#like dracula is so campy in this movie but MAN the scene where he and van helsing are talking about his amnesia??

[sleepy-bear-tm]

Van Velsing doodles cause I got that movie on the brain

[ariana-maryse]

back again! with rainbow cookies! (which are chocolate chip cookies with m&ms) priest is on netflix so i watched it & remembered how much i love black hat's dramatic ass 😂 got any good monster movie recs? i need some more monsters in my life. i definitely need some lady monsters too, if you don't mind helping a monster lover out

Omg YES. Those are one of my faves! It’s like you just knew. Black Hat is SO dramatic and Karl Urban is already hot, so adding in his wonderful performance makes for a villain that managed to outshine a priest - which, for me, is a big deal. I have a priest thing, like, hardcore. 

Absolutely! Yesss, lady monsters. I’m sorry if you’ve already seen everything I suggest but I’mma try my best. Also I’m going with all genres and throwing in some other media types as well because I must, apparently.  Also I’m sorry this is a novel, holy shit.

Vampire Movies: Dracula (the Bela Lugosi one. I’m not a fan of the Gary Oldman version,) all the Blade films, Lost Boys, Ultraviolet, Interview with the Vampire, Vampire in Brooklyn, Twilight (I know everyone shits on it but there’s so many babes in the films,) and Only Lovers Left Alive. Vampire Shows: Hemlock Grove (I didn’t finish it, but it has Bill Skarsgard, Famke Janssen, and Dougray Scott in it so even if the story isn’t that strong, there’s that,) What We Do in the Shadows, and Sirius the Jaeger if you fw anime.

Werewolves (besides those that are in any of the above): Red Riding Hood, An American Werewolf in London, Teen Wolf and Teen Wolf Too, and if you’re into vidya games you can make werewolves on the Sims.

Ghosts: I’m obviously a big fan of Thirteen Ghosts, Candyman, Beetlejuice (there’s also an animated series!) Crimson Peak, The Crow, Ghost Ship, and Sleepy Hollow.

Demons/Angels: Constantine, Jennifer’s Body, Hellraiser (just 1 and 2 - after that it gets so campy,) Legion, Dogma, Bedazzled, Little Nicky (100% for Rhys Ifans,) Insidious has some interesting lil friends, and if you fw anime: Blue Exorcist, Claymore, Demon Slayer, Fire Force, and Inuyasha all have actual demons. Some others have similar variations and I’ll mention those in “other,” 

Robots/Androids/Cyborgs (I’m going with they count): AI (peep Jude Law,) Avengers: Age of Ultron, Robots (you may not wanna smash any of them, but it’s a classic,) and Archer (hella cyborgs.)

Aliens: A fair amount of the Marvel films, but my personal faves are Venom and Thor: The Dark World - the elves are pretty damn hot, the Men in Black franchise has some good ones, The Faculty, Rocky Horror Picture Show, District 9, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, The Chronicles of Riddick (Karl Urban is up in this bitch, too!) Star Wars obvi, Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (Rihanna, always hot,) and Futurama is basically all aliens.

Clowns: It (all the films,) Clown, Killer Klowns from Outer Space, and Terrifier. Also Archer has a few episodes where there’s a whole clown gang.

Other: Sinister has Bughuul, Dead Silence (if you’re into puppets. If not, it’s still a cool film,) The Brothers Grimm offers a lot, Ferngully has Hexxus, League of Extraordinary Gentleman, The Mummy (Imhotep and Anck Su’Namun are fine,) absolutely anything made by Guillermo del Toro, The Babadook can shapeshift and I wasn’t sure if he qualified as a ghost or not, American Horror Story has everything: ghosts, demons, withces, vampires, clowns, etc., Black Phillip’s human form in The Witch, Coraline (the other parents,) Pagemaster has this Jekyll and Hyde scene that’s nice and spicy, Courage the Cowardly Dog has Queen of the Black Puddle and some other great ones, the hormone monsters in Big Mouth are pretty legit. I’mma get into anime and video games now so if you’re not feeling that, I totally get it if you stop reading. Or if you did like a million words ago.

Anime: Ajin, Devilman Crybaby has all the demons, Bleach has kinda ghosts and the Hollows/Arrancar (plus fillers featuring vampires and sword spirits that are all beasty,) Swordgai isn’t that strong of a show but they basically all get possessed, D. Gray-Man has demonish creatures and some vamps, some of the Shinigami in Death Note aren’t bad, some of the evolutions in Digimon are pretty hot ngl, and there’s probably more that I can’t think of rn.

Vidya Games: In Skyrim (and TES in general) you get vampries, werewolves, elves, orcs, lizard folks, and then all the Daedric Princes. The Legend of Zelda series offers some good shit; Prince Sidon in BotW, Twilight Princess comes through with Ganon, Zant, the darknuts, and Death Sword. All the games have some good shit. Same with Final Fantasy - in 12 alone there’s the Espers and Vayne post transformation. The Jak and Daxter series, the tyrants in Resident Evil, and in The Arcana some of the card.. spirits? Idk what they’re called but they’re lowkey hot.

[britesparc]

Weekend Top Ten #388

Top Ten Things Tim Burton’s Batman Films Did Right

Thirty years ago, give or take, the first Tim Burton Batman movie was released in cinemas (according to Google, its UK release date was 11th August 1989). Everyone knows the story; it was a phenomenon, a marketing juggernaut, a hit probably beyond what anyone was reasonably expecting. I was too young to understand or appreciate what was going on, but for twenty years or more the image of Batman in the public consciousness was intertwined with Adam West and pop-art frivolity. Suddenly superheroes were “dark” and “grown-up”; suddenly we had multi-million-dollar-grossing properties, franchises, and studios rummaging through their back catalogues of acquired IPs to land the next four-quadrant hit. Throughout the rest of the nineties we got a slew of pulp comic adaptations – The Spirit, The Phantom, Dick Tracy – before the tangled web of Marvel licenses became slightly easier to unpick, and we segued into the millennium on the backs of Blade, X-Men, and Spider-Man. Flash-forward to a super-successful Batman reboot, then we hit the MCU with Iron Man, and we all know where that goes. And it all began with Batman!

Except, of course, that’s not quite the whole story. Studios were trying to adapt superheroes and comic books for a number of years, not least because Richard Donner’s Superman had been such a huge hit a decade before Batman. And the Batman films themselves began to deteriorate in quality pretty rapidly. Plus, when viewed from the distance of a couple of decades or more, the supposed dark, gritty, adult storytelling in Burton’s films quickly evaporates. They’re just as camp, silly, and nonsensical as the 1960s show, they’re just visually darker and with more dry ice. Characters strut around in PVC bodysuits; the plots make little to no sense; characterisation is secondary to archetype; and Batman himself is quite divorced from his comic incarnation, killing enemies often capriciously and being much less of a martial artist or detective than he appeared on the page (in fact, Adam West’s Batman does a lot more old-school deducing than any of the cinematic Batmen).

I think a lot of people of my generation, who grew up with Adam West, went through a period of disowning the series because it was light, bright, campy and, essentially, for children; then we grow up and appreciate it all the more for being those things, and also for being a pure and delightful distillation of one aspect of the comics (seriously, there’s nothing in the series that’s not plausibly from a 1950s Batman comic). And I think the same is true of Burton’s films. for all their importance in terms of “legitimising” superhero movies, they have come in for a lot of legitimate criticism, and in the aftermath of Christopher Nolan’s superlative trilogy they began to look very old-fashioned and a much poorer representation of the character. But then, again, we all grow up a little bit and can look back on them as a version of Batman that’s just as valid; they don’t have to be perfect, they don’t have to be definitive, but we can enjoy them for what they are: macabre delights, camp gothic comedies, delightfully stylised adventure stories. They might lack the visual pizazz of a Nolan fight scene or, well, anything in any MCU movie, but they’re very much of a type, even if that type was aped, imitated, and parodied for a full decade following Batman’s release. There’s much to love about Burton’s two bites of the Bat-cherry, and here – at last – I will list my ten favourite aspects of the films (that’s both films, Batman and Batman Returns).

Tim Burton’s Batman isn’t quite my Batman (but, for the record, neither is Christopher Nolan’s), but whatever other criticisms I may have of the films, here are ten things that Burton and his collaborators got absolutely right.

Great Design: seriously, from an aesthetic point of view, they’re gorgeous. The beautiful Anton Furst Gotham, all gothic towers and industrial pipework, is a thing of beauty, and in terms of live-action the design of all of Batman’s vehicles and gadgets has never been bettered. It gives Batman, and his world, a gorgeously distinctive style all its own.

Wonderful Toys: it’s not just the design of the Batmobile and Batwing that impresses (big, bulbous round bits, sweeping curves, spiky wings); its how they’re used. Burton really revels in the gadgets, making Batman a serious tech-head with all manner of grappling hooks, hidden bombs, and secret doo-dahs to give him an upper hand in a fight. It makes up for the wooden combat (a ninja Michael Keaton is not), suggesting this Batman is a smarter fighter than a physical one. Plus all those gadgets could get turned into literal wonderful toys. Ker-ching.

He is the Night: Adam West’s Batman ran around during the day, in light grey spandex with a bright blue cape. Michael Keaton’s Batman only ever came out at night, dressed entirely in thick black body armour, and usually managed to be enveloped in smoke. From his first appearance, beating up two muggers on a Gotham rooftop, he is a threatening, scary, sinister presence. It totally sold the idea of Batman as part-urban legend, part-monster. Burton is fascinated with freaks, and in making his Batman freaky, he made him iconic.

You Wanna Get Nuts?: added to this was Michael Keaton’s performance as Bruce Wayne. Controversial casting due to his comedy background and, frankly, lack of an intimidating physique, he nevertheless utterly convinced. Grimly robotic as Batman, he presented a charming but secretive Bruce Wayne, one who was kind and heartfelt in private, but also serious, determined, and very, very smart. But he also excellently portrayed a dark anger beneath the surface, a mania that Bruce clearly had under control, but which he used to fuel his campaign, and which he allowed out in the divisive but (in my opinion) utterly brilliant “Let’s get nuts!” scene. To this date, the definitive screen Bruce Wayne.

Dance with the Devil: The counterpoint to this was Jack Nicholson’s Joker. Cashing a phenomenal cheque for his troubles, he nevertheless delivered; his Joker is wild, over-the-top, cartoonish but also terrifying. In my late teens I was turned off by the performance, feeling it a pantomime and not reflective of the quiet menace and casual cruelty of, say, Mark Hamill’s Joker; but now I see the majesty of it. You need someone this big to be a believable threat to Batman. No wonder that, with Joker dead, they essentially had to have three villains to replace him in the sequel.

Family: Bruce’s relationship with Alfred is one of the cornerstones of the comic, but really only existed in that capacity since the mid-80s and Year One (which established Alfred as having raised Bruce following his parents’ deaths). So in many ways the very close familial relationship in Batman is a watershed, and certainly the first time many people would have seen that depicted. Michael Gough’s Alfred is benign, charming, very witty, and utterly capable as a co-conspirator. One of the few people to stick around through the Schumacher years, he maintained stability even when everything else was going (rubber) tits up.

Meow: I’ve mostly focussed on Batman here, but by jeebies Batman Returns has a lot going for it too. Max Shreck, the Penguin, “mistletoe is deadly if you eat it”… but pride of place goes to Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman. An utterly bonkers origin but a perfectly pitched character, she was a credible threat, a believable love interest, and an anti-hero worth rooting for, in a tour-de-force performance. Also came along at just the right time for me to experience puberty. If you’re interested. Plus – and this can’t be overstated – she put a live bird into her mouth. For real. I mean, Christ.

Believably Unreal: I used to criticise Batman for being unrealistic, just as campy in its own way as the ‘60s show. But that’s missing the point. It’s a stylised world, clearly not our own thanks to the Furst-stylings. And Burton uses that to his advantage. The gothic stylings help sell the idea of a retro-futuristic rocket-car barrelling through city streets; the mishmash of 80s technology and 40s aesthetics gives us carte blanche for a zoot-suited Joker and his tracksuited henchmen to tear up a museum to a Prince soundtrack. It’s a world where Max Shreck, looking like Christopher Walken was electrocuted in a flour factory, can believably run a campaign to get Penguin elected mayor, even after he nearly bites someone’s nose off. It’s crazy but it works.

Believably Corrupt: despite the craziness and unreality, the first Batman at least does have a strong dose of realism running through it. The gangsters may be straight out of the 40s but they’ve adopted the gritty grimness of the intervening decades, with slobby cop Eckhart representing corrupt law enforcement. Basically, despite the surrealism on display, the sense of Gotham as a criminal cesspool is very well realised, and extends to such a high level that the only realistic way to combat any of it is for a sad rich man to dress up as Dracula and drive a rocket-car at a clown.

The Score: I’ve saved this for last because, despite everything, Danny Elfman’s Batman theme is clearly the greatest and strongest legacy of the Burton era. Don’t come at me with your “dinner-dinner-dinner-dinner-Batman” nonsense. Elfman’s Batman score is sublime. Like John Williams’ Superman theme, it’s iconic, it’s distinctive, and as far as I’m concerned it’s what the character should sound like. I have absolutely no time for directors who think you should ever make a Batman film with different music. It’s as intrinsically linked with the character as the Star Wars theme is with, well, Star Wars. It’s perfect and beautiful and the love-love-love the fact that they stuck it in the Animated Series too.

Whelp, there we are. The ten best things about Burton’s two Batman movies. I barely spoke about the subsequent films because, well, they’re both crap. No, seriously, they’re bad films. Even Batman Forever. Don’t start.

[screamscenepodcast]

HAPPY HALLOWE’EN 2018: THE TOP TEN

Another year gone by, Creatures of the Night! So much has changed! But it’s All Hallow’s Eve, and we know that means you’re still looking for the best in spooky movies to chill your bones and entertain your live-in ghosts! And so it is that we are pleased to bring you what our infallible reasoning has determined to be the top ten best horror movies covered so far on the show (1895-1941)! Here’s the write-up: what their deal is, pros and cons, and where to find them! We hope it helps your evening’s entertainment! PS. Keep your eyes peeled: not only is our eighty-third episode going up today, but there’s new music and fiction over on our Patreon!

#10 - Dracula (1931)

While the first true horror film to be made in the United States may seem a bit sedate to viewers used to later renditions of its story, Tod Browning’s classic adaptation still manages to chill with its atmospheric visuals courtesy of cinematographer Karl Freund and set designer Charles Hall. But it’s strongest asset is its cast, with unforgettably evocative performances from Bela Lugosi, Dwight Frye, and Edward van Sloan. If you get the version with music by Phillip Glass, it only enhances the magnetic pull this film can have over you - if you let it. Rental options at $3.99 are the Cineplex and PlayStation video stores, and in HD for $4.99 on iTunes. 1h 25min.

#9 - Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

Taking some incidents and ideas from the original novel left out of the first film, and combining them with a unique mix of goth, camp, queer, and horror ideas and themes, James Whale’s sequel to the original 1931 Frankenstein stands as an over-the-top bombastic testament to the horror of being forced to be “normal”. With wonderful performances from Colin Clive, Ernest Thesiger, Boris Karloff, and Elsa Lanchester, the only flaw is perhaps that the titular Bride just isn’t in the movie enough. Rent it for $3.99 on the Cineplex video store, for $4.99 on YouTube and Google Play, and in HD for $4.99 on iTunes. 1h 15min.

#8 - Frankenstein (1931)

The second of Universal Studios’ one-two punch of 1931, James Whale’s classic film manages to outdo Dracula primarily in pathos and theme. While the earlier film was content to merely thrill its audience, the tragedy of Colin Clive’s Dr Frankenstein and his creation looks at the cycle of abuse and confronts viewers with the way society treats its outsiders and outcasts and asks them to question their biases. Boris Karloff’s iconic performance as the Monster echoes through the ages. Available for rent at $3.99 on the PlayStation video store, and in HD for $4.99 on iTunes. 1h 11min.

#7 - Son of Frankenstein (1939)

We might be in the minority for thinking this, but for our money the third Universal Frankenstein movie is the best of the bunch. Set in a suddenly absurdly Expressionist Castle Frankenstein, Basil Rathbone descends into a quivering neurotic madness as the son of the legendary doctor, Lionel Atwell is unforgettable as the one-armed Inspector Kemp, while Bela Lugosi gives perhaps a career best performance as the not-quite-dead hunchback Ygor. It’s the movie that brought horror back from the abyss, and is way more gruesome than its predecessors, especially as it drops the campy tone. Library members who subscribe to Hoopla can stream the film, and it’s available to rent for $3.99 on the PlayStation video store and in HD for $4.99 on iTunes. 1h39min.

#6 - The Invisible Man (1933)

Mark Hamill said it himself - his much acclaimed interpretation of the Joker comes from Claude Rains’ performance as the tragically insane Griffin in this adaptation of the HG Wells novel. The movie shows off James Whale’s great skill at mixing humour and horror, even if some of the British-isms get a bit broad at times, but the true power of The Invisible Man is how it’s gotten more relevant with time - in 2018, the idea that anonymity might lead to immorality is no longer a hypothetical notion. Find it on the PlayStation video store to rent for $3.99, and on iTunes in HD for $4.99. 1h11min.

#5 - The Black Cat (1934)

What do you even say about a movie like Edgar G. Ulmer’s The Black Cat? A metaphor for Austrian/Hungarian relations after World War I, a dip into the world of Satanic cults, a revenge story with elements as unsavoury as Oldboy, and a chance to see Karloff and Lugosi really go at it as adversaries on roughly equal footing at a time when both men’s careers were on about the same level. This movie will draw you in with its gorgeous cinematography, hypnotic editing, and modernist set design, that by the time it’s over, you’ll hardly notice that the story seems to have quite a few holes in it... This underappreciated classic is waiting for you on Google Play and YouTube in HD for $4.99. 1h5min.

#4 - Island of Lost Souls (1932)

Watching this movie is like willingly stepping into a nightmare. The HG Wells’ novel might have somehow wanted to portray Dr Moreau “sympathetically” (fucking Victorians) but this adaptation understands he’s an utter monster and Charles Laughton delivers a bravura performance that underscores the character’s pure insanity. Combine this with the film’s dark and gritty look, the subtle make-up design of the hybrids (including a heavily obscured Bela Lugosi), and the unforgettable chant of The Law, and you have a film that will burn itself into your memory. Unfortunately, Island of Lost Souls has no current streaming options available, but you can find it on Blu-Ray from the Criterion Collection. 1h11min.

#3 - Körkarlen (1921)

The Phantom Carriage is perhaps the… least “fun” entry here in the top ten. Victor Sjöström’s haunting exploration of the horrors of alcoholism, domestic abuse, poverty, and tuberculosis is a critique of Christian naivete while simultaneously an encouragement of spiritual moral values. It has the tone and pace of a dirge, as it seeks to imprint its message on your very soul. All wrapped up in a chilling story of New Year’s Eve and the spectre of Death! This public domain film can be found on The Scream Scene Playlist on YouTube for free. 1h 47min.

#2 - The Old Dark House (1932)

James Whale’s definitive take on the traditional mystery thriller formula is a movie that will have you laughing right until the moment it has you screaming. In some ways, it’s a movie of clichés, with the protagonists seeking shelter in an old mansion during a rainstorm in the night and having to deal with the reclusive family they find within. But the dark, brooding cinematography, and truly shocking twists that rivet up the intensity over the running time, all contribute to make this a harrowing watch. It’s one part Rocky Horror Picture Show, one part The Addams Family, and one part The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I’m not kidding. The Old Dark House is currently streaming on Shudder. 1h12min.

#1 - Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

Early on in the first Hollywood horror craze, Paramount Pictures managed to outdo their main competitor Universal with this masterpiece from director Rouben Mamoulian. With a use of sound, visuals, effects, script, and performance far beyond what most films were doing at the time, this adaptation reigns supreme among other versions of the same story. Fredric March utterly inhabits the dual title role, but it’s Miriam Hopkins’ performance that will stick with you in this superb examination of domestic abuse, alcoholism, and the beast that dwells within us. Currently for rent on YouTube, Google Play, and the PlayStation video store for $4.99. 1h 38min. Hope you find something in our top ten that tingles your spine, and until next year – Happy Hallowe’en!

[chiseler]

Boris Karloff: Creature Comfort

Not many actors paid their dues for as long and as hard as Boris Karloff did. Born William Henry Pratt near London in 1887, he was the self-described black sheep of his family (both of his parents were Anglo-Indian). In a photo at age three-and-a-half, he already looks alarmed by something, or by someone.

Pratt traveled to America to become an actor and changed his name so as not to embarrass his family. He played on stage in stock and learned through make-up how to become any character he wanted to be, much as Lon Chaney did. In between plays—and later in between films in the 1920s when he was slotted into many small and usually villainous roles—Karloff had to sometimes work as a day laborer or ditch-digger, which meant that he had problems with his back when he was an older man.

His 1920s villains were usually of Arab or Indian extraction, and his staring eyes and molded features lent themselves to glowering wickedness. Karloff very often didn’t get enough to eat in these years, which added to his impression of aesthetic gauntness. As a mesmerist in The Bells (1926), his best part in silent pictures, Karloff does mesmerize with abrupt gestures that he somehow slows down even before we have taken them in. Just watch the way he manages a very false slow smile, moving the corners of his mouth up and then tossing the smile contemptuously away. This shows an actor in tune with what the camera needs, and what it needed from him was menace.

What made Karloff such a distinctive screen player was the slow, lingering way he moved through space, which created its own atmosphere of dread. In Howard Hawks’s The Criminal Code (1931), which he had played in on stage, he is a convict named Ned Galloway, a man bent on revenging himself on the stool pigeon who got him sent back to prison just for taking a drink. Karloff has a way of suspending his words here—creating a whole little protective world around them—but it is the slowness of his movements that really makes the strongest impression.

Stealing up on the stool pigeon, Karloff approaches this man with slow and almost slow motion physical grace. The man turns and sees him and gives a start, and Karloff gives his own little start, as if to say, “You’re done for, and you must accept it.” There’s something almost tender about the way Karloff does that, something lyric and inevitable, like a movement out of a Martha Graham dance.

It is this skill in silent movement that would come to the fore in the part that finally made Karloff a star at age 44, the creature or monster in James Whale’s Frankenstein (1931). The creature was given the brain of a murderer, yet he is new born, innocent, and untouched. Karloff always gave make-up artist Jack Pierce much credit for the look of the creature, but he himself suggested the heavy eyelids.

Karloff had to make the full imaginative leap into the creature’s point of view in Frankenstein, and he chooses to portray him as a very poetic figure. Lon Chaney, who was supposed to play the part before his untimely death, would almost certainly have been far harsher in the role, far more the re-animated man with a murderer’s brain, whereas Karloff’s later partner and rival Bela Lugosi, who had made such a hit earlier in the year for Universal as Dracula, would have been scary as the creature, maybe, but never touching (Lugosi actually turned the role down).

Karloff has an essentially gentle, dreamy sensibility, and he emphasizes the pure yearning of the creature, the way he reaches out for light and smiles when Little Maria (Marilyn Harris) gives him a flower. What happens next with Little Maria is the stuff of child nightmares, a scene that was almost always cut but now stands in most release prints: Karloff’s creature throws her into the water of a lake after he runs out of flowers to throw. The murder of Little Maria is only mitigated by the uncomprehending way the creature reacts when he tries and fails to understand what he has done to his little friend.

Karloff’s creature has anger, but it never seems to be the anger from the past life of the murderer’s brain in his head; it is always the anger at what he sees in the world and how he is treated, and it was Karloff who decided to play him this way. “The Monster was inarticulate, helpless and tragic, but I owe everything to him,” Karloff said. “He’s my best friend.” Karloff would remain the fastidious, colorful silk thread winding through the coarse, itchy fabric of the horror genre, and he stayed with it through many incarnations and revivals.

He played a twitchy gangster for Hawks in Scarface (1932), and there his acting seems a bit old-fashioned and external, a mark of the stock theaters he’d played in as a younger man. Karloff is given a big build-up in the credits of Whale’s The Old Dark House (1932) and top billing, with a title card trumpeting his “great versatility,” but he was limited by his looks and demeanor.

It’s hard to imagine Karloff playing something like Alec in David Lean’s Brief Encounter (1945), or anything so romantically straightforward. In The Old Dark House, Karloff is a drunken and mute brute of a butler with a lech for Gloria Stuart, a straight man in a semi-spoof for the first of many times to come, and he brings some genuine menace and fear to the screen in between the campy laughs of that film.

He was billed as just “Karloff” now, like “Garbo.” He played The Mummy (1932), an Egyptian man buried alive and still seeking his love, and this was a feat of make-up and his slow vocal delivery. Over at MGM in The Mask of Fu Manchu (1932), Karloff is forced into a camp mode himself, for there is no other way to play the absurd and racist script of that film. “Boris was a fine actor, a professional who never condescended to his often unworthy material,” wrote his on-screen daughter in that movie, Myrna Loy, in her 1987 memoir.

After scads of work for years (he had 15 credits in 1931 and nine in 1932), Karloff slowed down and went back to England for the first time in decades, where he was reunited with his family and made one picture there, The Ghoul (1933). He made several movies with Lugosi, including Edgar Ulmer’s The Black Cat (1934), and there was no feeling of rivalry between them, at least from Karloff’s side. His films with Lugosi could get pretty gruesome, with characters skinned alive and vindictive plastic surgery and other things to bring about the shudders and the heebie-jeebies.

“Poor old Bela, it was a strange thing,” said Karloff of his screen partner in an interview in 1964 for Films in Review. “He was really a shy, sensitive, talented man who had a fine career on the classical stage in Europe. But he made a fatal mistake. He never took the trouble to learn our language…He had real problems with his speech, and difficulty interpreting his lines.” Karloff was aware when his films were poor, whereas Lugosi didn’t seem to be, which makes Lugosi a lesser actor than Karloff but also somehow scarier because of this lack of awareness.

Karloff was a religious fanatic in John Ford’s The Lost Patrol (1934) and an anti-Semite in The House of Rothschild (1934) with George Arliss, but the public clamored to see him in more horror. He returned to the creature in The Bride of Frankenstein (1935), where he went deeper into the Monster’s conflict between self-protective and even outright malicious urges and a vulnerable reaching out for beauty and love, and friendship. “Alone bad…friend good,” the creature says here, after being befriended by a blind hermit. (Karloff didn’t think the creature should talk, but he was persuaded otherwise.) Karloff’s creature even sheds a tear after deciding to blow everyone up because he has been rejected by his hissing bride (Elsa Lanchester).

Censorship helped to bring an end to the first cycle of horror movies, and so budgets for Karloff films plunged while he played many a mad scientist, his intensity and trouper’s belief rarely wavering in the grind of similar and often threadbare material. He tread a fine line between threat and camp threat, and few players can equal Karloff for pure stamina. Surely he must have sighed sometimes as he got script after script along the same lines, so that it is difficult to tell one of these films from another.

Karloff was reduced to appearing at the poverty row studio Monogram by 1938 but returned to his creature one last time in Son of Frankenstein (1939). He was a man who “looked like Boris Karloff” in the comedy Arsenic and Old Lace for years on Broadway and missed out on the film version because he was still playing it on stage.

Even his patience had some limits. He was scornful of the monster mash House of Frankenstein (1944), and he was vocal about the fact that producer Val Lewton subsequently saved his soul as a performer in a series of low budget, intelligent movies beginning with The Body Snatcher (1945), where he dug up graves himself as once Dr. Frankenstein had dug him up. Lewton allowed Karloff to play three-dimensional people rather than the cardboard cutouts he had gotten used to, and he responded expressively, with lots of careful, poetic character shadings.

There were some changes of pace after World War II for Karloff. He steals Douglas Sirk’s noir Lured (1947) in his reel as a demented and embittered fashion designer, which stands out in his career for its sheer unexpectedness. This film showed his skill at being slightly funny and also fully menacing all at once, which he also needed for the awkwardly titled Abbott and Costello Meet the Killer, Boris Karloff (1949). Karloff often had better luck with parts on stage than in movies in his later years, scoring as Captain Hook opposite Jean Arthur in Peter Pan and winning a Tony nomination for his work in The Lark, which starred Julie Harris as Joan of Arc.

On TV, Karloff had his own anthology series and also played Kurtz in a 1958 adaptation of Conrad’s Heart of Darkness for Playhouse 90, realistically and stirringly shuddering about the horror he has seen, and he was the voice of the Grinch in the much-replayed animated special How the Grinch Stole Christmas.

A TV program called Shock Theater re-ran Karloff’s old horror films, and this brought him into the nightmares of Baby Boomers who are still scared by the thought of what happens to Little Maria, or by The Mummy. His program pictures became a staple on television, for they featured those baleful eyes and the hypnotic, soothing voice that could send late-night TV watchers off to sleep sure of a nightmare or two involving the supposedly dead and the supposedly living.

Karloff was in very ill health in his last years, but he still liked to work, finding himself in some campy horrors for producer Roger Corman that co-starred Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, and a young Jack Nicholson. The gravity of his face and voice were undiminished by time or poor assignments, and he brought some human dignity and feeling to nearly everything he did.

Karloff played a vampire for Mario Bava in Black Sabbath (1964), and then he was given an affectionate and knowing swan song by the young cinephile director Peter Bogdanovich in Targets (1968), where he played Orlok, a retiring star of horror films. “Do I have to say such bad things about myself?” he asked Bogdanovich, fully aware that Orlok was based on his own image. Bogdanovich reassured him that audiences would disagree when Orlok calls himself a relic, but Karloff wasn’t so sure. He is maybe a little uncomfortable with the meta aspects of that film, but he was a good sport about it.

“He really was a gentle soul,” said his only daughter Sara for a TV documentary. “I don’t think he scared anybody, not in real life.” Karloff was a very generous man and very loath to have that talked about (look at the horrified way he reacts when something generous he had done was mentioned on the This Is Your Life show in the late 1950s). By the time he was finished, he had 207 credits, some of which were only being released after his reported death. Surely some real life mad scientist somewhere might one day re-animate him for us.

by Dan Callahan

[thenightling]

Why Peter Vincent is the most underrated modern vampire hunter

Notice and disclaimer:  Though I like David Tennant as an actor I feel his version of Peter Vincent is sorely lacking.  This is not the fault of the actor but rather the decisions made by the director and writer of the Fright Night remake.  This post is mostly in regard to Roddy McDowall’s version of the character from the original Fright Night, Fright Night: Part 2, and the Fright Night comic books.

11.   He is honest.

Despite being a former actor, Peter Vincent is very, very honest.  He no longer seems to care what people think of him.  He went from has-been horror movie star with a public access TV show to reinventing himself as a real monster hunter.  Once he learned that monsters (particularly vampires) were real he chose to become the man he had always pretended to be in the movies.  Unlike others who took up such a mantle though, Peter Vincent never lied to protect his own image.  He openly admitted monsters are real and what needed to be done, not caring that this might make him look mentally ill.    

This has lead to some wincable moments where it might have been in his own self-interest if Peter Vincent had simply lied to protect himself and how others saw him but he won’t do that.  If he feels there is a terrible, other-worldly threat he will not beat around to bush.  At one point in Fright Night: Part 2 this lead to him being committed to a psychiatric hospital.  Fortunately, with the help of some friends, he escaped.   

Peter Vincent also loves to wear his old costumes from the movies that he used to star in, which were usually set in the nineteenth century.  He has no real fear or concern of how others see him now that he has shed his status as fading celebrity and embraced his role as eccentric protector of the innocent. 

10.   He’s surprisingly down-to-Earth.

At first Peter Vincent comes off as this aloof poseur, a pretentious has-been.  He’s a has-been horror movie actor with a public access TV show.   He seems quick to assume (or hope) people might want his autograph but the reality is he is struggling to make ends meet.  His show is in the verge of cancelation and his rent on his apartment is overdue.  All he really has are relics from his old movie career.    When Peter Vincent learns monsters are real he sheds all trappings of his old, fading, career and all the apparent pretentiousness.  You realize that for all his melodramatic swaggering he’s really very afraid but he still stands against the forces of darkness because he knows he’s needed.  

He’s not superpowered.  He’s not attractive.   He’s not combat-trained.   He’s just someone that used to star in old monster movies and now that he knows monsters are real and preying on the innocent he has become someone who cares...

9.   He learns not to judge people.

Through the course of the original Fright Night movies Peter Vincent undergoes amazing character growth (More on that later).  In the first Fright Night movie Peter Vincent is quick to dismiss Charley as “mad” but by the time you get to Fright Night Part 2 and Peter Vincent has come to terms with learning that the supernatural is real, his outlook has entirely changed.   He has changed so much that all bias he had in dismissing other humans or judging them as all but evaporated.  

There is a scene in Fright Night: Part 2 where Peter Vincent is forced to escape a psychiatric hospital. He was put there after he was caught trying to stake a vampire on live TV.   Here he is nearly thwarted in his escape until an inmate who believes his wild stories helps him to get away.   Peter Vincent is so moved by this gesture that the next scene of him he smiles and comments on how he has friends in the most unlikely of places.   The man is adorable. 

8.  He faces very powerful old-school vampires.

Many modern vampires are super strong and super fast and that’s about it.  They have been stripped of some of their more eerie attributes like being able to summon storms, turn into a wolf, or bat- like Count Dracula in the original Dracula novel.  But Peter Vincent doesn’t face off against the low-budget, modern vampires, that can barely do anything.   No, when he faces Evil Ed, Ed turns into a full sized wolf when he attacks him.  Peter Vincent is not super-strong, nor does he have any combat skill.  He is forced to use his horror-movie knowledge (as he was a B horror movie actor) and his own wits, and makeshift weapons to defeat him.

Honestly, I think this makes him more “badass” than many modern vampire hunters in pop culture.  He’s a frail old man taking on vampires with the full array of classic powers.  They can shapeshift.  They can hypnotize.  They are incredibly strong.  They can conjure fog and lightning.  They can become wolves or bats.  They are a Hell of a lot more intimidating than most TV or movie vampires today who have been stripped of a lot of these powers.

And he manages to face these monsters despite being very, very afraid.   

7.    He’s delightfully hammy.

Because Peter Vincent went from being a has-been actor to real monster hunter there are certain aspects of his old-self that he can’t quite shead.  He’s still very melodramatic and theatrical in nature.  This makes him a bit campy and for better or worse this carries over when he has worked up the courage to stand against various threats.   It adds much needed levity to the gravity of the situation when you remember this man was an old cheesy actor and he delivers a movie-style line to remind you of this.  He wasn’t actually born into monster hunting, it was thrust upon him later and life and he took to it like a duck to water, when he finally accepted it, but in doing so he couldn’t leave behind aspects of his old hammy self.

 6.   He is still influencing pop culture over thirty years later.

Remember the character of Vincent Van Ghoul in The Thirteen Ghosts of Scooby Doo cartoon of the 1980s?  Vincent Van Ghoul was originally voiced by Vincent Price and meant to be similar to Doctor Strange from Marvel comics (who likely had been inspired by Vincent Price’s Doctor Craven form the 1963 film The Raven.)  Vincent Van Ghoul was a powerful sorcerer who aided Scooby and Shaggy in the capture of thirteen ghosts that had escaped from a sort of Pandora’s Box.

In 2010 the character of Vincent Van Ghoul was dusted off and reinvented with Maurice LaMarche providing the Vincent Price inspired voice.  The new version, though, is not a sorcerer.  Instead he is a has-been B horror movie actor who dresses flamboyantly in his old movie costumes.  He’s also a little bit of a coward and is melodramatic.  Sound familiar?  

The newer version of Vincent Van Ghoul is based on Peter Vincent (who was partly inspired by Vincent Price the way Doctor Strange was).   This version of Vincent Van Ghoul is still occasionally being used in recent Scooby Doo cartoons.  

There is also the character  Abraham Van Rental in the recent stop motion animated film, Chuck Steel: Night of the Trampires, whose outfit, personality, and behavior are modeled after Peter Vincent, particularly in Fright Night: Part 2.

And in the Castlevania video game franchise there is an NPC inspired by Peter Vincent.  An incompetent vampire hunter named Charlie Vincent.  And if he gets turned into a vampire (like the originally planned ending of the first Fright Night) he becomes a threat. 

5.  He is an unlikely hero.

Peter Vincent is no Blade in a leather jacket.  He is not Hugh Jackman with his rapid-fire crossbow.  He’s not Buffy or Vanessa Helsing in tight leather pants.  He has no muscles.  He’s not young and sexy.  He does not have super strength.  He’s very much an unlikely hero.  He’s a washed up old horror movie actor, struggling to make ends meet, and who learns monsters are real.  

His weapons consist of old monster movie props, as well as his knowledge of the occult and supernatural gleaned from decades of starring in cheesy horror movies.  If there is any character he might be compared with it’s Professor Abraham Van Helsing, himself, from Dracula, or perhaps Giles from Buffy The Vampire Slayer.  

Peter Vincent not conventionally attractive.  He doesn’t fit a popular demographic.  It would be wrong to try to make him appealing to a specific and young demographic because that is not the character.  He’s actually kind of dorky though he feigns confidence on his TV show and when he is trying to be heroic but that just makes him all the more likable.  

He’s afraid but he does what is right anyway.  He knows the odds are against him.  He cannot physically best the monsters he stands against.  He has to rely on his wits and the fact that he’s easily underestimated for his usual meekness. 

He’s so different from the current trend of muscular, attractive, and physically combative monster hunters that he’s actually a breath of fresh air, for being the odd man out, the meek and frightened old actor who gains courage when he realizes he might not be the ideal hero but he’s all they’ve got and they need him. And that makes him so damn amazing.    

4.   He teaches us that it’s never too late to change who and what you are.

Peter Vincent undergoes an incredible character arc, soul search, and self-reinvention though the course of the original Fright Night movies. 

Peter Vincent is an old, has-been horror movie actor who ended up hosting a public access TV show where he would intro his own old movies and provide commentary about them at commercial breaks.  He thought his career and life was nearing its close but then he was made to realize monsters are real and the world needed the sort of hero he always pretended to be.  Despite his age, despite his fear, despite his physical frailty (he is no muscle bound hero) Peter rose to the occasion and reinvented himself as a protector of the innocent.

He found a faith he didn’t previously have, he gave up a fading celebrity status and abandoned all concerns for how people thought of him just because he felt it was the right thing to do, because he knew he was needed.

He shed his old persona of has-been and skeptic and became the hero and believer he had always pretended to be.  He had become the unlikely hero and it was the role he was born for.  

3.  He was a proud neo-Victorian Goth before the term even existed.   

Peter Vincent was a has-been horror actor who eventually learns that monsters are real and when he takes up the mantle of real monster hunter he puts on his old costume.  The character he played was an 1890s Doctor Abraham Van Helsing style protagonist, similar to the characters Peter Cushing always used to play in the Hammer Horror Dracula movies of the 1950s into the 1970s.  Peter Vincent calls this his “uniform” and makes it a point to wear it when he knows he’s about to face real monsters even if he knows it’s incredibly out of place. 

He had lace cuffs, old Sherlock-style duster jacket with mantle, waistcoat, and cravat.  And he was not ashamed.

We’re talking about a man walking around like it’s London 1891 but in 1985 American suburbia and he was completely unashamed.   You go, you brave, yet strangely meek extrovert!

2.   He is very likely an LGBT hero.

   Though Peter Vincent’s sexuality is never explored in the movies, the character was inspired by Peter Cushing and Vincent Price.  Vincent Price’s daughter confirmed after his death that he was bisexual.   Peter Cushing was likely straight but Vincent Price was most assuredly bisexual.

The actor who played Peter Vincent was the great Roddy McDowall.   Roddy spent his life in the closet but after his death stories emerged from his friends that confirmed he had been bisexual.

(Roddy McDowall with Vincent Price.)

It was Roddy McDowall who told Vincent Price’s daughter “You know, we didn't have any idea what bisexuality meant in that sense, and if we didn't know, then how can we know the answer to that question."

Roddy was very likely bisexual and it’s been confirmed that Vincent Price (whom he was friends with) was bisexual.  This is particularly coincidental since Roddy’s Peter Vincent character hs half-based on Vincent Price (the other half being Peter Cushing, who played Doctor Van Helsing in several Hammer Horror Dracula movies.) 

There is a very high chance that thanks to the character sources, Peter Vincent was bisexual.       

1.  He is kind.  

  Today it’s too easy to be cynical and to deconstruct heroes into cold and cynical avatars for the jaded writers behind them.  The characters either don’t really care about the individuals that are in danger or someone behind the scenes just loves watching their hero pose stoically in a long leather jacket, without showing any emotion.

Peter Vincent, on the other hand, is warm, compassionate, and sympathetic.  He’s kind.  He genuinely cares about people despite once imagining himself a great and aloof actor.  

Ultimately it’s the realization that innocent lives are in danger and witnessing the painful death of the newborn vampire, Evil Ed, that finally pushes Peter Vincent to stand against Jerry Dandridge, despite his own fear.  

 Peter Vincent is terrified.  He’s just has-been horror actor with a public access horror themed TV series. Peter is given the opportunity - the destiny to be the hero he always secretly longed to be, the protector he may have secretly always dreamed of being.  

Peter rises above himself and it’s not for glory.  It’s not for fame.  He does it because he feels it’s the right thing to do and people need him.  And he truly cares about them. 

He forsakes his old fading celebrity status to be an anonymous hero that others think is nothing more than an old, washed up actor, who has finally lost his mind.  In Fright Night Part 2 Peter stops caring about his fading movie and TV career and realizes that’s not what he’s meant to be.  He IS Peter Vincent, the Great Vampire Killer!   And he sheds his old identity and even public reputation because he knows... he knows this is what others need him to be.  This is the hero he has to be for the sake of others.

it’s for these reasons and more that Peter Vincent is one of the greatest vampire hunters in contemporary pop culture (within the last forty years).

[nitrateglow]

What would you say is your favorite So-Bad-It's-Good movie?

THE SHEIK

If you have never heard of this turkey, then let me tell you it was basically the Twilight saga of the 1920s, just replace sparkly vampires with fetishized depictions of Arab sheiks (who turn out to be white because PLOT TWIST--- and we can’t have mixed race relationships in a movie from 1921).

The acting is hilariously bad. People who don’t watch silent films just assume all movies made before talkies featured cartoonish overacting, but when you sample a good amount of movies made during the 40-year silent era, you realize that a more naturalistic style was slowly taking over by the middle of the 1910s. That’s not to say there isn’t some over-emoting at times, but it’s not as loony as people seem to think.

The Sheik, however, fits the stereotype. Everyone is on crack or something. Rudy Valentino’s Sheik Ahmed is basically a horny Wile E. Coyote and Agnes Ayres’ Lady Diana is Kirsten Stewart’s depiction of Bella Swan with a bit of fainting goat mixed in there. They share all the romantic chemistry of a baked potato and a hill of ants.

The plot is insane, basically the 1920s idea of kinky sensuality. Remember kids, when the girl you like thinks you’re gross, that’s okay-- just kidnap her and have her hang out in your tent in the middle of the desert where you’ll paw at her for a month until she gets kidnapped by an uglier sheik, making her realize how hawt and nice you really are. There’s literally a scene where the Sheik’s French BFF shows up and tells him, “You know, it’s obvious she doesn’t like being held against her will here, man.” And the Sheik gets pensive for a moment, then breaks out into this goofy grin and basically says, “NAH SHE LIKES IT.” There’s also a scene where Diana learns Ahmed broke into her room to put blanks in her gun the day before he kidnapped her so she couldn’t defend herself against him and her reaction is basically, “Oh. I was wondering who was being so loud.”

The cinematography is rather average for the period, though some of the scenery is rather pretty at times. The director George Melford is most known for the Spanish version of the 1931 Dracula, and you can tell when you compare how he has the seductive Dracula act in that movie:

Because looking at a gal like she’s a bag of Doritos and you’re a pothead with the munchies is the best way to show you care!

But yeah, I love The Sheik. It is hilariously dumb and campy as well as a good conversation starter about gender, sexuality, and depictions of the Middle East in the early twentieth century. But it’s mostly just dumb.

My other favorite so bad they’re great movies are the Dario Argento Phantom of the Opera, The Room, and Midnight Ride (a hilarious movie with Mark Hamill as a hitch-hiking killer).

[teddy-feathers]

i grew up allowed to watch any horror movie i wanted EXCEPT that one. it was "too scary" which when we finally watched it, turned out to be just because it was horrifying when it came out - I on the other hand laughed my ass off

the special effects were unintentionally humorous from a more modern prospective and then they just let the guy who played Freddy improv his lines and he was hilarious. he had a cool hat and a knife glove which always semed cool to me

the pedo shit isnt like ever really apparent in the first one - besides i think where they explian the back story - its just a whole build up and then its just highschoolers having nightmares and valently trying to defeat something that cant die.

Most of the movies are campy, at least one movie all of the nightmares are pointlessly cruel and playing off the peoples actual real life issues but while the first is the most "fun" in its ridiculousness because it was terrifying at its time, and some of the sequels are terrible, its interesting to watch all of the old movies and then see freddy vs jason.

like jason and Michael myers were good at the big silent unstoppable killer thing and Kruger managed to be fun and lively and talkative and still be a good slasher series and seeing them play off one another is really cool.

its just mindless in a way i grew up enjoying but when you go back and catch stuff like that and they never let it go exactly?

like one of the movies features his daughter all grown up and i think in it there's implications though thats not the focus of the movie its all "trying not to get murdered and also i dont want to turn into him"

and then theres a game i havent played but you can play old school horror guys and its pvp with their maps and apparently(?) theres an easter egg room that kinda makes it clear yeah what Krueger was into

and its just like...idk. unnecessary. kinda like how i could never watch the hills have eyes because it starts with rape and like an extended scene of these mutated folks just doing that on the screen like...

its ike what... who was it? Christopher Lee? Vincent Price? someone said that movies like Dracula aren't really horror movies because they can't happen in real life and honestly the older and more aware of shit I get the more I cant tell I really don't enjoy any sort of "horror" movie that doesn't subscribe to that fantastic outlook.

Vampires in space, Aliens, Ghost stories, zombie nazis, mystery murders thats just werewolves, evil dolls- all over the top bits of fun

some nightmare demon man with a quick witt and flair for the dramatic really fits in with the 'scary for fun's sake' but like someone somewhere decided that wasnt enough, henhad to be a real life monster too and that just saps the fun right out of it

which. isnt even a 'i should feel bad about this' kinda thing or idk 'dont consume problematic material' reason. its just. not as much of a game anymore.

you go to a haunted house and the actors dont touch you and you dont touch them but youre still scared and its fun?

hell i don't even really like those soap opera zombie moves - like yeah okay they come up with neat concepts or if they have some inspiration porn like "oh maybe life with evolve and itll be chill after the screaming is over" thats fine but hell resident evil if memory serves actually just. gives you what you came for?

doom made the rock evil so like it gets a negitive strike on that but otherwise also ridiculous fun and there are a lot of funny horror movies or movies like van helsing where okay its campy as hell but who cares? it did good.

and paranormal thrillers are always fun - like The Eye.

but its just. i still like most of the same things ive always liked? the only things ive "grown" our of is hating "girly" things for arbitrary reasons and enjoying things that are about pain?

like the above examples or happy tree friends - like it was hilarious when i was a kid but honestly im here for the fantasy aspects of things not the messed up mentality of real life monsters

or, come to think of it, making messed up monsters out of regular people?

idk rambling

growing up and figuring out that freddy Kruger was a pedophile really sapped all the fun out of the character

though kudos to the series for remembering and never straying from the idea that highschool students still count as underage childern

like i really thought he was just a child serial killer who was murdered by the townsfolk and was just too evil to die

but no its really explicitly canon hes a pedo and since learning that I really just feel disappointed

which is probably the only time i can recall "growing out of" a particular interest

[simplythingsilikekindoffiltered]

Everyone is talking about horror movies/shows and what they think about them. And as someone who has seen like two, I'm gonna put my opinion into the ring. Also spoilers ahead.

The Haunting of Hill House

Fuck the big talk man he prevented me from sleeping for hours after I watched that episode, and he didn't even do anything.

The show is good, not particularly scary, more creepy. And it seems like it's going to build up to something big and scary, but it's really just big and sad.

Halloween

I watched this to see what all the fuss was about, and not impressed.

The most frightening thing about this move is how bad they are at baby sitting.

Saw

I also watched this to see what the fuss was about.

Not scary, not creepy, not interesting. I finished watching the movie and thought wow I just wasted however long that was of my life. (My mom and sister agreed with me, but then my sister went off to watch the test of the movies so that's that.)

The most interesting part is when the cops? FBI agents? I don't remember go to jigsaw's workshop? I don't really remember, but yeah.

It chapter 1

I watched this with my sister and her friend in theaters, since I was old enough to watch it, and they needed an adult to see it with.

The story was good, I didn't find it particularly creepy or scary or anything, the children were excellent. I'm interested to see where the story goes.

Silence of the Lambs

I watched this in my forensics class.

The premise was interesting, but ultimately it fell flat for me, the best part is the end where Hannibal says he's going to have someone for dinner.

Also, I don't really think that it should've been called silence od the lambs, I get why they did, but I believe a title should be more telling of what to expect in the story, and that title doesn't do it for me.

The People Under the Stairs

(I'm pretty sure that's the name) I think this was the first horror/scary movie I ever saw, and the last time I saw it was also the first.

I don't remember much about this movie, but I do remember thinking that it was pretty good, and fairly scary, but I was also eight or something and at a sleep over, and we watched another horror movie after that so I can't really say.

Eye 2

I have no idea what happened in Eye or if there even is an Eye, but this is the movie that we watches after people under the stairs.

This was the second horror movie I'd ever seen, and it's fairly creepy. There was some scene in the bathroom where she saw a ghost or something and that was not great, because we had to go to the bathroom, so the group of us like 5 or 6 girls all went to the bathroom together.

Also that attempted suicide or whatever was horrible to watch, because she like three herself off the roof of a hospital, but she didn't die, so she climb back up, and threw herself off again. (I think that's how it went down, it was not fun to watch.)

(Also, everytime I tell someone about this movie they never know what I'm talking about, and I think that it's because it's an Asian horror movie that just happened to be on at our sleepover. I might've been convinced that it wasn't real, but my sister was also at the sleepover, and remembers it.)

Cloverfield

I almost forgot that I saw this, but then I was talking about watching horror movies at sleepovers, and remembered that I saw this at a sleepover.

I don't really remember this being particularly scary, but I remember it was supposed to look like a home movie, the characters filmed it kind if thing which was cool.

Honestly the scariest part of that evening was when we were talking about how our band teacher was apparently a pedophile, but I'll be honest, I'm not sure how much of that was made up vs. how much was real.

Dexter

Does this really count as horror, because if it does damn. I think it's classified as a crime show, maybe a thriller, but it wasn't really all that thrilling to me.

I watched a couple of episodes in my forensics class, and decided that I would watch the whole thing.

I thought the premise was interesting, and I liked the first season, but then I started watching the second and got two or three episodes in and quit watching it. Also everyone in my forensics class who'd seen it say he becomes a lumberjack in the end, and where are the stakes in that.

Also not particularly scary and not interesting enough to keep my attention, not enough at stake.

Dracula

The original. I watched this for my film class. This is so old that it's not scary to a modern audience, so it doesn't really count. (ha) Also, I didn't find anything about this movie worth noting.

The Blob

I again watched this for my film class.

These movies were made to be campy, so does it really count as a horror movie, if no one ever found it scary.

I'm more interested to see someone make a sequel about the blob now about how the blob is back because of global warming. Like how are we going to defeat it now? Shoot it into space? And then in the installment after that it starts eating stars, and we have to find a better way to defeat it than just freezing it, or it becomes the aliens problem, and we see how they deal with it. (I would so watch that.)

Anyways, the pacing was horrible and I guess that's all I have left to say.

Doing this has made me realize that I've honestly seen more horror movies than I realized.