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.