the scene itself is beautifully done and very meaningful to the subplot. And three because that line rings true in my life and I firmly believe that when you experience a horror you should not waste time looking back. Ever. And to have it cut from the book...makes me completely insane. For me omitting that line was like writing a novelization of The Crow and leaving out the line "Buildings burn, People die, but real love is forever," (Proyas). Also a cardinal unforgivable sin. The author added useless scenes and cut good ones. Which makes me a crabby Patty. Not cool, man, Not cool.
Another thing I wanted to note about the book and how it strayed from the film was the obsession with the moon and the goddess of the hunt. It got to the point that for me I started rolling my eyes every time it showed up. I seriously got sick of it. I get it. It's a werewolf that is controlled by the moon...now stop beating me over the head with it. In the film, we get a couple long shots of the moon (for obvious reasons) but we don't get this obsession with the book that the books felt the need to mention it every fifteen minutes. It got real old, real fast.
There are also some weird style choices made for this book. take page 8, the second to last paragraph:
Holy word echos Batman! Also, If I were to write a paragraph where all but one line (in the paragraph) started with personal pronouns or a character name I'd get a good firm talking to in my writing program. It's also heavily filtered. Those "saw" and "heard" words making it very filtered away from the action in a moment where he could have really gone for the gut. Opportunity missed.
The POV of the werewolf and the wolfman were both very weird for me as well. I'm not sure why that was done, and while it was brief it just didn't work for me. If your werewolf is a killing machine then I don't want the writer to try and think it through for the reader. It ruins the fear element. I don't want to know what the werewolf/wolfman is feeling. I just want it to eat someone head...or arm...or leg. Dealers choice. Just don't try to put me in the werewolf/wolfman's head, it sounds contrived and unnatural.
I also thought that the use of what appeared to be raccoon footprints as section breaks was a little odd as a style choice as well. that however I will not blame of the writer. That was probably the choice of someone much higher up and in publishing. I'm not sure why it was done...but generally a raccoon does not inspire fear...and it doesn't really fit with the book either.