Horrorhound Weekend Cincinnati

Posted on November 15th, 2011 by Mimi Rupp

One helluva good time....

As I write this, I wonder how I'll ever begin to cover this weekend without getting my own emotions tangled up into it, because really? It was very emotional and personal to me. Walking into any of the vendor rooms and seeing the guests was like walking straight into a Fangoria magazine from the mid-eighties. It was entirely nostalgic to me, and got me quite emotional at times. Or that could've been the cocktails....
I was fortunate enough to be involved with the Tim-O and Harley table who exclusively hosted Mr. Danny Hicks of "Evil Dead 2" and "Darkman" fame. I was lucky enough to help out with the table and run for drinks and hold seats, and I couldn't have done it for a nicer bunch of guys. Danny Hicks was nothing but entertaining and gracious, trying to help make everyone's convention experience as positive as it could be. Watching "Evil Dead II" when I was seventeen years old, I never expected I would be in such close proximity to one of the characters who had made it so campy and enjoyable, and I felt like the luckiest girl in the world.

Every guest and actor there was in good spirits, feeding the positive vibe and enjoying themselves as much as the patrons, which always results in running into Sid Haig at the pool chilling out with beer, or Brian O'Halloran at the bar, or Noah Hathaway outside taking a breather from the crowds. Anyone who was approached was gracious and happy to take a picture or give a hug to fans. As someone who watched these movies for so long, being able to approach an actor, have them talk to you like they'd known you years was such a thrill!
I personally finally got to meet and shake hands with Alex Winter, of "The Lost Boys" and "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" fame. I had been waiting so many years to meet him and it was wortht the wait. His easy smile and open manner made it so easy for me to talk to him, even though I was basically a quivering mass of jell-o on the inside.

I also got to meet the very charming Robert Rusler, Thom Matthews,Doug Bradley and Tom Loughlin, his lovely wife Karen, and I had ample opportunity to speak to every guest there. I have no complaints about the venue, and the hotel staff were available, friendly and very, very accomodating.
The hotel stay wasn't without a few snags being stuck in the elevator one of them. However, we had Miko Hughes stuck with us keeping us company....Not going to complain too loudly about that!
It was a wonderful weekend full of friends, fun, nostalgia and some scary-looking characters who couldn't resist playing along. Everyone kept it clean, the Horrorhound staff made sure everyone was taken care of and the Infernal Dreams camp had a very good time. Not bad for our first (but not last!) Horrorhound show, and a big thank you to Horrorhound staff and volunteers for working so hard to make this the memorable show that it was.

Mothman Museum, Point Pleasant West Virginia

Posted on October 28th, 2011 by Mimi Rupp

If you were looking for Family Oriented paranormal fun....

Most families take daytrips to quaint little places like "The World's Biggest Ball of string" or art museums, or Six Flags...The Rupps? Well, we recently took our little family to Point Pleasant West Virginia. Home of the world's ONLY Mothman museum, and site to more UFO activity than Rosswell, not to mention some serious battles from the American Revolution, it seemed only natural it would be a magnet to mysterious goings-on and much speculation about both.
Our google-maps route brought us to state route 2, in West Virginia. This was an adventure in itself, ten miles out, we came upon a "Hillbilly's Hot Dog stand", done up with as much gaudy trailer park bling as you can imagine. We followed this route, along the Ohio River to Point Pleasant...Going into the quaint town was like entering a place time forgot. Original colonial buildings held offices and stores on either side....We cruised downtown, following the well-placed signs to the Mothman museum and parked. (Parking's free, by the way) The museum wasn't impressive looking at first glance, but on closer look, you began to get the feel of mystery everyone seems to have felt listening to the Mothman stories...Paired with reading for yourself handwritten eye-witness accounts from the original four teenagers from 1966. The very friendly and helpful gentleman at the counter was easy with our questions and very accomodating when I asked about Harris' Steakhouse, owned by Carolyn Harris, co-founder of the Mothman Festival.

Well, not only did we find and eat at Harris' Steakhouse, we had the privilege of being served by Carolyn herself!! She greeted us like she'd known us all our lives, and sat down with us and chatted like she was our nearest relative. She answered our questions about the mothman, sightings and the festival. She talked about the movie being filmed, and the hauntings on the third floor of nearby Lowe's hotel. Our food arrived and soon after, Ms Harris bade us goodbye for some errands she had to run. Before she left, we got a quick hug and I had my picture with her, and promises to return during the actual festival ( Don't think we'll be seated at the Diner as quickly then, do you?) and we left to explore more of downtown Point Pleasant. We did some antiquing and explored the State park which holds the burial of Chief Cornstalk and "Mad" Anne Bailey, a woman who broke rules and made history. We saw the Silver memorial Bridge nearby and agreed that the strange energy in the whole town was hard to deny. After falling into the usual tourist trappings of t-shirts, amish jam and homemade candy, we trekked back to Kentucky, fulfilled, happy and a bit sheepish that it was only our first time to this wonderfful paranormal hotspot that was always right in our own backyard.

Scarefest 2011

Posted on September 26th, 2011 by Mimi Rupp

Most movie franchises are usually toast after the third sequel. But the fourth Scarefest was a roaring success. The theme was a Tribute to movies of the 1980's, with guests such as Lea Thompson, Zach Galligan, Linnea Quigley, Beverly Randolph and of course, the one and only Elvira. Also appearing were Paranormal guests Chip Coffey, Booth brothers and Zak Bagans.
Walking in past the vendors tables and to the back where guests were signing autographs, it was like walking into my adolescent past. With many familiar faces from well-known movies like "Ghostbusters", and "Sleepaway Camp". Everyone enjoyed the atmosphere, even the guests were goofing on each other and just generally having a good time. If you didn't make it, don't worry! The crew do this every year, and each year seems to be bigger and better than the last! So if you're upset over missing Kane Hodder, take heart! He may come back next year...With someone just as awesome!!
Many many thanks to Jeff Waldridge, Patty Starr and the many volunteers and vendors that made Scarefest IV as unforgettable as the rest!

Flashback Weekend 2011

Posted on August 21st, 2011 by Jeff Hudson

Flashback Weekend had a guest list of Robert Englund, Malcolm McDowell, Lance Henriksen, Sid Haig, Doug Bradley, Michael Rooker, Kane Hodder, Christina Lindberg, Linnea Quigley and many more. They also had special screenings for The Moleman of Belmont Ave., Fright Night 3D, and screaming in High Heels. Other stuff included Q&A panels, zombie pin up beauty pageant, and a burlesque show of Last Blouse on the Left.
I was only there for the Saturday part of the show but it was a lot of fun. All the guests I met were very kind and all seemed glad to be there and easy to talk to. There was a lot of cool vendors that had some good deals. I would say the only drawback was that Robert Englund was in a room to his own and you had to buy a 250$ weekend pass to get to meet him. With that aside it was a good show with lots of stuff to do, I just wish I had more time to see and do everything. I will more than likely be going next year and say that everyone who is in distance of Chicago come check this out next year. Thanks to everyone at Flashback Weekend for putting on a great show.

Fright Night Film Fest/Fandom Fest 2011

Posted on July 26th, 2011 by Mari Lynne Rupp

Did I get to see everything there was to see at Fright Night Film Fest/Fandom Fest?
Oh HEEELLLL no! How could I?? I was only there Friday and Saturday! IT was almost like Disney World, where you had to carefully plan each day, or something you'd want to see would be missed amongst all the awesome.
Fright Night did it again.... Henry Winkler, Larry Drake, JD Fiegleson, and John Carpenter, someone of great importance to the Indy film industry here in Kentucky. Mr Carpenter was a Kentucky boy himself, and now heads major film projects, and I think a great role model for around here. Fright Night Film Fest has a special place in mine and my husband's hearts as the first convention we ever attended. Dave had bought us a weekend pass as a mother's day gift, and we brought our son, who was all of nine months old. Our first celebrity encounter was Ms Tiffany Shepis, who became enamoured of our child, toting him about for hours that Saturday. This year, Ms Shepis returned, along with my husband, me and our child. We now sport a beautiful photograph of our nine month old child cradled in Ms Shepis' arms, autographed. Imagine the story he'll tell his kids!
And I haven't even touched on Fandomfest...Voice actors!! Comics!! Books!! Authors!! Shazam!! (No, really) Margot Kidder!! Role-playing games! Video Games!! I'm not kidding, any kind of Nerd acoutrement was there to make even the most straight laced sober business man chuckle with childish glee. I'd also like to take a moment to recognize the hard workers and volunteers at Fright Night and Fandom fest who helped everything run smoothly, who took care of the guests and celebrities and made sure everyone knew where everything was.
Despite the great heat, numbers were good, people were happy, everyone seemed to have a good time. There was the masquerade ball, the screenings, and not to mention the independant parties (one of which I believe my sobriety was a serious casualty) Guests were in good spirits, Celebrities were kindly, and you can bet you won't catch a celebrity at Fright Night Film Fest/Fandom Fest being discourteous, or unkind to the guests, no matter how I er....they gush about them. They just won't book those kind of people, on account of this is for the fans. I keep hearing that mantra and after being an attendee since 2007, I have to believe it. I don't think ANYONE went to bed earlier than five am, or slept much that night,(Well....ME, but that is because of a stray shot of absinthe and is another story entirely) just because everything was just GOING ON. It was an exciting weekend and the Convention come-down was pretty massive for everyone I'm sure. Guests, take heart! We will be back together for FRIGHT NIGHT FILM FEST/FANDOM FEST 2012/APOCALYPSE EDITION! Thanks again, to everyone who made this weekend epic. Promoters, volunteers, guests and FANS.

CONtamination 2011

Posted on July 5th, 2011 by Mari Lynne Rupp

I really hate to pass judgement on conventions based on who they get. That's such a small part of why you should go. There's the comraderie, the booths chockablock full of vintage movies, mementos, collectibles and unique clothing and accessories.
There's the independant filmmakers, who seem to have a bit more imagination than most hollywood writers making ten times my salary to entertain us. THEN there's the special guests, actors, actresses, directors and people who have fueled our imaginations, dreams and nightmares.
This year, in St Louis Missouri, CONtamination had everything you need to make a successful weekend at a convention. The convention guests showed up in full force, many in costume, to enjoy themselves, get to know one another and live out fantasies of shaking Jason Vorhees' hand, or hunting down zombies. Yes, they had a version of laser tag that had the players hunting zombies! Highlights this year included actors from "Boondock Saints", "Friday the 13th" "Nightmare on Elm St 5" and Roger Corman's rarely seen "Fantastic Four" reunion, including Jay Underwood, whom old timers like me would remember from Disney's "The Boy Who Could Fly".
One particular guest I think bears mentioning is Airik Brumitt, graphic artist for Alice Cooper. You know that half-skull design Alice Cooper has been using for so many years? I myself got to gaze upon the original sketch for which it was based. It was Mr. Brumitt's first convention, and I sincerely hope not his last. There were signed portraits to sell and he was extremely friendly and personable.
Also on hand were local talents, Stacy and Ben Dixon, and Kayla Perkins, Kentucky actress and model. Convention guests were delighted to find the guests personable and accessible, going to lunch at one of the hotel's many surrounding resteraunts you could be next to Kane Hodder or Tony Todd. And they'd be happy to chat with you. I thought the hotel was well-chosen, comfortable and pretty user friendly for a first-time visitor to St Louis. All in all, many thanks to the promoters and co-ordinators of CONtamination. Another successful year and we look forward to next!

Remake Vs. Original - Round 10

The Great Crystal Lake Camp Off

Posted on May 17th, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

Friday the 13th (1980)
Friday the 13th has done as much for American horror as the other two prominent horror icons, Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween, and has always been my favorite of the three. There's not much to the story on the surface, the main villain serves his purpose flawlessly, and it's influence can still be felt throughout the hroror community today. Now, the setup is very simple. A bunch of kids go camping at a lakeside retreat, and are terrorized and killed by a machete wielding maniac. It was designed to be simple, campy (no pun intended) summer fun for moviegoers. The killer in this one, though, is not Jason himself, but rather his mother, as any good horror fan will know. She started the bloody tradition of killing the counselors at Camp Crystal Lake after they let her son drown in the lake whilst fornicating and partying to excess. This movie changed the horror genre with the singular killer murdering dumb teenagers, and still stands the test of time as one of the classics.

Friday the 13th (2009)
This movie was part of Michael Bay's attempt to rui... er, reinvent all the horror icons through remakes. It did a pretty good job of capturing the essence of the originals, I think. The concept itself is pretty basic and hard to mess up. He didn't use the same idea as the original, with the mother. The remake focuses more on key events from the first three original movies, tying them together in a montage, explaining Jason's origins, and then segueing into the actual movie. They didn't butcher the story that bad, seeing as there really isn't that much to screw up to begin with. The movie was fun, the kills were gory, and nary a teenager was spared. Jason still felt as scary as ever to me, even if this movie was subjected to what I like to call "Bay Fluff". There are scenes in all of the MB horror remakes where a character finds themself in a room. This room looks like a collection of novelty shops, second hand stores and farm supply stores threw up all over them. I don't understand why they think it's a good idea, but it's in every single one of his movies. Don't believe me? Watch them again and get back to me.

Scares That Care

Helping sick kids

Posted on May 3rd, 2011 by Infernal Dreams

"Scares That Care!" is a not-for-profit organization that provides money, toys and other items to help sick children.
Led by horror film director and retired police officer Joe Ripple, this benefit will utilize the fan base of the horror, haunt and Halloween genres to raise funds and awareness for sick children in need. We plan to have a GREAT time holding benefits, by showing films, having silent auctions and maybe getting lucky enough to have a few celebrity appearances along the way.
they are appearing at the National Halloween, Horror, Haunted House and Hearse Convention In Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, May 5th through May 8th so if you are in the area drop by and show support.
Also they will be having a $5.00 donation day in May on Friday the 13th, just go to scaresthatcare.org to donate then or any other day.

Remake Vs. Original - Round 9

Wake up to the Dawns of the Dead

Posted on April 26th, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

"Dawn Of The Dead" 1978
George Romero is undoubtedly the king of the zombies. He jumpstarted the entire genre with his original, groundbreaking horror classic "Night Of The Living Dead", this much is undeniable. If NOTLD started the zombie movement, "Dawn of the Dead" solidified it as a popular, fun and most importantly, different type of horror film. Dawn focused on a group, trapped by zombies, inside a shopping mall and their desperate struggle for survival. The cinematography, writing, acting and effects were only getting better with time, and this was the pinnacle of the sub-genre thus far. Horror fans and filmmakers around the world still cite the "Dead" series as highly influential and inspirational. That being said, I didn't really care for this movie as it were. I can appreciate and truly respect what it did for the horror genre and culture, but I just didn't enjoy it, personally. It just seemed a little slow and boring in parts. It certainly felt genuine, but being stuck in a fortified building alone for days or weeks is most certainly going to ensure some down time. Now, before you get your nerd rage levels maxed out, hear me out: I'm not, by any means, saying this is a bad movie. What i'm saying is it didn't entertain ME. I can definitely see why so many people enjoy this and the rest of the Dead series of movies, most definitely. I just couldn't get into it, the action was hit or miss, and it never really "grabbed" me. Maybe it's because I saw it well after I had been indoctrinated into the zombie culture. Maybe it's because I'm a film snob. Who knows? I just wasn't that into it.

"Dawn Of The Dead" 2004
I have to say, I think the remake did a much better job of getting my attention than the original. The very first scenes of the movie grab you by the shirt collar and set the tone amazingly well for this remake. The pacing in this one felt a lot better than the original, the acting was incredibly well done, for a horror film, much less a remake. The characters were a little more relatable than in the original. It was also much, much scarier, in my opinion. If I can watch a movie, almost seven years after it's released, and still wince or cringe at the same parts, I consider it to be well done. When you can see the same scene over and over, and it has the same impact as the first time you saw it, that means it was done right. There's a much better sense of "dread", I guess is the word i'm looking for, than in the original. Everyone seems like they've kind of given up hope, but they're trudging along anyway, for the sake of the group. You can really feel that within this group more than you could from the group in the original.
Like I said before, I totally and completely acnowledge what Romero did not only for movies, but for filmmakers as well. He has served as inspiration countless numbers of times, myself included. I just thought the remake was done better, not just from a modern technology/cinematography standpoint, but overall as well. The story seemed a bit more solid, the characters a little more developed, and overall, was a more enjoyable experience to me.

The Winner: The Remake

New Decade, New Rules

Posted on April 5th, 2011 by Bindi Lavelle

April sees the release of Wes Craven’s Scream 4 (which I for one am eagerly anticipating), promising a fresh perspective in the self mocking slasher saga; the tag line proclaims, “New Millennium, New Rules”, so what would these new rules be? What new conventions have arisen in the horror genre over the last 10 years?
Technology is the big one which comes to mind. The now common place usage of mobile phones, and the internet has been reflected in films like One Missed Call where mobile phones are used to terrifying effect as a central part of the plot. But as a convention of horror cinema, there is always the lost signal or flat battery at the worst possible moment; as well as the sudden phone call for a good quick jolt moment.
Also we see under the banner of technology social networking and the widespread use of close circuit television. The later has been used as a visual device to create a familiar barrier between the audience and the action. Framing the extreme in the familiar, because we have become so used to seeing cameras and being watched.
But are all the new horror conventions technology based, no; there is also the pop culture element were characters parody themselves with movie references. Even the babysitter cliché, the humble fodder of crazed slasher villains is savvy of her predicament. This enables the character and the situation to move away from the tried and true (like running up the stairs) and move into new directions with fresh ideas.
Horror has established its own rules within the genre through its core value: which is fear. What are the common fears of the present day, what elements of day to day life posses a sinister side; what rings true for an audience will become a vital tool for horror films, comics, novels and all other horror media.
The use of post modern pop culture references and integration of technology into day to day life are relatable to an audience and so they are used to bring the horror into a relatable situation; which serves to diversify the concepts of the genre and keep it relevant to the current audience. Compare horror films of the 50s to now to see this clearly.
As an ever evolving, malleable and above all else versatile genre horror continually grows and changes itself, because it needs only one element: fear.

Remake Vs. Original - Round 8

Are you down with the sickness? [REC] VS Quarantine

Posted on March 29th, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

****SPOILER ALERT****
[REC] - 2007
Directed by Jaume Balagueró & Paco Plaza
Starring Manuela Velasco, Ferran Terraza and Jorge-Yamam Serrano

The premise of these movies is a young reporter is on assignment doing a piece on the local Fire Department by staying the night in the firehouse. While there, an emergency breaks out and she and her cameraman decide to tag along. Upon arrival, it's obvious the apartment building is infested with zombies/demons/supernatural whatever. The weird thing about this movie is how it feels slightly voyeuristic. It's obviously set up as raw, unedited news footage, but it has this really creepy vibe, not unlike watching supposed "real life" death tapes. It approaches it a lot like most zombie mvoies do. It not only has the terror of the undead ambling after our protagonists, it examines the unraveling human psyche when faced with situations of intense fear and panic . There are plenty of scenes that really grip the viewer by the throat with fear. It's also interesting how it still feels like a movie at some points, some of the cinematography, while itnended to be viewed as news footage, still seems like a movie. It's a weird balance to try and achieve in film, and I think this movie did it brilliantly. The apartment building itself seems kind of insidious. It's just this big, old ominous building. The staircases are cramped, it looks like it hasn't been redecorated for a few centuries. The zombie kid scene around the forty five minute mark is fantastic, and very scary despite the spooky little kid cliche being worn completely out. The end of this movie sets up the sequel absolutely perfectly, in my opinion. These two movies (REC and REC 2) move into each other in a way unlike anything I've ever seen. It's really quite amazing.

Quarantine - 2009
Directed by John Erick Dowdle
Starring Jennifer Carpenter, Steve Harris and Columbus Short

This is probably my favorite remake of all time. The director paid enough attention to the original to get the vibe of the movie. He also respected, and kept, the story from the original. It never feels like the director added anything for the sake of dollars. It's not overly sexed up, the violent is above and beyond what the original showed. It is as close to a perfect remake as you can get, barring makign the same exact movie, with the same exact actors, using the same exact locations and equipment, but doing it 30 years later. After the opening scene, this one feels more cinematic than the original. This is more like a movie, and less like a real-life simulator piece. The ending was a lot more drawn out in this version. I can only assume they were trying to "scare" the audience, but it really was just a little unnecessary. The last scene in this version was slightly different, but still pretty much on par with the original. Very scary, very creepy. Both of these movies are ones you definitely have to see at least once.
The Winner: The Original

Leprechaun Retrospective

Posted on March 16th, 2011 by Bindi Lavelle

As Saint Patrick's passes us for another year, a day originally the feast of Irelands famous Saint to celebrate his life and good deed but has since morphed into "Let's were green and get drunk" day; let's look at the most appropriate movie killer for this time of year, Leprechaun.
The Leprechaun film franchise began in the early 90s; an almost awkward period of horror in which films were stylistically attempting to move away from the wave of 80s slasher while still riding its popularity. Leprechaun explemplifies this, morphing a dark twist on the legendary creature into a by the numbers hack and slash fest.
This is not entirely a bad thing though.
Far from taking itself seriously or even trying to redeem itself as a serious horror film, the Leprechaun movies unashamedly wallow in their own silly mayhem. And each sequel takes it further and further over the top, see Leprechaun 5: In tha Hood for proof.
Bottom line is the Leprechaun series is simple fun, maintaining a solid horror frame beneath its camp exterior (showing that horror has pretty much all occasions covered) providing the viewer with just the right amount of blood and giggles.

Remake Vs. Original - Round 7

Halloween: Which Mike do you like?

Posted on March 8th, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

****SPOILER ALERT****
The Synopsis: A child who has been locked away in a mental institution escapes and wreaks terror on his family.

Halloween (1978)
Directed by John Carpenter
Starring Donald Pleasence, Jamie Lee Curtis and Tony Moran
The intro opens with the iconic music, and a shot of a pumpkin. Very subtle, yet effective in setting the tone for the film. The first person perspective of young MIchael lends itself to the character very well, giving him his trademark voyeuristic personality trait. The first kill is kind of unexpected, so it grabs the viewers by the gullet right from the get go in establishing his terrifying side. They set up the character really well, which I think is what gave him such a demanding presence in the horror genre for decades. The patients in the yard of the hospital during the thunderstorm is really creepy. having Laurie define fate was a nice touch to the overall feel of the movie. Michael following Laurie and her brother around Haddonfield really established his creepiness even more. Dr. Loomis is Michael's doctor who is trying to track him down. In a plot device that this movie basically started in the mainstream, he's trying to get the local law enforcement to realize the potential danger of Michael's presence in Haddonfield, and they brush him off with a very blase attitude towards things. This movie is very methodical, much like Myers himself. It's paced well, everything is explained in due time. The kills are plain, but feel absolutely right. Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie really catapulted her career with the success of this movie. She was, and still remains one of the original "Scream Queens". Even though they kind of beat this series to death in later years, the original still stands head and shoulders above most horror tripe as a serious icon in the horror genre. It really set the bar for slashers, creating many memorable characters.
The Skinny: The classic still retains it's inherent creepiness and icon status over thirty years later.

Halloween (2007)
Directed by Rob Zombie
Starring Scout Taylor-Compton, Malcolm McDowell and Tyler Mane
Opening with a quote from the original, by Dr. Loomis was a nice throwback. They didn't really go overkill with teh stylization like some remakes do. I don't really care for the over-sexualization of the movie, and the fact that they gave Michael too much of a back story. The idea that he was a product of a broken home gives the character a bit of weight, but the beauty of the Myers character was his mystique. No one knew anything about him, which makes him that much scarier. The gross out element introduced by the dead animal pictures was true to the nature of a serial killer, but once again, goes against the mythos behind the movie killer. His mom was a stripper? I guess it fits the broken home angle they worked, but once again, unnecessary over-sexualization. I think Zombie was trying to lean towards violent murder over innate creepiness. With the body count already up to four in the first twenty minutes, this much is obvious. I really liked Malcom McDowell as Dr. Loomis. He has that perfect frailty about him. Danny Trejo is an useful to the plot in his small part, but unnecessary overall. The movie could have done everything it set out to without him. I think the biggest problem I have with this sequel is that Zombie tried to humanize Myers, and his power as a character lied in his inhuman status. He seemed almost otherworldly in the original. They did a good, if overly gory job of establishing Myers power, and how he got his iconic jumpsuit. Once they got past the fairy tale, they seemed to get back on track with the original. Some scenes were pretty close to the original, like Michael stalking the girls, the house with Michael in the house where Laurie was dropping off the mail. As with every zombie movie, it's like he writes in characters that are pointless just to put his friends in the movie. Sid Haig, Ken Foree, Sherry Moon, and a few other cameos are there just to make his friends some money for being in his movie. He also seems to rely on synchronicity to serve as triggers for Michael, which, once again, is unnecessary.
The Skinny: A hyper-sexualized, overly gory send up to the original. A few jey scenes are left intact, but watered down with too much storytelling that kind of hampers Myer's status as a horror icon.

The Winner: The Original

Remake Vs. Original - Round 6

A Tale of Two Movies: The Uninvited & A Tale of Two Sisters

Posted on March 1st, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

****SPOILER ALERT****
Synopsis: A family lives in a house that is haunted by malevolent spirits.

A Tale Of Two Sisters
Released 2003
Directed by Ji-Woon Kim
Starring Kap-su Kim, Jung-ah Yum and Su-jeong Lim
The opening scene with the interview sets the tone of solidarity really well, once the opening music is over, it feels really empty. The imagery in this movie is flat out beautiful. Bright, rich colors and really striking scenery throughout make this one of the prettiest movies I’ve seen in a long time. The two little girls who play the sisters are really great. The chemistry feels like they’re real sisters, which makes it a little more believable. The whole movie is shrouded in this mystery. The girls are sent to this summer home after something happened to their mother, and live with their father and stepmother. The suspense is really well done. The characters are really well developed, I think. I don’t think I can narrow down one scene, or even a handful of scenes as the best, or most suspenseful, but there’s this lingering feeling of dread throughout the entire movie, and it just kind of maintains an even balance through most of the movie, with a few key high points. It doesn’t deviate more than it has to, but it gets the job done. I do have to say, the scene with the hand coming out of the creepy little girls crotch is pretty freaky. A lot of the suspense in this movie seems like a throwback to the Hitchcock style. It’s very slow, methodical suspense that really makes you bite your nails. I really can’t tell you how awesome the settings are in this movie, especially the outdoor scenes. They picked some of the most beautiful spots to film in, and every color in those scenes just stands out really vibrant. One thing is for sure, the Koreans know what the hell they’re doing when they make a horror movie. This, and a lot of other Asian horror movies really set the standard in quality, not only in cinematography, but in story, characters, and genuine creep out factor. Also, this movie has probably one of the best twist endings I’ve ever seen.

The Uninvited
Released 2009
Directed by Charles and Thomas Guard
Starring Emily Browning, Arielle Kebbel and Elizabeth Banks
The intro to the original is kind of similar, right up until the sex scene. It feels right in the script, but it's really just an American thing. They don't even let it build up before they get right into the sex and scares. It's as if they completely ignored what the original was about entirely. The whole inner monologue is really strange, and kind of out of place. I don't see why the scene of her changing clothes was necessary, other than to add more sex into a movie that didn't really need it. The sister characters, being at odds instead of close, as in the original, really kills the whole dynamic from Tale. Elizabeth Banks is believable enough as a psycho, at least at first. The boyfriend character, following the remake tradition, is another useless, plot-bloating character who serves no purpose other than needlessly complicating the script. The writers of this movie must have watche Tale, then said, "let's take this incredible, original horror movie, and remove all thigns good about it, add some sex and stupid monster characters, some cute chicks in bikinis, and call it something that has no relation to the original!" 30 minutes in, this movie is so terrible, I'm having trouble making it all the way through. I try to remain as unbiased as possible when I do these articles, but it's clear that this movie was in no way meant to be like the original. As a remake, it fails on many, many levels. It's typical factory pressed American horror. I'm sure this movie did well because people don't know any better, or for any myriad other reasons, but as a discerning movie snob, this movie is absolute shit. It has very little, if any redeeming qualities. It might be entertaining to people who have never seen a psychological thriller before, but to everyone else (namely, the movie snobs like me), this movie is horrendous. The only things it retains from the original are the sisters, the psycho mother, and premonitions. The suspense is nowhere near as high, the quality of the script is lessened drastically, scares felt put on. This movie could have really opened up a new audience for the Asian horror scene, instead it pandered to American moviegoers with no taste for real terror. They did get the twist ending at least partially right, but they did embellish it quite a bit. What they got right, they had to go and ruin with a stupid twist on top of a decent twist. American Directors... *sigh*

The Winner: The Original - By a long shot.

Remake Vs. Original - Round 5

The Hills Have Eyes: Madmen & Mutants

Posted on February 22nd, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

****SPOILER ALERT****
The synopsis: Psycho hillbillies terrorize a group of travellers after their car breaks down in the middle of the desert.

The Original
Directed by Wes Craven
The setup is pretty commonplace for horror films of this decade. A group of travellers stops by an old podunkgas station on their way to a better place. In this one, they're going to Los Angeles. There's a group of hillbillies back in the desert, way off the beaten path who are implied as not to be messed with. The old man who runs the gas station is trying to get out in a hurry, for some unknown reason. The tension is set up pretty well, with the travellers getting lost, not being able to read the map, and then being blown over by planes from the nearby Air Force base. The retired cops openly verbal introspection after their wreck felt a little forced, and kind of awkward. There seemed to be a good mix of characters with the travellers, they all have kind of a distinct personality, and don't just seem empty, or useless. The first kill was kind of weak, but it did set a nice tone. Using the dog as a lead in was interesting, but not really creative or anything; a nice change of pace, I guess. I like the tone of this movie quite a bit. There's something about a good in-your-face horror movie with little or no musical score that really adds some punch. It really puts the responsibility of adding the emotional punch on the actors, which is what a good actor will be able to do. I think music is great for punctuating certain moments in a movie, and a really great score can make a good movie that much better, but it isn't always necessary to make things powerful. A great example of this is I Spit On Your Grave. The scene where one of them is nailing the cop down was amazing in that it was very short, but really effective in showcasing the brutality of this family of psychos. Once it picks up, this movie is really intense. Around the fifty minute mark, when the family breaks into the traveller's RV and starts trashing it, the terror really kicks into overdrive, and teh crucifixion scene is probably the pinnacle of that entire part of the movie. You still kind of have to sympathize with thee family, though. As brutal as they might be, their ultimate goal is to fend for themselves. I'm not endorsing their actions, but there is something really human about them, in that they're basically just doing what they know best to survive in the harsh environment of the desert, and that makes them all really amazing characters. The end bit with the car and roping and killing Jupiter was actually pretty clever. The whole revenge aspect of the end of the movie felt kind of flat to me. I'm glad they got their revenge, but it wasn't as pwoerful to me as it could have been, until the very last scene.
The Skinny: A fun horror movie, lots of great moments, characters, a terrific story, some decent kills. It's not hard to see why this movie is deemed a classic by so many.

The Remake
Directed By Alexandre Aja
From the get go, they open it with an explanation, but it's not overdone like most remakes. The men with the Geiger counters and taking samples explains the nuclear testing, but it's entirely different than the original. The kills right at the beginning makes you think they're going to focus on brital violence, and forego a decent story. I also don't understand the connection between weepy old country music and nuclear fallout. It seems as though any movie or video game that focuses around nuclear things has to have an old, twangy country soundtrack.They got the basic ideas right in the beginning of the story, and didn't seem to stray too far from the original, which is refreshing for a change.They didn't show the girl coming in and the old man hiding her, which is about the only makor plot difference they seemed to miss.The family setting tire spikes instead of them randomly running off the road was uncalled for. I think showing the family outright during the dog kill scene was a little unnecessary, but once again, just a minor gripe. The young girl watching over Bobby was kind of weird, and I don't remember that scene in the original. Th character design for Pluto is much, much more grisly and detailed in the original. It's well done, but it's kind of distracting, honestly. I was glad to see the crucifixion scene stay intact, even though they felt the need to throw attempted rape in it as well, which wasn't necessary.They changed one of my favorite lines from the original, the fat and juicy line, but once again, it wasn't a huge deal, seeing as how they kept the majority of the story intact from the original. The one character snooping around the familys site was, if I recall correctly, not in the original, but added a nice little touch of suspense. The revenge part of this movie is entirely different. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it, as it still serves it's purpose. Setting up alarms throughout the camp was a smart idea, and honestly something I don't know why they didn't think to do that in the original. The character in the wheelchair was, once again, unnecessary. he almost undid the entire movie for me, being a useless, unnecessary character explaining away the story and making it this huge political thing, when it didn't need to be. I have a problem with them maaking it obvious they're cannibals, as opposed to implied cannibalism. It just makes it a little less scarier. The ending was a little too Hollywood, and they used a bullshit ending for the sole purpose of opening it up for a sequel, just in case it made money.
The Skinny: They changed a little bit, but they also stayed pretty damn close to the original, which is enough to earn points in my book. It's not better than the original, but it stays the truest to the original out of all the movies I've done articles on yet.

The Winner: The Original

Remake Vs. Original - Round 4

A Tale of Two Freddys

Posted on February 8th, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

****SPOILER ALERT****
The synopsis: A group of teenagers are terrorized by a sadistic killer, but he only comes to them in their dreams, and manipulates the dreams themselves for his own personal gain.

The Original
Directed by Wes Craven
Starring Heather Langenkamp, Johnny Depp, and Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger

The opening sequence in the original sets the tone just about as well as the remake, but this one doesn’t kill anyone. With this movie, unlike most slasher movies, it’s not about the body count, it’s about seeing what kind of crazy ways Freddy is going to kill the kids. One thing this movie does that the remake failed was having a lot of “jump out and get you” scare moments in the beginning, before the real scares begin. It puts the viewer sort of on edge, which sets up perfectly for later on in the movie. Freddy’s trademark humor and style was something rarely before seen in horror movies. I can’t really say what it did for the horror community when it was released, since it was released the same year I was born, but I can say it’s something you didn’t get from horror movies. Until this movie was released, the horror icons like Michael Myers Leatherface were slow, cumbersome, and methodical. Freddy really was something kind of new. The same gore was there, but I can imagine it was definitely interesting to see a killer with a personality, instead of being this lumbering mute all the time. There’s a lot more “dream reality” type stuff in the original as well. When Nancy is hunting for Freddy and Glen pops out from behind a light pole, insinuating that he’s in the dream world with Nancy, instead of awake and watching her. The ending, where Nancy asks her dad to help her stop Freddy instead of her boyfriend, in the remake, helps give the character a little more depth, I think. She’s more of a daddy’s girl, which gives it a little more weight than with a boyfriend type. The ending with the convertible top laid the way for the sequels, with the stripes on the canvas signifying Freddy was in control of the car. This idea pops up frequently throughout the rest of the movies at different points as well.
The Skinny: It’s an icon of horror, and it’s hard to top one of the best the genre’s ever seen.

The Remake
Released 2010
Directed by Samuel Bayer
Starring Rooney Mara, Kyle Gallner and Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger

The opening titles try hard to be creepy, but really they just burn through a lot of horror movie cliches, especially dealing with children. It’s effective, I suppose, but it just feels like a little too much. The Diner scene is very moody, and it’s a very different setup than the original. They use a lot of “gross out” footage, such as animal parts and such. I would normally say this is unnecessary, but it kind of feels right in this movie. They show Freddy, or his glove at least, right off the bat, and I don’t think that’s something a good scary movie should do if it’s trying to build up suspense. There’s no real character development like in the original, either. It’s just straight into the kid who can’t sleep because Freddy is after him. The scene where Freddy comes out of the wall after Nancy in the first scene was kind of creepy, and it felt like kind of a cool reference to the original. The one problem this movie has, that all remakes have, is trying to give too much story on the character of Freddy. I’ve said it a thousand times, and it’s still true with this one, the unknown is what makes these characters scary. The things we create in our minds are always, and always will be, scarier than anything we could create on film. The thing about the Nightmare On Elm Street movies, unlike a lot of other horror movies, is that each kill was creative, and unique. It wasn’t just someone getting stabbed, or their head cut off. They really went above and beyond to make these kills feel personal and interesting. This movie stays true to that, but changes the kills from the original, which defies the whole “remake” term. The other thing this remake got incredibly, incredibly wrong was Freddy’s personality. He was always very tongue in cheek, very slapstick. His humor was witty, and he was always kind of a joker. They made him a lot more serious in this version, which isn’t like his character at all. Most of the major scenes are intact from the original, like the bathtub scene with Nancy, and a few more, but overall this movie just changes too much to really be a great remake. It had potential, but it really fell flat on too many fronts, as most remakes do. It takes a fun, simple horror movie and makes it much more dramatic than it ever intended to, or needed to be.
The Skinny: Too much change for no real reason (surprise!) and once again, they tried too hard to give Freddy too much of a back story, when it wasn’t necessary at all. It actually serves to cheapen one of the most famous horror icons of all time.
Overall: The remake got a lot of the scenes right as far as look and feel, but they butchered the one thing the movie really relied on, which was Freddy himself.
The winner: The Original

Remake Vs. Original - Round 3

I Spit on Your Grave

Posted on February 1st, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

****SPOILER ALERT****
The Synopsis - A woman is abducted, brutally raped and beaten, only to seek out and exact revenge on the men responsible.

The Original
Released 1978
Directed by Meir Zarchi
Starring Camille Keaton, Eron Tabor and Richard Pace
The setup is very simple, in an effort to keep the focus on the story. The woman has rented a lake house for the summer as an escape so she can focus on writing her first novel. The men who abduct her are introduced in the characters of the seemingly harmless gas station attendant and his friends, and also the man who delivered her groceries, who is obviously socially awkward. Something I noticed right off the bat was the lack of music in this movie and how it definitely gives this movie a very creepy vibe. The scene where they get her off the boat and the ensuing chase is kind of intense, and the rape scene is probably one of the most graphic I've ever seen, because it isn't aggrandized, it's very straightforward. The things they do to this woman are some of the scariest things any woman could ever go through, and the way they approach the subject matter is what I would assume pretty accurate. It's almost unreal to think that people could actually do something as disgusting as this, and this movie actually shows pretty well how truly disturbed some people are. The terror that this woman experiences always feels real and genuine.The fact that she's strong enough to go after the men who did this to her says a lot about her personal character, I think. While the subject matter is pretty unsavory, it could definitely be used by people advocating women's rights, I think. I mean, this is definitely not a movie for anyone with a weak stomach or fortitude, but the strong female lead is somethign a lot of women can identify with. I would think that for women who have been victims of rape, the thought of murdering the people who attacked them has crossed their mind at least once. There also some subtle social issues being addressed in the scene where she forces the leader of the group to strip down at gunpoint. When he gives his monologue about how she practically was begging to be assaulted, it felt like they were trying to point at something the writers felt like needed to be addressed. When she castrates the gas station attendant, that has to be the most painful thing I've seen in horror movies in my entire life.
The skinny: A really long, brutal rape scene, followed by murderous revenge. Not for everyone, but definitely a must see for any horror fan with a strong stomach.

The Remake
Released 2010
Directed by Steven R. Monoroe
Starring Sarah Butler, Daniel Franzese and Chad Lindberg
Well, the very first thing I noticed was the music. The remake has is scored, which was something the original did not have. Not really necessary, but I suppose it does add something to the tension of the movie. It was nice to see that they kept her profession as a novelist, and didn't try to make her a professional blogger or something of that sort. Once again, as has been the case with every remake I've picked apart so far, they add too much complexity to the script. The originals were simple, and that's what made them so entertaining and scary. Things were left up to the imagination. Hollywood doesn't try to leave anything up to the imagination with these remakes. They have to explain everything, which takes the fun out of it. The shed full of chemicals was another one of the additions that served no purpose. The set up scene where they decide to go after her is pretty much intact, which is a relief. This is a crucial scene to the movie, and it's nice to see it was left mostly unharmed, with the exception of the men filming themselves doing all this stuff. Once again, the terror in this version is effective, but not nearly as effective as the original. It feels put on, and forced in some parts. They changed a fundamental part of the story with the addition of a sherriff, who was also in on the whole thing. They're trying to make this scarier by using the corrupt law man, but all it does is makes things more complicated. They change the way she escapes, which I don't really see as a major issue, but it's something that, once again, served no purpose other than reworking the story. The last half of the movie, when she exacts her revenge, feels much more like modern horror movie standards. The revenge kills in the original felt really methodical, in a macabre kind of way. The last thirty minutes of this movie is where it really starts to shine. The kills really made my skin crawl like it hasn't in a long time. They were actually really clever, creative, original and fitting.
The skinny: It was really slow to get going, but once it did, you can really tell the writers put a lot of thought into making these kills very personal, which is what this movie is all about.

The Winner: The Original

Remake Vs. Original - Round 2

Let The Right One In Vs. Let Me In

Posted on January 25th, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

****SPOILER ALERT****
The synopsis: A lonely young boy who is being bullied at school befriends, and ultimately falls in love with, a 12 year old vampire girl.

The Original
Let The Right One In
Released 2008
Starring Kåre Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson
Directed by Tomas Alfredson

The introduction titles here in the original are blank of anything but ambient sound. It really gives a sincere feeling of kind of emptiness. You can really tell Oskar feels really lonely. It's obvious that Oskar is kind of a loner in life, made apparent by the simple, yet really effective class room scene, and the following hallway scene where the bully pins him agains the locker and picks on him. I really like the class they afford the vampire character in obtaining blood. They don't make her a monster with animalistic instincts, rather her father obtains it through much simpler means. The trait that Oskar has of being highly interested in all things morbid and macabre is a nice way of adding some depth to the relationship between his character and the vampire. The first kill in the movie, with the man under the bridge is pretty classy, for a horror movie. The fact that Alfredson could make a top notch horror movie with very little horror elements speaks volumes about his directorial clout. When she picks a victim, it always feels like something she really regrets doing, not something she does for fun or sport. You can really feel Oskar's feelings for Eli building at a steady pace, it never really feels rushed or overpaced, just the right amount of emotion at the right times. One of the iconic scenes in the movie is when Eli scales the hospital to see her father. It's simple, understated, but totally effective in showing her vampiric ability. The entire scene is very powerful, showing just how much sway she had over this man, forcing him to let her feed off of him, then essentially faking his suicide. The following scene where Eli gets in bed with Oskar is a little uncomfortable, but it really makes sense in the grand scheme of emotions within the movie. The central theme of this movie seems to be tension, and this movie really feels like it's on par with directors like Hitchcock, who really knew how to keep you glued to the screen, and on the edge of your seat, with no idea what to expect. I mean, there are some scenes in this movie, such as the scene where Oskar tries to make a blood pact with Eli that truly give this movie that bona fide thriller element. The cat attack scene felt a little uncalled for, and actually quite funny, given the CGI could have been a little better.
The Skinny: Really powerful emotinal performances from everyone involved, as well as extremely well done storytelling and understated horror elements make this a true masterpiece.

The Remake
Let Me In
Released 2010
Starring Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz
Directed by Matt Reeves

The introduction with the man being thrown out the window was interesting, as they moved a major part of the plot to the beginning of the movie, whereas it was towards the middle of the original. The way they make The boys loneliness apparent in this version seems more typical than the way the original showed it. One thing that bugs me about these big Hollywood remakes is everyone's tendency to put color filters over every shot, lending it a certain tint. This is really unnecessary, and to be honest, lazy filmmaking. If you can't make your shots stand out without excessive editing and color filtering, then you are not a filmmaker. In the scene where Abby goes apeshit over her guardian losing the blood, they changed the line he said from "Forgive me." to a mini crisis for the character, which kind of took the weight away behind it. In the original, you could tell he was afraid of her, and knew better than to open his mouth to her, as she is obviously the dominant creature. Once again, they tried to add too much Hollywood flair to another pivotal scene in the movie. When she kills the man in the tunnel, it's far too overstated. The simplicity of the original is what made it stand out. The one little addition that makes some sense is Abby finding a copy of Romeo and Juliet. It wasn't really necessary, but it made the scene of the two first realizing their mutual feelings a little better. The car crash scene was realy cool, from a cinematography point of view. It's shot from an inside the car POV, and the camera is stationary from the moment Abby's guardian steals the car throughout multiple rollovers down a hill, which leads into the parallel, albeit different, scene from the original scene where he was sure he was going to be caught, and permanently disfigures himself with acid. The bedroom scene was a lot more awkward than in the original, it seemed. The dialogue felt forced to me. I'm glad they decided to keep that scene in the movie, as it could easily be misconstrued as borderline child pornography, but it's a really important scene to the movie, and the fact that they kept it mostly intact, save some weird acting, was nice. I don't really care for movies trying to explain EVERYTHING. Some things are best left up the imagination. The way they try to tie everything that's going on with Abby and Owen to Satanism and Occultism isn't really called for. The last kill scene in the movie is also a lot more over the top than in the original which, once again, misses the point of the understated violence standing out much more due to its simplicity.
The Skinny: A lot of these scenes and dialogue are dead on with the original from a technical standpoint, but it really just feels like something's missing. It just feels like it lacks the emotional punch that the original had.

The Winner: The Original

Remake Vs. Original - Round 1

Leatherface-Off

Posted on January 18th, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

****SPOILER ALERT****
This is going to be a play by play where I write what comes to me as I'm watching the movie. The nature of this column divulges certain details about the plot of these movies, so certain spoilers will be in this and all future articles. You have been warned.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The overall synopsis:
A group of teenagers are on a cross country road trip when they pick up a hitchhiker on a dusty country road. They are then set upon by a murderous, cannibalistic family and must escape alive.

The Original:
Released Oct. 1, 1974
Directed by Tobe Hooper
Starring Marilyn Burns, Paul A. Partain, and Gunnar Hansen as Leatherface

The very firs thing that stands out about both films is the opening monologue. It is truly chilling, and sets the tone for the movie perfectly. The snapshots of the bodies followed by the first shot of the defiled corpses was, I can imagine, pretty shocking when this movie first came out, seeing as there were not very many films, if any mainstream films at all, that handled this type of material outside of video rental store back room fare. The cinematography in the original wasn't nearly as stylized as the remake, which in my opinion adds a little grit to the movie. It's very straight forward most of the time. The character of Franklin, who is wheelchair bound, was interesting, in that it upped the sympathy to not only his character, but the group as a whole. The constant conversation about slaughterhouses in the first half of the movie sets it up for the twist ending really well. Plus, you really can't beat the crazy Mexican hitch hiker. He's almost as iconic as Leatherface himself. The tension of the beginning of the film when the group are exploring the house is rivaled only by few other movies. It's just really, really ominous, and you can't help but be on the edge of your seat, knowing what awaits these young folks. The acting by the main cast is kind of hammy, but it feels more real than in the remake. The terror in the original is more organic, the kills are much scarier, and the iconic scenes still hold up to this day as some of the scariest scenes in horror history. From the first time we see Leatherface, to the dinner scene, to the final scene with Leatherface waving his chainsaw around like the crazed lunatic he is, it's safe to say the original is still head and shoulders above the remake.
The Skinny: Nothing really compares to the original. This movie set the bar much higher than a large portion of it's predecessors, and it's still a bar that has yet to be broken by most mainstream horror titles since it's debut.

The Remake:
Released Oct. 17, 2003
Directed by Marcus Nispel
Starring Jessica Biel, Jonathan Tucker, and Andrew Bryniarski as Leatherface

Right from the get go, it's obvious this is a much more stylized film than the original. The cinematography has a much more Hollywood feel than the original. The crazed male hitchhiker is replaced with a female. Instead of being a part of the family, she is a victim of them. This changes the whole dynamic of the film, and removes the twist ending the original had. Nispel immediately makes the trip about buying drugs, instead of just a concert, as in the original. The girl kills herself after she removes a handgun from her vagina, leading into the groups introduction to the family via the sheriff, instead of the hitchhiker, as in the original. The change from the original story of the group stopping at the gas station to call for the sheriff instead of stopping at the house makes sense in the grand scheme of things, but changing it really didn't add anything to the story, except to introduce a "crazy" type character, which in the original was the hitchhiker. If anything, it unnecessarily complicated the script, when no change was really necessary. R. Lee Ermey as the disgustingly creepy sheriff is one of the most redeeming qualities of this movie. This movie reeks of the "Hollywood Horror" vibe, ripe with cheap scares and "jump out and get you" moments, which are really unnecessary with this type of film. The ambiance and the story have enough scare factor that these things aren't really necessary. Too many characters who have no bearing on the movie, other than just being creepy, such as the little boy, Jedidiah, who leads the group to the house where the family lives. This movie also suffers from something every Michael Bay horror movies suffers from, something I call "fluff". The majority of the settings in the movie are cluttered with junk strewn about randomly, as if the set designers just raided Peddler's Malls and Antique shops, and threw everything wherever they felt like it on set. It doesn't serve any purpose other than to make the scenes looks more busy, which I suppose creates a sense of tension, possibly due to some viewers insufferable obsessive compulsive disorder. The kills in this movie are OK, but they could have been a lot better. The iconic meat hook scene is mostly intact, which was a relief. The ending was very drawn out, I guess to add tension and whatnot, but it just dragged on much longer than necessary. And Jessica Biel cut Leatherface's arm off. So yeah, there's that.
The skinny: Too many changes in the story for no real reason. Too many characters who didn't do anything for the plot other than just be creepy. The whole "family" aspect of the original wasn't really as prevalent in the remake as it was in the original.

Winner for Round One: The Original

Remake VS Original Introductions

Posted on January 11th, 2011 by Adam C. Thomas

For those of you who know me, I'm a pretty harsh cynic when it comes to most things, especially movies. Being an indie film maker, I tend to pick movies apart out of habit. When I was asked to do a weekly column for the site, my mind immediately thought one thing: horror movie remakes versus horror movie originals. It is a hotly debated topic amongst people who love movies, because most of the time it seems as though the people who produce the remakes only care about one thing: money.
It's the product of the Hollywood machine, seeing as how they've seemingly run out of original ideas for movies. They take once beloved classics, give them a veneer of high definition and stereo quality surround sound, often times without paying much attention to the source material, and sometimes completely ignore it altogether. There have been very few, if any remakes that were as well received as the original, yet Hollywood still continues to churn them out at an alarming rate. Occasionally they'll put out a remake of an obscure Korean or European horror movie, knowing that most people won't do the research involved to find out it's actually a remake and take it at face value.
My goal with this column will be to compare the original with the remake, and with as little bias as possible, show the viewers what differences occur as a product of translation. Plot differences, character arcs, iconic moments, so on and so forth. My hope is that I will enlighten you, our readers, to some truly classic pieces of horror movie history, as well as possibly show you some movies you hadn't seen or even thought about seeing before. Perhaps you'll find you enjoyed the remake more than the original. While most horror fans would chastise you for this, that's your right as the viewer. Just know that you've made your decision based on all the information available, and not on a whim.
With that being said, I hope you enjoy the article, and everything else on our site, because without you, our readers, we are truly nothing. So sit back, crack open a cold one, and let me explain to you the finer points of originals versus remakes.

Scarefest 2010 in Review

Posted on November 10th, 2010 by Mari Lynne Rupp

Convention season is almost over for 2010, at least in the Infernal Dreams household, Scarefest being our final foray into horror conventions and film festivals. I had the great privilege of escorting a friend to her first convention this weekend. It was incredible, watching her take everything in, taking rests, and talking to vendors and costumed guests...Seeing MY first convention through her eyes. I think I had more fun watching her than seeing everyone. There was a fan-girl moment I had when we had our pictures taken with Danny Trejo, when she had to take control of the moment before I squee-d all over the floor, but other than that, I was good! And there were some decent big names there too! Such as George Romero, above-mentioned Danny Trejo, Adrienne Barbeau, Kane Hodder and wrestling legend, George (the Animal) Steele, who was fabulous to talk to, something I shall brag about the rest of my life...And such paranormal guests such as the always-friendly Chip Coffey(Psychic Kids) and Ghost Hunters from Ghost Hunters International and Paranormal State. I was more interested in the horror guests,but that's only half the fun....Along with guests, and photo opportunities there are seminars, open panels and a Sideshow complete with jugglers and a sword-swallower!
The booths were chockablock full of horror and paranormal paraphernalia, curios, rare movies and cheap discount dvds. Characters from Scream Parks and Haunted attractions roamed, and moaned, giving out cards and information about their sites.
What I really loved was all the local talent showing up....Filmmakers, actors, actresses, novelists, writers, and musicians, just setting up to network, make contacts and make friends.
It took my friend and I hours to get through and see everything properly, and after it announced closing time, we were tired, hungry but happy and fortunately in the middle of Downtown Lexington where we continued the camraderie with other guests and some vendors we became friendly with, and discussed everything we all saw that day, and exchanged promises to come back the next year. Will Scarefest be as epic next year? I don't know. In 2011, let's find out!

The Power of Conventions

Posted on August 17th, 2010 by Infernal Dreams own Mari Lynne

Since I was seventeen, when I'd first seen the advertisement for "Fangoria's Weekend of Horrors" I wanted to attend a horror convention. I'd heard of Trekkie conventions, and to have one where we talk about scary movies for 72 hours?! Oh, my geeky heart did pound. Unfortunately, Los Angeles seemed far away to a teenager working part time hours at a nursing home in small-town Ontario.
Life-choices led me eventually, to a family and job in Lexington, Kentucky where I unknowingly put myself in a prime spot for independant filmmaking. I also was unaware that it would be a prime spot for some of the best conventions!
After our son was born in 2006, we were caught up in the "new parents" rut of working, coming home to the baby and working some more. On my first mother's day, my husband bought us tickets to something called "Fright Night Film Fest" in Louisville, and I was excited! My first...FIRST!....Horror convention! And it was a DOOZY! I couldn't believe the camraderie, the carnival feel, the whole...AWESOMENESS of just hanging out with like-minded people! The actors and actresses just walking about like regular fans, and going in and out of theater screenings of cheaply-but-well-made movies!
The family-oriented attitude was what surprised me the most....We brought our nine-month-old for the whole weekend, and everyone just acted like it happened all the time. We had emailed the promoter ahead of time about it, and he was very happy we were bringing him! One fo the actresses became instantly enamoured of my wee boy and toted him around like she'd had ten kids herself!
We attended the awards dinner that first year and breaking bread with actors from the original "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was an almost dream-like experience to me! I never forgot it and got a taste for "convention weekends".
So my husband and I looked into attending conventions regularily. We even brought our son the next year to the Fright Night Film Fest and decided it wasn't always a good idea. We had an unfortunate incident involving Cousin Itt, a cup of starbucks, and a hyper two-year-old.
After a few years, we even began to branch out. We attended the very first Scarefest, with me toting family from Canada to meet the actors, actresses and paranormal celebrities. It was also a very posetive experience and just a fun time.
Each Convention seems bigger and better than the last, and when World Independant Film Expo started in Richmond, not far from where we lived, there we were near THREE fantastic yearly conventions....It seems almost too good to be true.
So we looked into branching out to "bigger" and further away conventions, and came up quite disappointed. For one, the cost was outrageous. The guests were charging incredible amounts just for photo opportunities...I mean I LOVED Spike from Buffy, but what else has he done?? Really, is he worth 50$ for a photo op? Fright Night Film Fest and Scarefest prices don't normally go up year after year, and the guest charges haven't changed since 2007. These people need to understand that while people DO save up, they've already spent alot with travel, food and hotel charges, leaving not much for photos, autographs and assorted sundries that vendors sell. (It must be noted that vendor charges for tables are more than reasonable still) These other, further-away conventions are quite large and intimidating, expensive and not very intimate.
This past Fright Night, volunteers and workers were tireless in walking about, making sure everyone was having a good time, and that the guests were comfortable. Scarefest, everyone's moving around, and you could bump into almost anyone taking a break, going for lunch or sneaking a smoke. If you're lucky enough to have a hotel room at the convention center, you could invite one of the guests up for a drink, they might say yes, and there you are, drinking beer with a well-known horror face like you're friends. You're not going to find that at the larger conventions, there's too many people, there's too much energy, and too much is invested, emotionally and financially. At Fright Night, you could bump into Ken Daniels himself, and tell him to his face you're having a good time! At Scarefest, you might be having lunch next to Jeff Waldridge, you never know. It's a wild, exciting time to leave reality behind, and live in the fantasy of the movies we all love. You could take your picture next to coffins, cadavers and scream queens or plunge your fist into a bowl full of zombie blood-n-guts. And at the end of the convention, there's always the let-down of coming back to work monday morning, and facing the real world again...Bills, co-workers, kids, stress...But when it gets too much, Penny Lane from "Almost Famous" said it best...You pop in a DVD...and visit your friends.