IHR induction #39: "The Serpent and the Rainbow" (1987, Wes Craven)

Well, fellow horror nerds, we're living in a time when the zombie movie is...quite prevalent. Those who know me on a few message boards are likely sick of hearing me harp on this subject, but zombie movies...ugh. Some of them are very good; many of them are just very monotonous, and seem utterly constricted not only by a very stringent set of rules and regulations (think slasher movies with more flesh-eating), but in the way they go about telling the story. Granted, I'm not the foremost authority on zombie films, but when it comes to the ones that people have seen in the last 20 years or so, they fit into one of two categories:

(1) Overtly political hamfest where human beings < zombies on the morality barometer, or;

(2) Out-and-out cheesefest, which may or may not be parody.

Wes Craven' 1987 film "The Serpent and the Rainbow" is a movie that few people remember; it was in and out of theaters in the time it takes to drive to a fast-food restaurant, and didn't do much business in the rental market. It was also released during one of horror's severe down times; slasher movies had died a slow, painful death, and while Freddy Krueger was riding strong, Jason Voorhees was seeing steadily declining return. 23 years later, however, and viewed without the prism of trend, this movie is just amazing on so many levels. In the humble opinion of this reporter, it's one of the SCARIEST movies of all time, bar none, and has a few well-written characters played by accomplished actors. To this day, this remains Craven's best movie by a country mile (yep, way better than "Nightmare," "Scream," "Red Eye" and even "Deadly Friend").

THE MOVIE!!

The film is based on a book of the same name by Wade Davis, but to say that the film is freely adapted is one of the most liberal adaptations of this phrase ever put to celluloid. Anyway, what the flick gives us is your basic treasure hunting setup. Your main character is Dennis Alan (played by Bill Pullman, who invests tons of heart and soul into the character), an anthropologist hired by a humongo pharmaceutical corporation to retrieve a precious voodoo drug from Haiti. Since "Serpent and the Rainbow" runs a robust 90 minutes, it wastes little time getting to the meat of the story (man, I love that phrase).

The middle act of "Serpent and the Rainbow" is made up largely of passages where Pullman gets to know the lay of the land, both political and spiritual. Haiti is in the midst of a vast revolution against its totalitarian government, which is represented in the film by the quite terrifying figure Captain Dargent Peytraud (Zakes Mokae, absolutely aces in this role). Seeing as how Peytraud is staunchly militaristic, the background of revolution only makes him more ill-tempered, providing the movie with some of its best scenes as the Captain grows none too enamored with this overzealous Westerner discovering the secrets of the island.

A few words on those secrets. For any uninitiated souls out there, the term "zombie" actually has its roots in Haitian voodoo; rather than being undead brain eaters, real-life zombies (and there have been several documented cases for anyone willing to look) are corpses that have been reanimated by the force of external drugs. These stories were talked about with much fear in the days of slavery; slaves looked forward to death, as it meant an end to their misery, but indeed some could not escape servitude even in death. Haitian zombies, in essence had no will or personality of their own other than their master's. In the world of this film, Haitian voodoo is the mechanism that Captain Peytraud and the government uses to keep the people of the island in fear.

During the course of the film, Pullman meets up with a witch doctor named Mozart (Brent Jennings), even witnessing the death of a local woman in the film's first act (and by the way, there are two nightmare sequences that revolve around this very woman that are two of the movie's most effective and horrifying scenes - that snake to the head is vicious). After the mandatory run-ins with Peytraud, Pullman goes back to Mozart, and the duo begin their final experiments creating the perfect zombie drug for mass production.

Many critics view the final act of this film as a let-down after the very story and character-heavy initial two-thirds. Personally, I believe "Serpent and the Rainbow" to be one of the very best-executed horror thrillers of all time; it spends just the right amount of time making its plot and people seem important. Thus, when all hell breaks loose, there's a genuine emotional investment in the outcome. Not to mention that we are also privy to two of the single most painful and/or scary scenes in film history in the form of torturous acts that Peytraud takes against Pullman. But I'll leave those up to the viewer to discover.

Finally, in addition, this is yet another movie that was introduced to me on TNT's MonsterVision, and that was one Saturday night where sleep didn't come easy. I'd seen Romero's lurching, rotting zombies many times before; I'd never seen anything quite like the world that Wes Craven presented in this film, where undead human beings were a result of religious practice and a brutal dictatorship was just as much of a threat as bitchy humans barricading themselves against hordes of brain-hungry ghouls. It was due to this film that I did more reading up on the subjects of zombification and voodoo, and I'd highly recommend that any horror fan out there OD'd on the Dawn-Shaun's of the world should do the same. Trust me - hearing some of the stories that have come down the pike from Haiti throughout the years is instant nightmare fuel, even for the most jaded horror fan. This movie will conjure up curiosity in yo9ur mind to seek out that very fuel. You have been warned.

IHR induction #38: "Creepshow" (1982, George A. Romero)

Firstly, unless you've been living under a rock for the past week, Leslie Nielsen has crossed over into the great hereafter...and, indeed, I didn't even know he was sick. While this reporter remembers him first and foremost for "Naked Gun 33 1/3" and its immortal "Like a blind man in an orgy, I was going to have to feel things out" line, the movie getting inducted in this round is a close second on my all-time Nielsen barometer. So Godspeed, Leslie - you will be remembered for a VAST array of immortal celluloid.

Secondly, "Creepshow" the feature film is definitely one of the most entertaining, funny, and downright unique horror movies that you'll ever see. Younger Horror Nerd readers out there might be under the impression that the HBO series "Tales From the Crypt" was the first creation in mass media to pay unabashed tribute to the bygone 1950s E.C. horror comics; wrong-'em, boyo. There's also a 1974 British film called "Tales From the Crypt" as well as several anthology movies throughout the '70s to prove you wrong, as well as this - the best horror anthology film of all time, period.

It certainly helps when you've got the talent that this flick has behind the camera. George Romero, a director who I'm no fan of (while the rest of the internet horror community waxes rhapsodic about the "Living Dead" movies, I've always been severely underwhelmed by them) but who no doubt has a unique voice and visual flair, is your captain, while Stephen King is the creative energy, penning the screenplay and even playing a major acting role for the first (and only) time in his long, storied career. Add in a few well-placed and well-played character actors, some very interesting camera tricks employed by Romero to simulate the "comic book" theme, and two candidates for "Best 'Tales From the Crypt' story not seen on the TV show," and you've got the recipe for one of my childhood favorite movies.

Before I get the hell going already with the brief synopsis portion of the review, a few words on horror anthologies in general - in short, they're awesome, and we need more of them. While 90-120 minute horror tales that spend time developing victim characters and delving into villainous back stories are all well and good, sometimes, I just want the flash fiction version of horror - give me some admittedly dumb and overplayed characters, an unapologetic basic plot, and an unfair/ironic/morality tale ending played out over a 20-minute timeframe. Repeat the formula five times, and I'm good to go. It's a formula that has worked for many different movies, not only in '70s films like "The House that Dripped Blood" and "The Vault of Fear" but in the vastly underrated "Tales From the Hood" and in the 2008 minor masterpiece "Trick 'R Treat." So take heed, horror directors of tomorrow; we need a good 5-6 story opus every few years.

I suppose the introduction is long and indulgent enough now.

THE MOVIE!!

Most horror anthology movies have some kind of framework, and "Creepshow" is built around the very thing that inspired it - horror comics. The stories in the movie come out of a fictional comic book that a young boy (played by Stephen King's real-life son Joe) is reading. It should also be noted that the boy's father is a screaming douchebag who admonishes the small child for his choice of literature. 'Cus you know his life is going to turn out well.

Segment 1 - "Father's Day"
This story sets the tone of the movie very well, establishing the typical "Tales From the Crypt"/E.C. horror formula. If you aren't familiar with that formula, here it is: Jerk character(s) do something jerky, get supernatural comeuppance at the end. An ensemble cast (including a very young Ed Harris) is gathered at some hoity-toity mansion to celebrate Father's Day - and wouldn't you know it, the titular father in this family is coming back for a little revenge against his money-grubbing, superficial family. Hey, that cake tastes good, dammit.

Segment 2 - "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill"
Based on King's creepy short story "Weeds," this segment is both classic E.C. and classic King rolled up into one, with a denounment that will stick with you long after the end credits roll. King himself plays Jordy Verrill, an uneducated country bumpkin who sees a meteor crash onto his farm land. He takes it home, hoping to get a handsome reward from the college, but instead finds himself f**ked over royally when a green, mossy substance begins growing all over his body as a result of his contact with the meteor. King is aces as the idiot hick Verrill, and the last shot is fourteen kinds of awesome.

Segment 3 - "Something to Tide You Over"
This is where Nielsen comes into the fold as a slightly psychotic and very jealous husband who takes it upon himself to teach a lesson to his philandering wife and her lover. Said lover, I should add, is played by Ted Danson. While there is virtually no explicit gore, this gets my vote for scariest segment in the movie; death by drowning is one of my greatest fears, and Nielsen's preferred method of killing is incredibly sadistic. For all wannabe cinephiles who believe that Leslie Nielsen was only a one-dimensional clown, here's your antidote. He does a fantastic job giving this character both a terrifying and hateable cadence, and when this guy gets what's coming to him, the audience is cheering in the aisles.

Segment 4 - "The Crate"
My personal favorite story in the film. Hal Holbrook plays a college professor who has an incredibly annoying and emotionally abusive wife (Adrienne Barbeau). Much to his luck, a mysterious crate has just arrived at the university containing a creature with a truly insatiable appetite. After witnessing the creature in action, Holbrook takes matters into his own hands and uses the monstrosity as the means of solving his greatest life hurdle. What makes this segment greatness personified? Both main actors are at the top of their game, with Holbrook coming off as an average joe driven to cruel measures and Barbeau as such a dislikable bitch that we're rooting for her character to be brutally murdered.

Segment 5 - "They're Coming to Get You"
This is the only story in the film that I don't particularly care for. That's not to say that it's bad by any means - E.G. Marshall is great as a ruthless businessman who feels like he is invincible from the outside forces of the world. A swarm of bloodthirsty cockroaches inside his apartment serve as the proverbial dose of karma. While it's got a few moments (specifically the ending), I just find this portion of the movie to be a little slow. Sadly, this one usually gets the skip treatment on my DVD player.

I also need to point out that "Creepshow," in its sum total, is one of the best executed movies in the history of the medium. Both Romero and King know precisely what they are trying to accomplish with the film; a live-action comic book, and the direction and screenplay take great pains to make this point come across. The characters are over-the-top, the lighting and visuals are colorful and luminous, even the structure is very comic-like (each segment is about 20 minutes, while your standard comic book is 22 pages long). Visually, the movie is a feast to watch, and just like the horror comics that the stories are inspired by, the stories themselves are creeptacular and keep audience members guessing just how the various tales of moral comeuppance are going to present themselves.

All in all, this is one of the horror essentials. While I have a slight quibble with the story placement (I would have led off with the cockroach story and ended with "The Crate"), it matters little - when it comes to horror movies that are just downright FUN to watch, it's tough to beat this one. It's got some excellent character actors in very well-defined (and admittedly simple) roles, some great gore effects by makeup maestro Tom Savini, and it's also the only movie in cinema history to feature a guy turning into a fully-grown mossy rock. How can you beat that?

IHR induction #37: "House of Usher" (1960, Roger Corman)

Many casual film fans know the name Roger Corman, but not many fully apreciate all the things that the man was able to accomplish. On budgets that won't buy most directors a single day's worth of shooting time, Corman has crafted a body of work over the years that, while the movies themselves would never be confused with Oscar winners, boast more than a few truly memorable cheesefests and the occasional truly good film. This one included.

At the time "House of Usher" was released, Corman had already been an extremely prolific film-maker for many years, releasing as many as seven films per year. Unbelievably, a director whose filmography includes titles such as "Attack of the Crab Monsters," "The Undead" (which was featured on "Mystery Science Theater 3000") and "The Wasp Woman" had failed to achieve much notoriety as a skilled auteur. Then came "House of Usher." In the early portion of the 1960s, the guy who once said that he could make a movie about the Roman empire with a few loincloths and a sagebrush began a long series of can't-miss prospects. Namely, Edgar Allan Poe adaptations starring Vincent Price, one of the most memorable and talented actors in all of cinema. The formula was both successful and good - all in all, eight Corman-Poe movies would be released, but none would approach the greatness of a slightly off-kilter, slightly manic retelling of the Master of the Macabre's greatest short story.

From the onset of the movie, it is very obvious that this isn't an ordinary, somber Poe adaptation. Atmospheric fog and green hues envelop the screen as Philip Winthrop (played with plenty of babyface gusto by Mark Damon) approaches the House of Usher. Any beginning scholar of American literature knows the story - visitor becomes the interloper in the lives of the cursed Usher family, witnesses several strange happenings and a family death, and ultimately a horrific "resurrection" that strangely spells the end of all the creepy debauchery.

Corman's "House of Usher," with a screenplay by Richard Matheson (who would later go on to create the television series "Kolchak: The Night Stalker"), has several aces in its deck. Blessed with a slightly-above-average-by-Corman-standards budget, the director does an amazing job filling up the dreary sets with plenty of genuine creep factor, granting the House that the entire film takes place in with an extremely personable atmosphere. You know what? Scratch all that. This movie has Vincent Price in his prime. Pretty much any movie with the Price Man is worth viewing on that merit alone, and "House of Usher" is no exception.

In the original short story "Fall of the House of Usher," the character of Roderick is this hypochondriac, borderline paranoid schizophrenic character who enacts the horrific climactic event as a result of some sort of bizarre predestination belief. The Richard Matheson script calls for a much more emotional approach; Winthrop has come to the house in order to take Roderick's sister Madeline (Myrna Fahey) away, which does not go over too well with her overprotective brother. Roderick disapproves of the relationship, which started prior to the events of the film and quickly escalated to the lust and engagement phases.

Of course, as the movie unspools, the story enters more traditional Poe territory, as Roderick is obsessed with the notion that his family is cursed, and cannot believe that his sibling has broken the vow they took to let the family bloodline die with them. Suddenly and abruptly (redundancy alert), Madeline is dead, leaveing Philip heartbroken and Roderick wanting only to bury away the past, considering himself halfway to his goal of ridding the world of the Usher name. Also considering that the film goes into the long history of the Usher family - how countless ancestors have become mad, insane aristocratic criminals - the viewer is left to wonder whether or not the tragic death of Madeline is a bad thing.

Then the film's third act begins. During the course of the nonstop barrage of English classes that make up Academia, the finale of "Fall of the House of Usher" is something that sticks with everyone who reads it. Almost 200 years after its initial writing, Poe's shocking final twist is powerful, horrifying, and even revolting when one considers everything that one of the particular characters has gone through. In a micro-budgeted feature film, the ending isn't QUITE as effective, but still resonates as extremely powerful stuff, especially considering the more emotional approach that the film takes.

Longtime readers of this Horror Nerd know that I'm ordinarily not a stickler for what I oh-so-ignorantly define as "older" horror movies; "House of Usher" is a big exception, a movie that I saw some long ago Sunday night when tornado-y weather was dotting the Minnesota landscape (bad prose alert much?). Combined with the external elements, the internal elements of this film - Corman's direction, the atmosphere, and most wonderful of all, Vincent Price and his crazy, over-the-top, infinitely memorable mannerisms - converged to create one of the best classical horror films I've seen. And for all the doubters, this flick is in that oh-so-uppity (and officially accredited) United States National Film Registry, so suck on it.

IHR induction #36: "Saw" (2004, James Wan)

Want to hear something that just might weird you out? The original "Saw" - the movie that begat a seven-film franchise and seemingly never-ending series of plot twists, jerkoff characters who partially deserve their extraordinarily cruel fates, and cryptic messages from a soothingly-voiced character actor named Tobin Bell - is only six years old. The release of "Saw" is something that seems like it happened a long, long time ago (but not in a Galaxy far, far away...bad joke, sorry). Alas, it didn't. Yikes.

I still remember the advance buzz surrounding "Saw." Several scenes from the movie were served up as extras on the DVD of the 2004 "Punisher" movie, and everything that was present there looked extremely cool. Apparently, the studio bigwig in charge of the film's release thought so, as well, since this micro-budgeted horror film with no recognizable stars other than Danny Glover - admittedly several years removed from his own A-list run - the primo Halloween 2004 release. Yours truly was in his third year of college at the time, and first year living away from home, and thought it mighty funny to hear several people around campus saying the sentence "Let's go see 'Saw.'" Hey, it was highly amusing at the time.

Unless you've been living under a rock for much of the last decade, you know how the story turned out. Many people came and saw, uh, "Saw," were highly entertained and bedazzled by the movie's inventive premise and surprising plot twists, and made the flick an infinitely profitable piece of modern horror cinema. This being a low-budget movie that made boatloads of cash, however, "Saw" became the "Friday the 13th" of the 21st century. To their credit, Twisted Pictures did their absolute damndest to make each successive sequel necessary, spinning off in direction after direction, delving into various victim characters, and creating ever-more ingenious traps and contraptions for the doomed souls unfortunate enough to catch Jigsaw's wrath to attempt to escape from. Unfortunately, "Saw" also became the most convoluted horror series of all time. What starts off as a series that feels like a naturally satisfying trilogy quickly becomes a muddled mess of a franchise. They become less and less about Jigsaw's original intent and instead become geek shows that critics of '80s slasher films equated all horror movies to be, increasingly ABOUT the goddamn traps and torture devices in much the same fashion that "Family Guy" became a show less about people and more about pop culture references. But I digress.

Today, we look back at the original "Saw" - a very popular, very effective, and very influential (for better or worse) horror movie with several outstanding performances and some very entertaining writing and acting.

THE MOVIE!!

The opening moments of the film introduce us to two characters trapped in a very unkempt, dirty bathroom - photographer Adam Stanheight (Leigh Whannell) and Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes, who remains one of my favorite character actors). The premise of every "Saw" film revolves around a "central" conflict that a character (or characters) must overcome, and if you're a complete virgin to the series, it goes like this: the Jigsaw killer is a serial murderer who never directly murders anyone, instead focusing his efforts on making people appreciate life. His "victims" are all, in some way, ungrateful for life, and the killer - a terminal cancer patient named John Kramer, played to the hilt by Tobin Bell in a performance that deserves its icon status - creates traps, or "games," to test the characters.

Much of the action in this film revolves around Adam and Lawrence alone in the room. Tape recorders tell them various hints that serve them in their quest for salvation. Hacksaws in the room can be used for the purpose of (a) murder, or (b) escape, and for a while, the test seems to be whether or not the two characters are good people. There is also a significant "beat the clock" element to this original movie, as Lawrence has been given a strange deadline - kill Adam by six o'clock, or his family dies. As a tension exercise, "Saw" is very good stuff. High stakes, good acting by the two leads, and the ever-present Billy the puppet - a mocking, creepy little doll that would eventually become an icon onto itself, the low voice of Tobin Bell lending its awesome malice - mocking the characters with its series of challenges.

Spinning off from this main plot cog are several extraneous scenes that introduce the AFOREMENTIONED premise of the "Saw" movies to us. Several previous victims of the Jigsaw killer are shown, but the most fascinating one is easily Amanda Young. Shawnee Smith, a veteran of both TV and horror films, does a fantastic job playing Amanda, a former drug addict and the only survivor of a Jigsaw game. She is still an immense fan favorite with the series' aficianadoes, and for good reason - her character arc in this original movie, a lowly doper who actually finds salvation as a result of her incarceration, gave the flick a powerful emotional kick and was a welcome breath of fresh air in the endless sea of gory/surreal games being played out before the audience members.

As "Saw" reaches its conclusion, a series of twists occur, giving us the identity of the killer, the fate of both principal victim characters, and a truly startling final scene that really took this reporter for a loop upon first viewing. While some people say that they saw the twist coming a mile away, I'll toss my name into the uncool hat and admit that of all the horror movies I had seen up to that point, only "Sleepaway Camp" had caught me as completely off guard as the ending of "Saw." Very satisfying stuff, and most assuredly an appropriate way to end a film which is about the meaning of life and death at its root.

This has been the case with a few of my previous reviews, but I realize that this particular manifesto has been a little scatterbrained. Perhaps it is only appropriate for a film where enjoyment is primarily derived from surprise twists, and attempting not to spoil them for audiences who haven't seen the movie and also knowing that we now have a long series of subsequent films that expand on the whacked-out philosophies and gory surrealism of the original. There's really nothing more to say other than my belief that the original "Saw" is, by far, the best movie in the series - but as one friend on a message board once said, if you had told me then that this movie would spawn SIX (so far, as I refuse to believe that the recently-released "Saw 3D" is the final movie until another October passes without Tobin Bell's gleaming mug on a movie poster) subsequent films, I would have called you crazy. But life is funny like that sometimes. For some great acting, labyrinthine storytelling and more than a few headtrip moments, 2004 O.G. "Saw" is a flick worth checking out.

IHR induction #35: "Halloween II" (1981, Rick Rosenethal)

I've harped nonstop in the past about the reasons why "Halloween," the John Carpenter-helmed classic from 1978, is one of (if not THE) greatest horror films ever made, but I've never railed on its sequel at length. It's time for just such a thing. Here, we have nothing short of the "Empire Strikes Back" chapter of the "Halloween" franchise; while it's not quite as suspenseful as the original movie, it undeniably contains more shocks and genuine make-you-cringe moments, in addition to replicating damn near ALL of the things that made Carpenter's movie such a genre-defining, essential thrill ride. It's also one of the greatest sequels ever made, bar none; it takes the motifs of the original movie and makes them important again in different ways, and while it's characters aren't quite as well fleshed-out, it more than makes up for the disparity by becoming the badass king of early '80s slasher films.

In many ways, "Halloween II" is the quintessential slasher film, minus the pot-smoking teens and wooded area setting. "Halloween" set the bar for modern horror films with its high-school centric character base, emotionless killer, and sex=death moral play. In the three-year period between the release of "Halloween" and "Halloween II," many things happened in the great, grand world of horror films, the least of which being "Friday the 13th" and the first widely-seen examples of layers upon layers of red stuff flying out at audiences. As such, the slasher influence is definitely there for "Halloween II," but while many critics have lambasted the movie for this element, I feel that it is nothing short of logical. The original film featured a Michael Myers acquiring his target and offing the opposition with surgical precision; in this movie, the character (which is nothing short of evil personified, in the words of Sam Loomis himself) has been pushed back, and thus is one pissed off monster. The Michael Myers seen in the first two "Halloween" films is my favorite horror villain ever, and it's loads of fun to watch him go kill-crazy and brutal in "Halloween II" as opposed to silent and stealthy in the OG version. But that's just me.

One last bit of merryment before I get into the meat of the review - I've mentioned several times in the past that I view "Halloween II" as "Part B" of the first film. For those that haven't grown tired of me waxing rhapsodically on this subject before, this is also a move that makes sense. Carpenter and Debra Hill return to write this sequel, and the director, Rick Rosenthal, does his absolute damndest to make sure that the look and style of the "Halloween" is preserved throughout the 92 minute running time. It's got the same heroine, the same hero, the same villain, the same town - hell, it even takes place MINUTES after the first film ends. If you view these two movies back-to-back, which I always do, as a single film, you get an absolutely perfect, three-hour horror epic that's worth popping in any time you feel like giving yourself a serious case of the skin-crawling willies. End of intro.

THE MOVIE!!

The flick starts with the ending scenes of "Halloween," as Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence, in yet another tour-de-force performance) shoots escaped mental patient Michael Myers and leaves him for dead. Despite taking a solid six shots from Loomis' revolver, Myers disappears, leaving a very bewildered psychologist and Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis, the best "final girl" actress in horror history) in his wake. It doesn't take long for Myers to take his first victim of the movie, and the awesome opening credits tick by.

Laurie, a babysitter who found herself faced against the wrath of the white-maksed killer, is taken to the hospital for injuries incurred during her battles with Myers and meets a friendly orderly (Lance Guest). Meanwhile, Michael learns the location of his quarry by hearing a news report on a radio, and heads toward Haddonfield Memorial Hospital with haste.

The movie splits into two threads from here. The first, and more visceral, is the stuff that takes place in the hospital. See, there's lots of sharp, pointy and downright painful things laying about in a hospital, leading to several amazing kill scenes. One of my favorite sequences in all of filmdom is the infamous "scalding water death;" it's not only amazingly well-shot, with an ungodly eerie silhouette shot of Myers as he approaches the big-titted nurse who finds herself alone in the room with a madman, but it's everything that slasher cinema was about. Pre-marital sex, a hot tub, a masked killer - it's completely perfect. Of course, as a movie that not only took place during the height of slasher mania but attempted to top many of its imitators, "Halloween II" serves up quite the array of primal moments; we get a nurse drained of blood by ventilation tubes, no less than two needles entering eyeballs, a claw hammer to the head, and impressingly enough several more. When it comes to gore quotient and makeup effects, this movie's "horror factor" is almost second to none.

The other thread is no less fascinating, as Dr. Loomis (along with several members of the Haddonfield police force) begin searching for this unstoppable killing machine. There's one sequence in particular that really represents the "Halloween" series at its absolute finest. After finding out that there has been a break-in at the town's grade school, the hero characters find that Myers has scrawled the word "Samhain" on the chalkboard. Samhain is, of course, the Wiccan holiday that led to the creation of Halloween in the first place, adding a completely new and completely creepy aspect to the character of Michael Myers. This also allows me to segue and discuss one of the many problems that I have with Rob Zombie's two recent "Halloween" remakes/reimaginings. I mean...he tried, he really did, and his love for these source films isn't questioned. But the character of Michael Myers just works so much better when his past isn't shown in such graphic detail as it is in the early moments of the 2007 version of "Halloween"; when you witness this film for the first time, and see just how effective it is when we're given these small hints as to the why of Michael's brutality, the ZombieWeen flicks can't even begin to compare with their rock music soundtracks and endless stream of hillbilly cliches that make up Michael's immediate family.

Of course, "Halloween II" was also the movie that introduced us to the fact that Michael and Laurie are siblings. This is also a plot move that has come under fire from a few film critics, but once again, I have to applaud Carpenter and Hill for their ability to spring genuine twists on first-time viewers. Just a year earlier, the AFOREMENTIONED "Empire Strikes Back" had hit theaters, with its famous "I am your father" denounment. By bringing in a much more personal and intimate motive for its villain character, "Halloween II" raises the bar for horror once again. The move is essential in elevating the first two "Halloween" films to true elite status in the annals of horror movies, giving the films a very epic, heavy emotional kick.

And the "final girl" segment of "Halloween II" is nothing short of utter electricity. The third act of any horror film is utterly essential; blow the finish, and you'll leave your audience feeling perhaps more gypped than any other type of movie. To this day, it always makes my mind race when thinking about everything Laurie Strode went through in the first film; the fact that she has to do it all over AGAIN, mere HOURS later in fictional universe time, and damn near CRIPPLED no less, is something that I just can't fathom. The best thing that any film can do is to make you sympathize with its characters. The first movie made us sympathize with representative nice girl Laurie by showing us her everyday life; this movie does so by nothing more than the will of survival alone, particularly against a villain that seems indestructible.

For all fans of the original "Halloween," "Halloween II" is an essential watch, as it brings the first movie full circle and does an outstanding job bringing all of its plot threads together in a satisfying manner. It's a lesson in three-act structure, character development, plot twists that continue to confound people to this day...and, of course, one of the best movies to pull out every Halloween season. Fast, brutal, and mysterious - therein lies the legacy of John Carpenter, Michael Myers, and "Halloween II."

Horror Nerd Cinema Bonus: "Paranormal Activity 2"

The following statement has caused me much derision from many online friends and foes, but here goes again anyway: the last four movies that I've seen (either at home or in a theater) that really, truly scared me were "Suspiria," "Signs," "The Blair Witch Project," and "Paranormal Activity." Many horror fans hold "Suspiria" in a very high regard as not only one of Dario Argento's true masterpieces but an unmitigated horror classic, so I'm off the hook for that one, but I know plenty of folks who completely despise the other three movies. Not only that, they seem perfectly content to sling mud at anyone who enjoyed them. They may have been cheap, they may have been derivative, but one thing is for certain - I can't deny the effect they had on me, for very different reasons.

For as long as I live, I'll never forget my experience watching the original "Paranormal Activity" a scant year ago. There's little empirical evidence I can provide for the following statement, so hopefully you're not annoyed by completely blanket propositions: I saw "Paranormal Activity" under the absolute best conditions. It was an afternoon showing, with maybe ten other people in the theater; outside, the weather was very cloudy and gloaming, and upon exiting a light rain had begun to fall. The size of the audience was very important; in a huge crowd setting, the audience members would likely be tempted to either (a) laugh, or (b) begin riffing on the film in MST3K-like fashion. With less people, it would have just been phenomenally boring. On that day, all ten of us were silent, riveted, and utterly engrossed in what was unfolding before us. Then, as an added bonus, yours truly got to drive home through the middle of nowhere in the rain. That was a fun ride.

The film itself was one of the best-executed thrillers that I have seen in recent years; it did a phenomenal job building up its suspense, its characters, and its situation. Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat were all too believable as a long-time couple with their entire life in front of them, completely undeserving of the supernatural pickle they find themselves in, and of the death sentence that eventually cracks down like the proverbial whip. In addition, the movie's creator-writer-director Oren Peli served up a tour-de-force in the atmosphere department; his goal with the film was to exorcise his own fear of ghosts, and since the movie deals with a denomic entity rather than a earthbound spirit, it's hard to argue that his ambitions were solid. The movie worked because, with a couple exceptions (the absentee demonologist, anyone?), the story was believable and the characters were sympathetic. For the most part, this is also true of the sequel.

While it takes a while for the plot cogs of "Paranormal Activity 2" to click into motion, we're able to piece together much of the basics within the flick's first act. Our central characters this time are Kristi (whose actress I can't name since IMDB has really dropped the ball on this one and currently doesn't have any casting info up yet), the second wife of a wealthy fast food owner named Dan who has a teenage daughter from his previous marriage. These people are all well-played by their respective performers, although not quite as engaging as Katie and Micah; perhaps it's unfair to compare the two since the situations are a very apples and oranges thing, but during the non-spooktacular scenes, this sequel isn't quite as gripping as its original film. Maybe it's just glandular. One thing is for certain - Ali, the movie's teenage character, is the rare horror movie teen whom you aren't rooting for to get lopped off at the neck. Added bonus and redundancy alert.

Just like the original, it takes a good long while for things to really start kicking into high gear, but the plot shouldn't surprise anyone. The new baby and German shepherd clearly see things that the rest of the family cannot. The pool cleaner mysteriously needs to be placed back in its expensive pool every morning. The various cameras that serve as the looking-glass into the lives of these characters (which is set up this time by an early instance of demon hijinx that the family mistakes as a malicious burglary attempt, thus leading to overzealous Dan installing the cameras as a means of security and surveillance against the would-be thieves) begin ticking by the nights and times in the same vein as the previous movie, as our eyes dart from one side of the screen to the other, desperately searching for anything that appears off. Since Kristin is Katie's sister, and this film takes place months before the events of the original, conversations arise that give us some inkling as to just what the origin of this whole conflagration may just be. And after all of the predictable "is it or isn't it a ghost?' argument scenes, the movie gives us an ending that is simultaneously hackneyed and satisfying.

Which brings me to the one glaring problem I have with this movie; the character of Dan, or "the dad," as most people will remember him. He starts off likable enough, but as the movie progresses he becomes your typical haunted house movie father character. Namely, he completely ignores all the evidence that would be plain as day to just about any sane human being despite the pleas of all other family members and comes up with truly eye-rolling rationalizations ("the wind closed the door" is heard many times throughout this movie). He also makes a decision in the final act that is downright detestable. Having said that, it provides the AFOREMENTIONED hackneyed ending with just a touch of poetic justice.

For the record, I have to state that I PRAY that very ending doesn't lead to another sequel. "Paranormal Activity 2" is quite the effective little movie. Its jump scares are truly jump-worthy, and a couple of them may just stick with you long after this film's 90-minute running time has completed. But it becomes apparent roughly halfway through the experience that this is a movie series that has already run its course; the story that needed to be told has already been laid out, and any further explanation for the demonic haunting or more gimmick infringement and/or expansion will just be seen as masturbation by the public at large. If you're in the mood for some good, solid creepy Halloween week theater viewing, however, look no further; this movie will more than tickle your scary bone.

*** out of ****.

IHR induction #34: "The 'Burbs" (1989, Joe Dante)

This one takes me right back to my youth. When it comes to horror-comedy, few movies I've seen can top "The 'Burbs" when it comes to both star-power and laugh generation. Whoa, what? Let's rephrase that - "The 'Burbs" is a horror-comedy that does its job at both of the genres that it takes on very well. One of my favorite movies as a kid, as well as yet more testament to the awesomeness of Joe Dante.

Dante, was a protege of legendary schlock director Roger Corman, learning the tools of the low-budget trade from the guy who once said that he could make a movie about the fall of the roman empire with two shrubs and a loincloth. It's hard to argue with a pedigree like that, but amazingly enough Dante not only surpassed his mentor but became uber-successful. He has shown a knack over the years for taking on projects that are hard to pidgeonhole into any specific category; "Piranha" is probably his closest thing to an out-and-out horror film, while the mammoth '80s hit "Gremlins" is a kind of surreal family scary flick.

"The 'Burbs," on the other hand, is much more character-driven, in that we're given a lot of wholly awesome characters which also happen to be perfectly cast. With that...

THE MOVIE!

The entire film takes place in the fictional suburb of Hinckley Hills, Iowa. Our central character is Ray Peterson (Tom Hanks), family man and all-around good guy. As played by Hanks, he's instantly likable, which isn't the biggest stretch considering that we're dealing with the most digsustingly wholesome actor in movie history. I kid. I'm a big fan of Hanks, and as usual, he's aces in this role and dives into it wholeheartedly. He's also good friends with two of the neighbors on Mayfield Place - overzealous Art Weingartner (Rick Ducommun), who in one of the movie's highlights attempts to shoot flying crows with a .22 rifle (as anyone with even rudimentary gun knowledge will tell you, this is damn near impossible), and reactionary former military man Mark Rumsfield (Bruce Dern). The three characters and actors complement each other extremely well; Dern, in particular, is really awesome as crazy Rumsfield who treats every life event like a military drill.

But the times are a-changin' on Mayfield Place, as some decidedly non-normal neighbors - the Klopeck family (Henry Gibson, Courtney Gains and Brother Theodore) - have just moved in next to Ray. They are very rarely seen outside the house, and when they are, strange things transpire. One of the flick's priceless early scenes has the three snooping friends spying on the Klopecks as the youngest member of the family (played by Gains, of "Children of the Corn" fame) runs a very large garbage bag out to the trash and beats the holy hell out of it with a stick.

Eventually, Ray takes on a more than passing interst in the Klopecks. Creepy things begin to take place. He sees them outside in the middle of the night (in the pouring rain, no less) digging holes in their backyard, and before long Art finds a discarded Femur bone that the Peterson family dog has dug up. Since one of their neighbors mysteriously disappeared earlier in the film, the paranoid suburbanites piece together the mystery and decide that their oddball new neighbors are serial murderers, thus setting the wheels of the story's third act into motion. With Ray's family on vacation and the Klopecks heading out of the house for a day, the three central male characters take it upon themselves to take the frightening journey into the creepy house and discover once and for all if their suspicions are correct.

As a story, "The 'Burbs" is pretty fascinating stuff. I actually prefer it to Barry Sonnenfeld's "Addams Family" movies when it comes to bizarre, macabre comedy; it's way, way funnier than those movies, particularly the love-hate relationship that Dern's character has with the neighborhood cool kid. I should also state that said neighborhood cool kid is played by Corey freakin' Feldman, who as usual is eleven kinds of awesome. Feldman's character, in all of his '80s dudiness, is the most normal resident of Mayfield Place, taking all of the surrounding chaos in like a movie to the point where he invites friends over just to watch the maelstrom.

That, in essence, is the appeal of this movie - a looking glass into a strange, transmorphed version of Suburbia where the crazies have invaded the landscape. It has a lot of nostalgic value for yours truly; I first saw this movie during the Halloween season of 1991, and ever since, it has remained one of my all-time favorite October films due to its peaceful suburban fall-ish setting, its stylistic look augmented by the superb direction of Dante, and its way-out-there instances of black comedy peeking through the slightly out-there horror elements. Plus, you gotta love any movie where one of the characters, in the closing moments of the film, says the words "Don't mess with suburbanites."

IHR induction #33: "Ginger Snaps" (2000, John Fawcett)

And so we continue Halloween Horror Nerd Fest 2010 (or whatever). It takes a certain something for a horror movie to lend itself as essential viewing during the best month of the year; it might be a certain atmosphere, it might be a focus on oppression rather than gore, it might be just the simple fact that it reminds me of my college days spent indoors during October watching AMC MonsterFest back when the thing was actually good. Any way you look at it, "Ginger Snaps," a Canadian film from 2000, is a movie that is a modern-day werewolf classic, and one of my favorite DVDs to whip out during the season of the witch.

Many horror fans hold this movie in a very high regard, and for good reason. The acting is excellent for a film of this nature, the admittedly small budget lends the movie a definite charm, there are some excellent creature and gore effects, and there's some wicked doses of black humor thrown in as an added bonus (redundancy alert).

No long-winded introduction this time. Time for THE MOVIE!

The movie wastes little time introducing us to our two central characters - sisters Ginger (Katharine Isabelle, who is quite frankly amazing in this role) and Brigitte (Emily Perkins, who lends her character with just the right balance of apathy and soulfulness). In essence, they serve as the representation of Goth culture that director John Fawcett choses to present to the audience. They're ironic and morbid to the core; they spend the first few scenes obsessing over wishing death on their classmates and even "attempting suicide" (see the movie and the quotation marks will make sense). Every tried-and-true Goth and/or emo trend is well-represented in these two characters, making some of the future events take on a very keen meaning.

Of course, any movie whose DVD cover strongly features a beastly-looking woman backing the two main stars is going to revolve around a certain subject, and lycanthropy doesn't waste much time rearing its ugly head in "Ginger Snaps." The teens in the movie are all abuzz over the beast of Bailey Downs, a little-seen monstrosity killing the pets in the semi-idyllic little haven. Through a mix of coincidence and the girls' oh-so-present fascination with death, they eventually meet the beast face-to-face, which leads to Ginger - the prettier of the two sisters - as a werewolf.

Well, to make things as lazy as possible, much of the runtime of "Ginger Snaps" can be summed up with one sentence - a typical high-school movie where one of the characters is a vengeful werewolf. It has been pointed out by many other reviewers, but Fawcett made the bold move of making a horror movie with a very distinct allegory. Namely, puberty. Virtually everything that happens within "Ginger Snaps" when it comes to the horror departments can be seen as a metaphor for the most tumultuous period in almost any person's life, as Ginger finds herself morphing into a maneating (both literally and figuratively) seductress, alienating herself from her sister and becoming a beast in more ways than one.

There is little more that I can say, and in some ways I feel like I have said too much already. "Ginger Snaps" is "Superbad" with tons of fake blood; there's the teen movie cliches of popularity, losing virginity, and rivalry among high school girls that are hallmarks of the teenybopper genre. However, you haven't seen these common twists, turns, strained relationships with parental units (the sisters' mom is marvelously played here by Mimi Rogers) and random backstabbings between young female characters pulled off with the aplomb that "Ginger Snaps" gives you. This is often a very funny film, as well. This isn't a movie for everyone, but for those who like their teen-horror crossed with some very black comedy, you won't find shinier gold than this particular film.

The over-riding strength of this flick revolves around the journey that we go on with the characters, of the newly-found friends, the horrific deaths, and the rampaging teen hormones that serve as the impetus of Ginger's transformation from Uber-Goth to bloodthirsty werewolf. As such, it's one that every viewer must take in without too much knowledge of the events that go down; as such, it's easily the best movie in the series. Yes, folks, there are sequels - when this movie became a big hit on video in the States, "Ginger Snaps 2" was released theatrically and summarily became a huge flop, and a third movie was then released straight-to-video. Neither movie comes close to the level of power that this one has; in addition, the closing scenes take place at Halloween, with ever-present fall conditions serving as a wonderful atmospheric boon to the movie's story. Take my word for it - this one is well-worth the purchase price for some viewing during harvest season.

IHR induction #32: "Horror of Dracula" (1958, Terence Fisher)

Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" is arguably the single most important book ever published. Its impact was stunning and sweeping, and its influence continues to this day. Before "Dracula," vampire stories tended to be silly and/or one-dimensional, with undead blood feeders being stoic and zombie-like. The Count, on the other hand, was overtly loquacious and charismatic. It added the undeniable tragedy factor to the vampire mythos, as well as several of the weaknesses (Crosses, sunlight, etc.) and other aspects of the lore that are now accepted as Gospel for vampire philes. And it's all thanks to a single book.

This statement can't be proven, because I can't be bothered to look it up, but the character of Count Dracula has GOT to be the most prolific character in all of moviedom. There have been literally dozens of films over the years to feature him, and their quality varies just as much as the year following the title. Fans of the novel generally prefer Francis Coppola's 1992 movie, purists gravitate toward the 1931 Bela Lugosi version, and morons lean on the 2000 Gerard Depardieu remake/bastardization. My favorite? Look no further.

Ordinarily, I'm not a fan of old-school Gothic horror films; call me ADD, but give me slasher films over doom and gloom any day. Hammer Films, on the other hand, was a company that could make these stories and periods look vibrant and attractive. Not only that, they featured classically-trained actors who fully invested themselves within the confines of their decades-old characters to perfection. While many Hammer Films features rank as classics, "Horror of Dracula" is not only my favorite of the lot, it's my #1 Dracula movie of all time. I base this on my first viewing of the movie, which amazingly enough took place last Friday.

THE MOVIE!

In some circles, "Horror of Dracula" is a polarizing movie, because it takes more than a few creative liberties with the original Stoker source material. The basics are kept in check; Dracula (Christopher Lee) is an evil vampire who spells doom for virtually everyone he meets in an era of Victorian optimism, and a small group of friends must band together in an effort to destroy him. In pretty much all of the particulars, however, this talkie varies. It becomes apparent in the flick's first reel, as this movie's version of Jonathan Harker (John Van Eyssen) isn't your average everyday solicotor, but a bona fide vampire hunter who travels to the creepy, crawly castle in an effort to murder this movie's Count Dracula deader than poor Kelsey's nuts (credit to Mick Foley for that one). At least until he is bitten by the count's lover/vampire slave, and stakes the harpy before succumbing to vampireness himself. Oh yeah, spoiler alert.

In virtually every move that it makes, the movie places an extensive focus on making the distinction between its awesome titular vampire and the people who aim to eliminate him more clear. While the novel, and Coppola's film, by extension, paid plenty of lip service to Drac's attempts to woo Mina Murray and thus planted some level of sympathy to the villain, we get no such thing in the Hammer Films version of the story. In "Horror of Dracula" and all of its seventeen gazillion sequels, Christopher Lee does his damndest to portray Dracula as a really evil son of a bitch and nothing more. He deserves none of our sympathy, and his only interest is in wiping out as many live warm bodies as possible. This Dracula truly enjoys what he does; in Lee's amazing performance, we can see the genuine malevolence and delight that he derives from the terror and panic that he spreads via his actions.

In keeping with its theme of streamlining the experience, two key characters from the novel (Renfield and Quincey) are left on the chopping block, leading to much more emphasis being placed on this film's version of Dr. Van Helsing. Peter Cushing, a legendary veteran of horror films as well as being Grand Moff Tarkin himself, plays Van Helsing, and infuses him with a solid heroic quality that would become a staple in many of the movie's sequels (along with Lee as the ever-present Count). The rest of the movie won't be surprising for all of those who have read the novel, as Dracula takes an active interest in the circle of friends who have an active interest in planting a stake through his heart. Another major difference from the book is the Mina-Lucy-Harker dynamic; Mina is married to Arthur Holmwood, while Lucy is Arthur's sister as well as Jonathan's fiance. As a result, it makes the proceedings a bit more emotional, as Lucy is devastated by the death of her future husband.

Rather than being renowned for its minty freshness and emotional punch, however, "Horror of Dracula" is a movie that has an atmosphere that must be seen to be believed. All of the Hammer horror movies that I've seen have this quality; the bright, energetic technicolor meshes incongruously with the gritty nature of the stories they portray, granting them a truly timeless quality that lends itself just as well to viewings by modern-day college students as it does to people who were alive to see these films in their theatrical run. Yes, random cool early-'20s ironic horror fan, you will enjoy this film, even if you think you won't. After all, I did, and I'm as snarky as anyone you're likely to read out in the world of internet fanboyness.

While there's a couple movies from the '80s that I enjoy a bit more, "Horror of Dracula" is definitely among the upper echelon of vampire movies in my personal compendium, instantly shooting into the stratosphere accompanied by Evil Ed and Bill Paxton. It contains iconic performances by Lee and Cushing, as well as a game supporting cast, marvelous direction from Terence Fisher, and that unmistakable Hammer atmosphere. For "Dracula" movies as well as vampire films, this is practically a master class.

IHR induction #31: "Deep Red" (1975, Dario Argento)

We're here, peoples. It's October, which means that it's all horror, all the time for Jon Lickness. All those other genres? They just keep the virtual seats warm for these 31 days, when the TV constantly flickers the hell out of the likes of Pinhead, Jason, Freddy, Leatherface, Cropsy, Blade, Chucky, Michael...eh, you get the idea by now.

Anyway, for all of you out there in Horror Nerd land (and if that were a country, it would be the most awesome dictatorship in the history of civilization, with me as your lord and master), there's a name that you absolutely, positively NEED to know. And if you don't, for SHAME!!! I've touched on him before during the induction for "Suspiria," but in case you missed it, Dario Argento is one of the, if not THE, greatest horror film-makers of all time. While one can bitch and moan about his works not quite rising to the dazzling heights of Alfred Hitchcock, or as iconic as some of John Carpenter's opuses, there's no questioning the consistency and effectiveness of his work. Up to a certain point, that is.

Throughout much of his career, Argento has leaned heavily on the "giallo" thriller, a type of horror film made very popular in Italy by luminary Mario Bava (who himself was Argento's mentor). The giallo film is a one-of-a-kind subgenre in the great, grand world of horror; there really isn't an official description of what they entail, but when you see one, you know what you're watching. I describe the giallo genre as a kind of gory murder mystery, with a focus on the mystery. The majority of these films' running time involves a character or characters tracking down a straightforward investigative line leading to a mysterious killer, but the deaths - unlike, say, Sherlock Holmes movies - are shown onscreen, often in excruciating and graphic detail. In Argento's first film, "The Bird with the Crystal Plumage," we were shown a brutal serial killer stalking and killing beautiful young girls. The movie was more raw and savage than anything audiences had seen before, and his subsequent movies, "Four Flies on Grey Velvet" and "Cat O' Nine Tails" kept the pace going.

"Deep Red" was his fourth film, and is considered by many critics to be his finest giallo thriller. Immediately following this flick, he would delve into supernatural horror with the immortal (and AFOREMENTIONED) "Suspiria" and its sequel "Inferno" before returning to his goldmine throughout much of the '80s. The decision, I'm sure, wasn't a hard one - when it comes to crafting movies that are endlessly fascinating, as well as boasting more than a few scenes that have creeptacular power, there's no one better than my boy Dario. Because, you know, we're good friends who keep in contact and everything.

THE MOVIE!

The plot description is going to be short, because one thing that you must realize about Argento is that his films are normally VERY short on plot. So how does "Deep Red" go? A psychic is murdered in the first reel in her hotel room immediately after hearing a mysterious children's song. An English jazz pianist (David Hemmings) living in Rome witnesses the death from the streets below, and becomes fascinated by the case, taking it upon himself to solve it. Along with a persistent reporter (Daria Nicolodi), he follows the trail of breadcrumbs to the killer's identity, but not before a couple more deaths crop up just for the hell of it.

There's your story, peoples.

As I have said to many people about the works of Dario Argento, his films are much less about their story than the experience that watching them takes on, almost like a killer itself. For starters, he is an absolutely brilliant director; his movies are framed with colors that are both vibrant and scary, with plenty of reds, greens and yellows jumping off the screen, jumbling your sensory inputs and taking up permanent space in your gray matter. His skill with handling murder scenes is unmatched; rather than just shuffle red food coloring at the screen, his ability to intersperse JUST the right camera angle with shots of a stabbing knife entering a body has to be commended. I know it doesn't make much sense without these scenes playing out right in front of you, but take my word for it. For all aspiring horror film-makers, the films of Argento are a must when it comes to the study of visual impact.

Another thing to be commended in this film is the performance of David Hemmings, who plays the absolute best variation of the prototypical Dario Argento film hero - the foreigner living in Italy, working in a fine art field, who finds himself privy to a horrific murder case. While other versions of this archetype were a little bland and one-dimensional, the character played by Hemmings is extremely memorable. He's likable, humorous, and charismatic. Considering that Hemmings was speaking in a foreign dialect throughout his entire performance, it's quite the feat. So four gold stars for Mr. Hemmings, who also has an excellent role in the film "Blow-Up" for all film nerds to check out.

For those like myself, who watch horror films out of the enjoyment of fear, there's a couple sequences in "Deep Red" that are real doozies. One is the murder of a police investigator, and the other is the ending sequence. I'll leave that up to each individual viewer to take in.

Overall, "Deep Red," while not a perfect film, definitely deserves its reputation among the upper echelon of European horror films, as well as its status as perhaps the greatest giallo movie of all time. Like all Argento movies, it makes for great viewing in October; the color scheme treats itself particularly well to the brown-and-yellow hues emanating from outside your windows. And, despite the already over-abundance of Argento's real-life girlfriend Nicolodi showing some decidedly Randy Orton-like charisma (and that's not a compliment), the characters attempting to resolve the mystery are endearing. For virgins to the giallo genre, this is the definitive introduction, as well as a very different kind of mystery film for anyone whose experience with the genre begins and ends with Sherlock Holmes.

IHR induction #30: "Candyman" (1992, Bernard Rose)

There are some movies that absolutely, positively must be watched by me in some form every October 31st. What's even weirder is that I actually prefer that the experience be on television; sure, I own Carpenter's "Halloween" and the first two "Hellraiser" movies (which are always automatic watches on the day), but you just can't beat the feeling of knowing that somebody else, somewhere, is actually watching the same movie at the same time that you are. Rather than being gore-focused or high-ranking on "scariest movies ever" lists, it's more the ambiance of some horror films that lend themselves well to Halloween viewing. And this is one of them.

"Candyman" is a film that I hold in a very high regard. It's one of my favorite movies ever, easily one of the five best horror films of the '90s, and is living proof to the contrary for all your moronic "all horror movies are dumb and/or misogynistic" friends. It's wonderfully written, shot with plenty of love and care by director Bernard Rose, and marvelously acted by an excellent ensemble cast. In short, the reasons to praise "Candyman" are the reasons that any high-fallutin' snooty film critic has for praising the current Oscar Bait out in the cineplexes. As such, this flick is actually a pretty good entry point for people looking to just get into the great, grand genre of horror; you can get your feet wet watching plenty of Bob Keen stage blood while also feeling like your film professor who says that all these things are the bane of cinema.

I wrote as much for my entry in my "Top 100 Movies of All Time" list, but this is a movie that brings back childhood memories. Because you know you all did it. At some point, in all of your childhoods, you were at a gathering at a friend's house when one of the little bastards suggested that someone in your party go into a bathroom alone and say the word "Candyman" into the mirror five times. There are variations of the story; in my particular hometown, the trick wouldn't work if there was light in the room. And by no light, it meant that there could not be one sliver of light shining into the bathroom of death; we're talking duct tape applied to the cracks around the door and s**t. And there was also some cryptic nonsense that the mystical name-chanting had to take place at exactly the stroke of midnight, or something. Long story short, nobody ever tried it; not because we were scared, but because it was just too freaking hard to summon the hook man.

Yes, folks, the Candyman fable is what is known as an urban legend; both the Clive Barker short story and this film take urban legends as their subject. The characters in the film are familiar with the concept of modern-day campfire scary stories; our main character is Helen Lyle (Virginia Madsen, in an excellent performance, although it's somewhat suspect that this is by FAR the ugliest she has ever looked on camera; I blame the hair, because she has only gotten HOTTER in the years since this film came out with straight locks), an uppity graduate student looking to write a thesis on the Candyman myth. The film even begins with a pretty damn scary scene showing one of these myth stories come to life, complete with "my cousin knows who he is" reference points from the teller of the story.

Helen, who is married to one of the professors at UI-Chicago (Xander Berkeley), has plenty of second-hand stories for her thesis, but wants more firsthand evidence. In a stroke of good and bad luck, she overhears one of the janitors at the University talking about a recent unsolved murder at the Cabrini Green housing project in the bad section of Chicago that has actually been blamed on the hooked mirror slayer. Along with her best friend and fellow graduate student Bernie (Kasi Lemmons), Helen heads out to the projects to enter a whole new world. And we're not talking the "Aladdin" variety here.

Roughly halfway through the film, we get a jarring stylistic shift. For much of Acts 1 and 2, "Candyman" is a sort of detective film, with Helen and Bernie attempting to put two and two together on the murders taking place at Cabrini and cull plenty of photos and accounts for their work. At a certain point, however, it seems like the mystery has been solved when Helen is attacked and left for dead by a hood who carries a hook and seems to be using the Candyman moniker to instill fear in rival gangs. All seems well when said hood is arrested, and that's when HE comes.

The film had led us to believe that the residents of the housing project had conjured up the Candyman myth as a means to deal with their own dreary existence, but it's a good thing that Clive Barker had other ideas when he wrote his story. It's never quite spelled out exactly why Candyman begins wandering around in the life of Helen Lyle and effectively sends her life on a tailspin of despair, if he truly is called by everyone who wishes to say his name into a mirror or if his very existence is dependent on belief in him. At any rate, the dialogue from the character is something to behold; Tony Todd, a classically trained actor who had been a veteran of horror films for many years before this, turns in a powerhouse performance as a somewhat sympathetic and tragic slasher villain. He's big, he's menacing, and he's got an unmistakable deep profundo voice. Every time I'm flicking channels and I hear that voice, I know to stop looking for more softcore porn.

The second half of the film is effective melodrama, with the Candyman slaying several associates and friends of Helen in what the film conveys is a means of bringing his legend back out into the world. The horror of the situation is increased when Helen herself gets blamed for all the murders. There's truly no more nightmarish scenario I can conjure up for myself than being wrongly accused of a crime, let alone blacking out every time a hook-handed, bee-spewing madman shows up and utters a bunch of Shakespearian gobbledygook about belief, the power of stories, and plenty of pleads to "be my victim." Put yourself in the heroine's shoes in this film, and you're in for one hell of an emotional experience.

Really, there's nothing more I can say about "Candyman." For fans of socially relevant motion pictures, there's plenty of subtext about racism to be had here in the story of the Candyman's origin, which I won't spoil here. But for fellow horror fans like myself, this remains one of the most effective psychological thrillers of all time, with truly awesome performances from Madsen and Todd as a Final Girl and Madman Villain who wind up being tragically intertwined in a far deeper way than we'd ever seen before in like-styled slasher flicks. I don't quite know what it is about Clive Barker stories that lends itself quite so well to September and October viewing, but whatever it is, I need some more of the dainty English water that this guy drinks.

Horror Nerd Cinema Bonus: "Piranha 3D"

Every once in a while, a film comes along that just completely encapsulates...and unequivocally GETS...the genre that it is paying tribute to. "Piranha 3D" is just that movie for not only the aquatic horror film, but for old-school horror at large. As it stands, the movie has a 0% chance of wooing the Academy, and rightfully so. It matters little. A film with this much knowing, non-condescending humor, genuine love for its source material, and nonstop need to please its intended audience deserves recognition, which is fortunately exactly what it's getting on horror websites and message boards the world over from a crowd of people notoriously hard to please.

The first person we see in this film is Richard Dreyfuss. But not just Richard Dreyfuss playing his usual Oscar bait role that he's parlayed for the past fifteen years or so. Oh no. Crusty old fisherman Richard Dreyfuss, now much more Robert Shaw than Matt Hooper, singing a heart-wrenching rendition of "Show Me the Way to Go Home." Within minutes, the character is dead, but this one scene alone clues us in as to just what we're about to experience in the proceeding 85 minutes. Namely, one hell of a fun time that knows when to take itself seriously, when to be totally off-the-wall goofy, and when to throw caution to the wind and toss obscene amounts of glorious gratuitous gore/nudity at the audience that was raised on those very things.

It will do this reviewer very little good to actually explain the plot of this film. The plot of Piranha 3D is completely secondary to its desired effect, so here's the absolute bare bones version: a freak accident sets free a huge horde of prehistoric, vicious piranha fish on Arizona's Lake Victoria, which is also home to a massive Spring Break party complete with MTV-style veejays and a sleazy "Girls Gone Wild"-esque entrepreneur played by Jerry O'Connell. Our heroes are Sheriff Julie Forester (Elisabeth Shue) and her nice guy son Jake (Steven R. McQueen). To add some emotional levity, Jake finds himself unlucky-in-love with fellow local Kelly (Jessica Szohr), and our main plot of the film finds these characters out on a boat surrounded by the bloodthirsty fish. There's your setup and payoff right there. Where the movie goes above and beyond is actually tribute combined with tried-and-true horror film-making at its finest, but let's start with the former.

Creator Alexandre Aja sought to craft something that fans of slasher films and the horror movies of yesteryear would appreciate, and in this respect, "Piranha 3D" is the ultimate success. There are other films in recent years that have purported to bring back the concept of "old-school horror." "Hatchet" featured those very words on its DVD cover. However, these other films managed to be more annoying than nostalgic, giving us little more than the same stereotypes in wholly unimaginative ways. Yes, there is tons of gore, grisly makeup effects, and bare naked flesh on display within the confines of this particular horror tribute, but Aja shows great invention by upping the ante of what we're used to and catching us off-guard with the ways he presents the usual genre staples. How many other horror films have there been where the big-titted slut character is also a sympathetic girl attempting to hook up our hero with his crush?

Which brings me to point #2 - its effectiveness as a horror film. Seen in its proper form, this movie will get you to wince in pain on more than a few occasions. There's a ton of blood and carnage in "Piranha 3D," and a lot of deaths that look like they really friggin' hurt. More than that, I actually CARED about what was going on with the main group of characters, particularly as the movie makes the bold move of bringing young children into the fold in the form of Jake's grade-school age brother and sister. The stuff where these characters are doing things other than serving as piranha bait actually managed to engage me on something other than just an elementary level, in and of itself an accomplishment. Watching the movie unfold, I found myself comparing it to "The Final Destination," which had far less imaginative use of 3D and far less care put into its primary group in peril. Put alongside this movie, that film looks truly pedestrian.

But forget everything above. For those like myself, who grew up on Joe Bob Briggs, lots of Bob Keane and Phil Tippett special effects, and tuning in to half-fuzzy HBO channels in the hopes of catching a few glimpses of boobs, this is the movie for you, and it made me smile a big, goofy cheshire cat George Clooney smile on more than one occasion. The horror aspects of the movie will make you cringe, the never-ending parade of hot bodies serve as the ideal diversion to the story of 12" fish with razor-sharp teeth, and Kelly Brook...let's just say that Alex Aja wanted to have the best-looking girl he could possibly find in this movie, and he damn well may have found her. And she's actually not too shabby in the acting department, either!

As a rocking good time at the movie theater, "Piranha 3D" gets **** out of **** and my highest recommendation. Joe Bob says check this one out.