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.