T h e H o r r o r T h a t W a s... J u n e 2 0 0 3

Hello everyone and welcome to the kick off of what I hope will be a new regular column. The Horror That Was will take a look at an entire month's worth of horror movies and review them not only for their own merits and flaws but also how they could pertain to CALL OF CTHULHU. This column will discus both theatrical releases and DVD/video releases. While, for the sake of space, some films may be overlooked, I will try to discuss those films that are the best or the worst made as well as those that pertain to CALL OF CTHULHU the most.

Finally, a word of explanation; I live in the USA which means release dates for films and specifics on DVDs may differ from country to country, region to region. A good example of this is our first film...

28 DAYS LATER
Dir: Danny Boyle
Starring: Cillian Murphy, Naomi Harris, Chris Eccleston

Now, I'm sure all you Brits and other European types have already seen or heard a lot about this film by now, but us poor slobs in North America have been denied access to this film until this month. So, you can skip down to the "Pertains to CoC" paragraph if you like... Still with me? Good.

First, let's tackle one thing right away. Despite the ad line that says Danny Boyle (the director of this film as well as TRAINSPOTTING, SHALLOW GRAVE and the truly frightening THE BEACH) "reinvents the zombie genre," this is NOT a zombie movie. Lets all say that again: "This is NOT a zombie movie." Why is this an important point? Because thinking that this is a zombie movie might hurt it. Fans of traditional Romero-esque zombie films might come away disappointed and those that don't like zombie films might not see it because of misinformation. Both of these possibilities would be a shame as 28 DAYS LATER is a very fine film capable of standing on its own merits.

Now, the story is nothing new. In fact, it's kind of like a hodge-podge of many different stories. Not that doing this is a bad thing as long as it's done well (and Danny Boyle does it very well). Borrowing from the likes of Stephen King's THE STAND (not to mention a quick homage to A CLOCKWORK ORANGE), this movie starts off with a nasty man-made virus called Rage that makes people and monkeys very upset to say the least. So upset, in fact, that all the infected want to do is kill non-Rage infected people. Naturally this virus gets out and soon all of Britain is infected. There are mass riots, carnage, chaos and it's all captured on video rather than film. In fact, it's important to point out that the entire movie was shot on digital video rather than traditional film. This gives the whole movie a documentary-style or news broadcast look that adds to the suspension of disbelief factor. This was a very smart move by Mr. Boyle. Anyway, back to the story. After the Rage virus gets out, the screen goes black and the caption/title: "28 Days Later" appears; then the movie really takes off.

First we meet Jim, a very scruffy, skinny, and naked coma patient that just woke up to find the hospital he was sleeping in completely deserted. Upon acquiring some clothes and snacks he leaves the hospital only to find that all of London is deserted as well. Borrowing from such films as NIGHT OF THE COMET and THIS SILENT EARTH, Jim walks about London shouting "Hello!" but getting no answers (not even from Rage infected folks) and sees the chaos left in the wake of the Rage riots (but oddly, no dead bodies). However, in due course, Jim finds both dead bodies as well as Rage "zombies" and soon after that he thankfully runs into two non-infected survivors who save him, take him under their wings, and bring him (and we the audience) up to date on what has happened in Britain since Rage got out.

Now, because I hate giving away specifics about a good movie I'm going to try to be a bit general about some things. Our trio of survivors soon becomes a duo but eventually increases to quartet size. This new family unit, complete with father figure, decides to leave London for the promised safety of military protection they hear about on the radio. The movie then turns into a travelogue of the damned as the four survivors must make the arduous three day trek. There's another Stephen King's THE STAND moment in a darkened tunnel that, while making the characters appear to be not very bright, does provide a lot of creep factor and is done very well. There's a DAWN OF THE DEAD moment where everyone goes shopping; it's a nice light-hearted romp before the final showdown (that the audience knows is coming) begins in earnest.

Finally, after much suffering and loss, our heroes find the military that will save them....but you don't think for a moment that its going to be as easy as all that, do you? With another nod to Romero, this time DAY OF THE DEAD, the military aren't exactly saviors. In fact, they are even creepier and nastier than Romero's GIs in many respects, but at least they're better acted as well. After more suffering for our trio (yes, the group is back down to three) the climax comes in the form of a dark and rainy night of chaos with much shouting, screaming and bloodletting. Do the heroes escape? Do any of them get shot by the soldiers? Killed by Rage infected? Is there a happy ending to all this? Well, for those answers you'll just have to see the film. The fact that I'm not just coming out and telling you is a sign that this is a very good movie, as I want you to go see it and be surprised by as much as possible.

Things that worked in the film: the setting, seeing London deserted and knowing that it wasn't a soundstage, back lot or CGI effect was very cool. The acting, all the actors were right on, but two really stood out. Naomie Harris as Selena was by far my favorite character in the film. Selena also goes through the biggest change during the course of the film, from tough-as-nails survive at all costs type to a more human and caring person. What she does with a machete early in the film does more to define her character in seconds than most characters in other films get to do with hours of dialogue. Then there's Christopher Eccleston as Major Henry West. Yes, Maj. West is a bad guy, but he is a very human bad guy and Eccleston portrays this perfectly.

Things that didn't work in the film: not much, really. Yes, there's little nagging logic holes that kind of stick out. Why isn't London covered with dead bodies? Why didn't Jim get mobbed by infected as he ran around London shouting his head off for hours? Why would you stop in an obviously bad and life threatening place just to fix a flat tire? However, these are minor things and are done to further enhance the story by providing suspense or sudden revelations instead of just stupidity on the parts of the writer or director.

Final assessment: in a 1 to 10 scale, I give 28 DAYS LATER a very fast moving, Rage inducing 8.

Pertains to CoC: one word; reinvention. Now, in the review above I start out by saying that 28 DAYS LATER is not a zombie movie, but in fact it kind of is because you know that genre was the genesis that the writer (Alex Garland) began with. The team of Danny Boyle and Alex Garland take many well known elements and themes and breathe new life into them. This is lesson that every Keeper of CALL OF CTHULHU should strive to master.

WRONG TURN
Dir: Rob Schmidt
Starring: Desmond Harrington, Eliza Dushku, Emmanuelle Chriqui

Well, since Rob Zombie went back to the trippy 70's as inspiration for his HOUSE OF A 1000 CORPSES (and man, let me tell you, even though that movie came out before June I am so tempted to do a review about it just so I can spew some venom... God was that movie awful) I guess it was only a matter of time before someone dove back into the festering cesspool that was the 80's slasher flick. Now, I'm not talking about good slasher flicks like HALLOWEEN (the best of the lot) nor the silly but fun FRIDAY THE 13TH's. I'm talking about the dime a dozen, drive-in-only gems that most sane people never heard of. Stuff like: THE MUTILATOR; SLUMBER PARTY; SILENT MADNESS (in 3D no less) and the wonderfully titled THREE ON A MEAT HOOK. Yeah, those are the kind of movies I'm talking about: dimwitted, unoriginal and uninspired. WRONG TURN should feel right at home with those miscreants...and yet...I kind of liked it. I know... I'm as shocked as you are, but please let me try to explain.

Now, WRONG TURN will never win any awards for originality, but it never aspires to do so. It's honest with what it is, that being a popcorn-munching, none-too-serious "boo" flick (that is, they use sudden surprises accompanied by loud musical stings to make the audience jump in their seat) designed to get teen girls to clutch their teen boyfriends' hands as tight as possible. In that regard it succeeds. Unfortunately, it doesn't accomplish anything beyond that.

The story is so simple, it should be on the short bus. First, start with a title sequence that tells the audience that all inbred people are: (A) ugly (B) strong as hell and (C) damn near unkillable. This little leap of logic was stolen right out of the awesome X-FILES episode called 'Home' (which also had three inbreed brothers in it) and I guess it is more frightening than the truth about inbred people which is that they are usually: (A) ugly (B) sickly and anemic and (C) as killable as anyone else.

We begin with a med-student late for a meeting and faced with a traffic jam who decides to use the most unused-looking road in the entire American South as a short cut (and this guy is in med school?). Naturally he runs into (literally) another group of attractive 20-somethings (you know, if I ever do a horror movie the cast will be all over 30 and average looking if not down right unpleasant to look at). Both cars are disabled and as one girl (played by Eliza Dushku, the very sexy and evil Slayer of BUFFY: THE VAMPIRE SLAYER fame) points out; the disabling was done on purpose. Ignoring the fact that someone out here obviously has hostile tendencies towards people, the six person party decides to...yes, let's all say it together... "split up." The two pot smoking sex fiends volunteer to stay behind to die unceremoniously...I mean, watch the disabled cars, as the four nicer people decide to follow the road despite not knowing where they are, where it goes, or how long it is. Yes, they know where a service station is, but going there wouldn't be any sort of adventure now would it?

In short order they run into three of the most inbred brothers you could ever imagine. I mean, these guys look like they could be extra orcs in THE LORD OF THE RINGS. Naturally, being inbred mountain folk, these brothers like nothing more then killing people. I assume they do so to eat them, but this is never really said or shown in the film (despite some pickled parts in jars) and with the amount of weapons readily on hand and the fact that they can move through the woods like Ninja and shoot like Daredevil's Bullseye (unless they are shooting at the fleeing city folk, naturally) I can't believe that they couldn't shoot the occasional deer or beaver to subsidize their all-human flesh diet. But upon seeing a field filled with the numerous rusting autos of their victims, I'd say that these boys are both surprisingly busy defending their desolate dirt road and have enough meat to be cannibals in the strictest sense. Yes sir, Dr. Atkins would be proud as hell of these meat-eaters .

So, with one group of pretty city folk and one group of ugly country folk it's only natural for the blood to begin to flow and flow it does. Now, if you can overlook the way-too-obvious order in which the victims will fall under the cannibals' knives, there are some cool "boo" moments in this film, not to mention some creative kills for the gorehounds in the audience. Unfortunately, while watching this movie you are never really frightened because it's so predictable. You know exactly who's going to die and usually when. You also know that when one of the inbred killers is shot (or stabbed, hacked, pushed from a 50 foot height, clubbed, ran over by a truck, set on fire, blown up, etc...) he isn't going to die because he's inbred and therefore indestructible.

When the climax comes it's suitably explosive yet predictable. Does anyone out there think for a moment that Eliza Dushku's character will die? Nah, I didn't think so. So, in the end the bad brothers are defeated, the survivors limp away and, as if you couldn't guess, there's an epilogue to allow for the possibility of countless WRONG TURN sequels in the future. You know, that might be the most frightening thing about this movie...

Things that worked in the film: after reading all the above I bet you're saying "but he said he kind of liked it, didn't he?" Well, God help me, I did. WRONG TURN is fun. Goofy, gory, silly fun. If you grew up watching the slasher films of the 80's then you will like this movie. To enjoy this film you've got to put your brain on autopilot and just go with it. For me this film was like a trip back in time and not an altogether unpleasant one at that.

Things that didn't work in the film: the vast amount of suspension of disbelief you must do in order to even remotely enjoy this film. I mean, if you're the kind of person who likes to pick apart the plot of a movie for holes then this one will bore you because these plot holes are so obvious there's no fun in finding them. It's got holes in its plot so big the Titanic could sail through them...sideways. How can these three brothers kill so many people for so long and no one notice? How come when they shoot at the heroes and all their arrows strike near the feet of their targets the bad guys don't just raise their aim a tiny bit? How come these guys just won't die? I mean, Jason Voorhees would have died if he took just half the damage that these guys do. There're plenty more lapses in logic but as I said, a brain on autopilot is essential when watching this film.

Final assessment: in a 1 to 10 scale, I give WRONG TURN a dimwitted, inbred 5 for goofy and bloody fun.

Pertains to CoC: come on...its got inbred folks in it! HPL hated the idea of "dirtying the bloodline" either through inbreeding or breeding with non-whites (yes, Lovecraft was a racist. Face it and move on) so naturally he wrote a ton of stories about bad breeding practices. A Keeper could easily lift these three brothers right from the movie and neatly place them into CALL OF CTHULHU. Hell, these boys have practically got "Made in Dunwich" stamped on their lumpy, misshapen foreheads.

On the DVD & Video Shelf.

WES CRAVEN PRESENTS THEY
Dir: Robert Harmon
Starring: Laura Regan, Marc Blucas, Ethan Embry

Now, I don't know if this is the official title of the film or not, but I think it is, seeing as every time it's mentioned it's always in this way...which to me is both a very bad and sad thing. Such name dropping points out with flashing neon arrows that the makers of this film knew they had to attach a somewhat creditable filmmaker to their project in the hopes that Wes Craven's name would add weight to a lackluster film. Also, since They was going head to head with another film about a monster who hates the light (Darkness Falls) I can only assume that the addition of Mr. Craven's name further stacked the deck in their favor...at least on paper.

Wes Craven...if there was ever a more hit or miss horror director than this guy then I don't know of him. He started off making grade B slasher and exploitation flicks like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and THE HILLS HAVE EYES. He did the superhero thing with SWAMP THING long before Hollywood caught the comic book craze. He finally had a big hit (and rightfully so) with NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET but then followed it up with the laughably bad HILLS HAVE EYES II; DEADLY FRIEND; SHOCKER and PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS. Somewhere in that mix of bad movies he managed to make one decent film, the largely ignored SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW. Wes finally had another taste of his Elm Street success when he directed the hugely over-hyped SCREAM trilogy. Since then, Mr. Craven has been content to pimp his newly restored fame by attaching his name to any movie that pays him and lists him as an executive producer. Such films as WISHMASTER and DRACULA 2000 have used the Wes Craven Presents title now and ha ve since created entire series of films milking what little originality they began with for all it was worth. No coincidence then that all of these gems are direct to video releases. I can only hope that, when the inevitable WES CRAVEN PRESENTS THEY II comes out, it also dies the quick and lonely death of direct to video marketing.

So, about now I bet you're wondering what this little history lesson about Wes Craven has to do with the movie THEY. Well, nothing really. It's just filler, but in a way that's appropriate since most of this film is nothing but filler too. Want the story behind THEY? Well here it is. Four kids had night terrors (think nightmares taken to the 10th power) as children but get over them as most kids do. Fast forward until they are attractive 20-something would-be DAWSON'S CREEK extras and surprise, surprise... the night terrors start again. However, this time the real source of the bad dreams (strange alien creatures from a dark dimension) come out to gather all the people they implanted twig like tracking devices into as kids (none of the kids nor their parents ever noticed three-inch-long thorns being pushed into the tykes' flesh I suppose). Naturally, one by one, these people disappear into the darkness. Yes, despite all the characters having a phobia-like fear of the dark; t hey go out of their way to put themselves into poorly lit rooms and as far away as possible from other people who could help them. Maybe this is why I felt no empathy or sympathy for these characters. To me it was just Darwinism at its finest. Not since teens having a post coitus reefer smoke fest in a FRIDAY THE 13TH film did characters so obviously invite doom and death upon themselves.

And that, my friends, is THEY in a nutshell. The rest is, as I said, just filler where the characters put themselves into one poorly lit situation after another until their stupidity finally rewards them with the gruesome fate they were so eagerly looking for. Oh, I guess I should mention that throughout this boring attempt at tension building there are the prerequisite false scares, like cats jumping at people from off camera and people creeping up on their friends to tap them on the shoulder when that person looks all stressed and freaked out already instead of just calling out "hi" from across the room. You know; the standard stuff Hollywood uses as scary elements in horror movies these days. Then there's the budding romantic relationship. Oh, and the disbelieving police. Yep, if it's a movie clich´e then its in THEY somewhere.

Things that worked in the film: that would have to be the monsters as they are actually well done. They are seldom seen in the movie which is probably for the best as they are mostly CGI creations. However, what little of them you do see is well done and very creepy. They are kind of like winged-slug things that almost seem to be made out of the darkness itself. Their aversion to light adds to their creepiness factor as it makes getting a good look at them well nigh impossible. Add to this the strange sounds they make and you have a very frightening critter.

Things that didn't work in the film: the acting was substandard or standard at best. The story was almost nonexistent and what little there was relied on the characters being really dumb to advance the plot along and that's never a good thing.

Final assessment: in a 1 to 10 scale, I give WES CRAVEN PRESENTS THEY a barely seen in the shadows 3.

Pertains to CoC: a good Keeper could make use of the very cool creatures from this film. Also its central theme of; "darkness bad, light good" may also be mined for a good one shot adventure. However, you might have to both prod and restrict your players some to get the desired results. By that I mean that, unless the players are as dimwitted as the characters in this film, their characters will most likely have flashlights, candles or some kind of flammable/light producing objects with them if they are afraid of the dark. They are also not likely to wander into dark rooms alone. After all, they have played CALL OF CTHULHU before, right?

© Brian Sammons