The Evil Dead (1981) vs. Evil Dead (2013)

The Evil Dead is “probably the grisliest well-made movie ever” according to The Los Angeles Times, especially that part when the main character is raped by a demonically possessed tree. To director Sam Raimi and executive producer Bruce Campbell, The Evil Dead was a dream to create the most disturbing and graphic experience possible for their first full length feature film. Their remake of the classic cult film, Evil Dead, came out in 2013 with huge success. Let’s explore some differences:

MONEY

The original 1981 version was made on a low budget production, estimated around $350,000–400,000. However it made over $2.8 million at the box office.

The 2013 remake had a budget of $17 million, and made over $97 million at the box office.

CINEMATOGRAPHY and EFFECTS

The increase in production budget allowed more resources for the Campbells to work with. In the original film, the crew consisted almost entirely of Raimi and Campbell’s friends and family, and the other actors along Bruce Campbell where amateurs. In the 2013 remake, they used 50,000 gallons of fake blood in one day to shoot a scene. 

Check out the differences in these two scenes. If you can, try and pay attention to the mise-en-scene.

If you made it this far, and actually watched both clips, I’m very proud of you. I think that the differences in these two scenes reflect the difference in the movies overall. The first clip is from the new version, and with new CGI, it is hyperrealistic. In order to create the same feeling that the 1981 movie had, the movie features some of the most realistic and violent demonic behaviors I’ve ever seen. In a scene following this clip, one of the other female cast member saws off her own arm with an electric meat cutter.

The remake reworks the struggle of a drug addict and her brother’s attempt to save her into the plot, and the story progresses in a more commercial sense, to make the plot more appealing to audiences.

The second clip is more comedic, yet just as offensive. The claymation gore scenes are tame in comparison to the remake, but are still considered classic by horror movie fans.

Please, if you get the chance watch both of them all the way through!

Books of the 1980′s: Part II (1986-1989)

This is the follow-up post to the original Books of the 80’s post, which listed 10 books from 1980-1985 that are still around (and popular) today. Here are 10 books from the latter half of the decade you might be familiar with.

1. It (Stephen King, 1986)

2. Red Storm Rising (Tom Clancy, 1986)

3. A Perfect Spy (John Le Carre, 1986)

4. Fatherhood (Bill Cosby, 1986)

5. Patriot Games (Tom Clancy, 1987)

6. The Tommyknockers (Stephen King, 1987)

7. Misery (Stephen King, 1987)

8. Windmills of the Gods (Sidney Sheldon, 1987)

9. A Brief History of Time (Stephen Hawking, 1988)

10. The Pillars of the Earth (Ken Follett, 1989)

It would appear that “thrillers” were a common theme in the later half of the 1980s decade, with many novels about spies, military, and intelligence agencies. John Le Carre and Tom Clancy quickly became leaders in the espionage genre.

Stephen King remained a popular author and published a total of 12 books over the course of the decade; some were short-story collections while others were novels. Between 1986 and 1989 the following were published: Skeleton Crew, It, The Tommyknockers, Misery, The Eyes of the Dragon, and The Dark Half. It and Misery were both adapted into films.

pennywise

The “film” adaptation of It came out in 1990 as a two-part TV miniseries. Tim Curry of “Rocky Horror Picture Show” fame starred as the horrific Pennywise, a clown that killed children. Images from the movie are still burned into the minds of clown lovers and haters alike. In both the book and the TV miniseries, seven outcast kids (The Loser Club) fight an evil demon that poses as a child-killing clown in 1960s Maine. 30 years later, the demon makes a second appearance and the club must once again come together–this time as adults–to defeat the monster. Surprisingly, the horror novel relies heavily on the “coming of age” theme. The miniseries downplays this aspect and received negative reviews from critics and fans alike.

misery

The film adaptation of Misery was a much better commercial and critical success than King’s It. Misery, also out in 1990, featured Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes, an obsessed and deranged fan. You may recognize Kathy Bates from recent episodes (season 8 and 9) of The Office (US version) or FX’s American Horror Story. She won an Oscar for her portrayal of Annie Wilkes in Misery. Despite coming out over 20 years ago, the film still has an 88% (positive) on Rottentomatoes.com. The novel and film adaptation are about an author that is “rescued” from a wintery, ice-fueled car accident by a crazy fan. The tagline of the film is: “Paul Sheldon used to write for a living. Now, he’s writing to stay alive.”

patriot

Patriot Games was also adapted into a film. Debuted in 1992, the movie starred Harrison Ford (of Star Wars and Indiana Jones fame) and Anne Archer. Phillip Noyce, also known for Clear and Present Danger, Salt, and the upcoming The Giver, directed the film. IMDB summarizes the movie and the book “When CIA Analyst Jack Ryan interferes with an IRA assassination, a renegade faction targets him and his family for revenge.” Clancy’s character of Jack Ryan has also been the focus of several other movies (originally based on books), including The Hunt for Red October, Clear and Present Danger, and The Sum of All Fears.

Here’s Johnny! (The Shining)

This Thanksgiving break I decided to sit down and watch the not so-wholesome family film, The Shining(1980), directed by Stanley Kubrick and starring one of my favorite actors Jack Nicholson. While I had seen the film before ages ago, I wanted to re-watch the film to see if I would have a greater appreciation for the film and not be afflicted with nightmares from the eerie setting of the infamous haunted hotel that is of course built on top of none other than Native American burial ground.

The Shining was Kubrick’s only real dive into the horror genre, but of course like all of Kubrick films, there is strong psychological component to the film. Even more so when the film is considered to be in the “psychological horror” genre. In the film, what in my opinion adds to the suspense and intensity of the film, is the slow paced nature of the film and subtle corruption of the characters. Especially Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) as he resorts back to his old habits of drinking and becomes influenced by the supernatural entities of the hotel.

The filming techniques used in the film, such as when the camera is at the same height level as Danny, Jack’s son, and when we see what Danny is seeing through via his telepathic hallucinations. These scenes truly immerse the viewer into the events unfolding in the hotel. One scene in particular, the famous “Hallway Scene” managed to instill a strong sense of claustrophobia and sensation of entrapment as I watched Danny riding through the halls of the hotel on his tricycle as he encounters visions of the past.

Hallway Scene

Jack Nicholson of doesn’t fail to deliver an excellent performance of a truly horrifying psychotic husband. As the film progresses and Jack falls deeper and deeper into the clutches of insanity, his outbursts to his wife Wendy escalate from irritation and annoyance when he  is interrupted by her when he is writing, to violent outbursts with clear murderous intent, such as the iconic baseball bat scene on the stairs, and of course, when Jack breaks down the bathroom door with an axe.

Jack Writing Outburst

“I’m not going to hurt you.”

Overall if you haven’t seen The Shining I highly recommend it. Watching the film is quite an experience and is by far one of my favorite psychological horror films. By the end though, you will be left that familiar feeling of having just gotten off a mental roller coaster, that you  get after having watched a Kubrick film.

 

Who you gonna call?

Ghostbusters!

There is no doubt that this 1984 supernatural comedy film has become popular throughout the world. The tale of these three unemployed professors who go on to catch ghosts in the city of New York  is a success in using these two genres to entertain the people at the time.

When I chose to watch this movie, I had no idea how funny or entertaining it would be. I always thought that it looked corny. However, the blend of special effects and comedy really makes this film a fun movie to watch.

Bill Murray’s first big role

I was a little confused when the essence of evil took form into a giant marshmallow man, but it still managed to work for the film, and essentially, set it apart from all the other films at this time.

Marshmallow of evil

In addition, with the success of the movie, came the success of one of the most famous songs in the 80’s. As the line goes, “Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters!” really portrays the true success of the film. Everyone is similar with that phrase.

With the release of the movie, the release of the main theme of the movie came out. Ray Parker Jr., the composer of the music for this film, actually had a lot of trouble writing the theme for this film. The issue was resolved when he saw an advertisement on television. He wanted the song to take a catchy tune like advertisements did. As a result, the song was #1 on the charts for 3 weeks straight.

Theme song

The success of Ghostbuster’s continues on even today. The theme for the music can still be heard on the radio, at theme parks, etc. The movie was even able to get a show to come about about after the movie was made. Universal Studios even had a show dedicated to the movie that visitors can go see when visiting the parks.

Show Intro

Consequently, this film was so successful in the 80’s that even today we are aware of Ghostbusters.

The Shining

“Heeere’s Johnny!” 

            This was one of the most terrifying movies I have ever seen, which came as a surprise to me. Although I had heard about how scary it was, I had a pre-assumed opinion that since it was made in 1980, it wouldn’t compare to the horror techniques of the 21st century. I was very wrong. Stanley Kubrick, who is a master of the moving camera and traveling shot definitely delivers on this film by not using your typical “slasher flick” characteristics or thumping soundtrack in order to frighten the audience. Kubrick adds such a creepy and eerie feel by using traveling camera shot as well as choppy cuts of montages such as in the scene with Danny and the twins in the hallway.

The film starts off by introducing us to the Torrance family consisting of Jack, Wendy and their troubled son Danny. They arrive at the Overlook Hotel, where Jack has taken a job to be caretaker of the hotel when it closes for the winter. Wendy seems unsure but Jack convinces her that they need the money and he will be able to work on his new book. Meanwhile Danny seems to have some schizophrenic tendencies claiming that a man named “Tony,” talks to him; Tony is not a good guy. They meet with the hotel’s manager, Halloran who takes an interest in Danny claiming he has a ”shine.”

As the staff leaves, the Torrance family settles into their new home. Danny begins to have strange encounters with unfriendly and horrifying spirits and Jack starts to slip into insanity while Wendy feels alone and helpless. When Wendy starts to realize that the hotel possesses some demonic force and that Jack is beginning to go insane. She then realizes that she must save herself and Danny.

Although this movie was terrifying, the directing and acting was incredible. I would really recommend this movie to anyone who can handle it. I must warn that I found myself covering my eyes and jumping at some parts, those who frighten easily should not watch this. Kubrick is an absolute genius and the directing is really well done. I think it holds up to time and is relatable to now because Jack Nicholson is still on the movie scene and since it wasn’t made in the slasher film way where the blood looks fake and the villians look fake, it still proves to be scary in today’s time.

YOU ARE NOT ALONE

James Cameron really out does himself with The Abyss. I honestly had no idea what I was in for when looking at the trailer, but I can say that I am not disappointed. The setting for the movie itself is the best. A lot of people fear the ocean; it’s size, it’s darkness, it’s lack of familiarity. All of these aspects really make it a well done movie.

When this submarine encounters aliens, we know that something new and unexpected is coming to the screen. The pictures, some of the shots, and the situations not only make this film intense, but it also makes it an enjoyable watch.

This movie brings all of people’s fears into play; claustrophobia, death, the unknown, betrayal, etc. Not only does it make it a suspenseful journey to see the outcome of our beloved characters, but it also highlights on emotions that later affect the audience.

James Cameron focuses on all these situations and encounters that people fear, therefore, making The Abyss a haunting and stressful movie experience. But it definitely shows how film making progressed into themes that delved more into human emotions and just advancement in new ideas.

No one ever considered the abilities of going underwater, talking underwater, etc. Cameron wanted to set the level in developing new ideas for the film industry. It was far from being one of his big accomplishments, however, he managed to do something others didn’t even think about doing. That’s what makes this film so enjoyable  to watch. I wish he would have continued making more movies like this instead of Titanic, but oh well.

I found a video of Cameron talking about this movie and I think it really sums up the amount of experience and knowledge he gained from making a movie like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZGMH_5i4N0&feature=related

I also read that the movie has an alternate ending that is available on one of the DVD’s. Cameron had to change the ending to fit the Hollywood idea of a happy ending; but from what I hear, the original ending is what really makes this movie so distinct from all the other movies in the 80’s. I haven’t seen it, but I definitely plan on it.

“The Most Fun You’ll Ever Have Being Scared!”

I absolutely love horror movies. And with Halloween next week there’s no better time to indulge in them. So as I was scrolling through my Netflix I figured I would try to find a movie that kills two birds with one stone: watch a classic horror film, and watch an 80’s movie I’ve never seen before. That’s when I came across Creepshow (1982).

Godfather of Zombies George A. Romero (Night of the Living DeadDawn of the Dead) and Stephen King (It, The Shining, Carrie, Cujo) combine their efforts on this anthology film consisting of five separate stories, four of them coming from King’s own imagination. Truthfully, the stories are not very scary, but it also doesn’t really seem like the film is trying to scare its audience. Bookended by the story of a father throwing out his son’s comic book, the tales are meant to be ripped out of the book; the transitions/narration are literally panels from a comic book, so it’s as if the viewer is watching a live action comic.

The Creep is seen only briefly, and does not speak, but he is our guide into the world of Creepshow.

The comic vibe may not be for everyone, but as a recovering comic book addict I loved it. It made the film more fun and distanced it from traditional horror films. For instance people’s screams were backed up by a colorful background of lightning, far from what was being seen in other 80’s horror films like Friday the 13th and the Halloween franchise.

The cartoonish background comes out almost every time a character screams, just like a comic.

I would say that it also took away from the fear factor, but as I’ve already said the stories aren’t all that scary to begin with. Don’t get me wrong, some were good (Ted Danson and Leslie Nielsen rocked their story, and Hal Holbrook’s story was probably the best of the five), and others were just damn dumb (Stephen King showed us why he writes instead of acts), but scary is not a word I would use for any of them. But neither is goofy. It’s as if a perfect median was found between the two ideas.

Seriously, I felt like I was a kid reading a comic book again.

A few big names of the 80’s stood out among the B-List movie.

So, while it may not have been anything like the scary movies I fell in love with growing up, or even anything like the other Stephen King flicks I’ve seen, I would still definitely recommend Creepshow. It was fun without taking away from the horror aspect of it, unlike the Scary Movie franchise that took the idea of horror and completely replaced it with comedy. No, Creepshow proved that horror and humor can coexist without totally butchering each other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_6vtAmFnkA

redrum|murder

Attention grabber:


Real stuff:

Thank goodness I chose to watch this in the middle of the day. THANK GOODNESS. While I had seen some iconic moments like the bathroom and the twins in the hallway scenes, I had never full-on watched The Shining. I’ve never been one on horror flicks but this to me was bearable- perhaps because the elements of suspense often overrode my senses of fear.

 

One aspect that I found intriguing was the use of Danny as a POV. While the storyline seems to primarily follow Jack and Wendy, some of the scariest aspects are seen through Danny’s POV. I find this to be incredibly helpful in trying to instill elements of tension for the audience. In terms of cinematography, putting the camera at a lower perspective provides even more visual suspense.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie and I feel like (as with so many movies) it’s sad that it is reduced to scenes like the bathroom. While that is certainly memorable, I personally felt that the end scene in the maze was much more suspenseful.

The mise en scene is incredible and the camerawork throughout is awesome. It’s like a never ending tunnel of cool blue tones which helps add to the (no pun intended) icy nature of the film’s end. The camera does a really cool thing to where it goes from following Danny to following Jack once Danny is safe and is reunited with his mother which feels like a quick change. When Danny is being chased it feels as if the audience is Jack and a sense of impending doom. However, for Jack being chased it feels like a broader “fate” that is suddenly about to do him in. Throughout the whole end of the film he’s seen as the one in control of people’s lives but when Danny is suddenly safe and Jack is caught in the maze, it’s the moment that you know he’s gonna get what’s been coming to him.

Should you watch it? Yes. Should you watch it alone? Yes. Should you watch it in your bathroom at night with your crazed father trying to beat down the door? No.

 

Clue: The Movie

Six guests are invited to a Gothic mansion in New England. The year is 1954. They are assigned aliases and introduced to each other. Mr. Body, the host of the party, is blackmailing the guests and has gathered them together. They discover that they are all involved with illegal or “un-American” activities. The guests receive weapons. Let the game begin!

I loved the board game version, so I couldn’t help but be interested in the film version of Clue. I probably should have watched some other 80s classic, but I didn’t care—I made the right call. Well, actually, I guessed the wrong murdered in the end. But no matter—the process was entertaining. Who knew murder could be so fun.

First of all, the movie isn’t scary. Even a horror lightweight could handle this one. I’ll admit though, each time someone turns the lights out, a tiny bit of fear dilated in my chest. It’s not really supposed to be scary. The emphasis is on postmortem investigation—very detached, as if there were no current danger. It’s a fascinating way to address murder. They were hopeless, with an external locus of control.

The popular conception of homosexuality has changed drastically since this film. All of the guests are involved with some sort of illegal, sexual, or perverted activity. But when Mr. Green stands up and admits his sexual preference, the guests look just as disgusted as when the butler reveals that Professor Plum takes advantage of his psychotic patients. Apparently Mr. Green would loose his job with the government if he was discovered. But no matter, at the very end, Mr. Green ends up revealing himself as a plant or “spy” at the party—a representative of the government and saves the day. The audience assumes that he is not gay and cheers his efforts. Hmmm…

At first, I rolled my eyes at the cheesy one-liners:

After a lengthy explanation, the butler says, “To make a long story short…”
“TOO LATE,” the guests yell in unison.

And the melodramatic acting:
“AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH,” Ms. Peacock scream.

It sounds even worse than it looks.

But, once acquainted with the theatrical style of the movie, it was thoroughly enjoyable to watch the guests frantically run about the mansion.

For the theatrical release of Clue, the movie was shown with one of three different endings—different theaters received different endings for the film. It did poorly in the box office, but the home video has all three versions. I would certainly be disappointed without all three.

Why Children of the Corn Isn’t as Scary Now

Steven King’s Children of the Corn, directed by Fritz Kiersch, is a must-see cult classic. As a horror movie fan, I appreciate the motifs that make this film memorable. To start, the ominous Gregorian chanting (performed by children of course) accompanies most of the movie and adds suspense in preparation for gory ritual and murder. There are no words, just eerie, sustained “Ah-ing” that sears itself into the minds of the audience.

One only needs to “Ahh” at a fellow viewer later in the day to increase their heart rate and make them moderately uncomfortable around children.

Another contributor to Children of the Corn’s classic status is the crayon drawings. Sarah, a young child that disagrees with the leader’s ways, draws bloody, gruesome pictures of the future. She predicts the coming of the “outsiders,” Burt and Vicky, and illustrates the gory rituals associated with a perverted religion that believes any person over 18 should die.

The children never use a gun to kill. Poison, scythes, and knives are the only offensive weapons in use during the film. Defensively, they defame public property with dried up corn stalks to create a hostile environment and they immobilize Burt’s car, disabling him from fleeing the town—not that he would be smart enough (despite being a doctor) to make that decision.

The setting lends to the perverseness of this ordeal. Gatlin represents small-town America. Traditionally, small-towns are associated with community, safety, and innocence. This rural virtue, teamed up with the purity of children makes the transition to home of cultic murderous children a disturbing one.

BUT, DESPITE ALL OF THESE SUPERBLY SCARY THINGS…the modern viewer is left unfazed.

WHY?

1)   The children of the corn are a misguided group that follows the bible verse, “and a child shall lead them.” Creepy, but at least they have a guiding principle.

Now, children just want to fuck people up for fun.

Since Children of the Corn, kids have been heavily recycled as lone murderers, ghosts, and Satanic symbols. More recent movies like Orphan (2009) and Insidious (2010) take psychotic children to the next level—they are sexual, supernaturally powerful, torture people for enjoyment, and are completely unpredictable. Children of the Corn is still perverted, but less so in comparison to the latest creepy kiddos. Scary children are scary, but less so because the standard of perversion has risen.

2)   Plus, the ending computer graphics and tunneling dirt ball are a bit cheesy now. The more real supernatural is, the scarier it is. What modern viewer could resist giggling at the red and black amoeba that consumes Isaac?

Children of the Corn paved the way for the coming generations of psychotic younglings and realistic computer graphics of supernatural power. That is why it’s both a classic and a shadow behind modern horror. The six sequels attest to this.

 

A not-so lost ending

Today, the story of vampires is so popular. However, the circumstances are completely different. For instance, in today’s fiction novels, vampires sparkle in the sun, they fall in love and they don’t even cringe to the presence of silver or holy water. Instead, they just kind of look like this:

This is disturbing and just so weird.

Which is just, so very disappointing. The image of vampires has changed so greatly that people don’t fear them nowadays. Instead, they create crazed and obsessed fan clubs that fall in love with them. The Lost Boys managed to maintain the image of a real vampire in a fun and terrifying way (the way it should be).

The Lost Boys has a to be a great teen horror movie…for the 80’s. I may be biased now, because horror movies have come a long way in film, however, this movie really portrayed the talent and advancement the 80’s brought to film (and it didn’t even need good-looking, sparkling vampires to do so). Although it may not be the most frightening movie you have ever seen, it is still able to be funny and manages to contain some twists and suspense. Basically, it’s a hell of a lot better than Twilight. And it just sticks to the idea that vampires are supposed to seem dangerous and scary.

I mean, just look at this guy.

Vampires suck human blood, an act that I find to be disturbing and frightening;  not appealing or something I think would be fun to experience because the vampire’s good-looking.

The viewers are able to relate to some of the teenage characters that battle these vampires and sort of build this friendship with them that makes the film easier to watch (not to mention, some of these guys are very good looking).

The director is able to include some horror, comedy, teen romance, violence, and action aspects that make it a pretty great film to watch.

Here’s a fun reading about some of the difference between ways vampires are portrayed in certain films and why The Lost Boys is a fun to watch: http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2012/08/17/before-twilight-lost-boys-made-vampires-fun/#/0

Flashdance!

The most famous shot in this film

I was really excited to see this movie, because I really liked the music and I always heard about how popular it was in the 80’s; however, I really wish I didn’t. I did not enjoy this movie at all! I felt like there was really no plot. I mean, I know that it’s all about her trying to get into this prestigious dance school, but it just seemed very disorganized and just all over the place. Also, I just really didn’t like the main character. The movie seemed like it wanted to be a Cinderella movie, but with sex, strippers, dance and good music. The only good part about this film is the dancing. Other than that, it’s socially awkward and just a badly made film. The only thing it encouraged me to do was work out…

I recently heard that this film will also be brought to Broadway in August 2013. I do not know if I’ll go watch it; I just cannot help but think that if the film is as awful as it was, I do not see the Broadway show being any better. The show was originally supposed to be out in the fall of this year; however, due to the lack of Broadway shows available and the unfinished project, they decided to push it another year (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/04/flashdance-musical-set-for-broadway-in-august-2013/). They believe that because the movie was so popular that people will want to see the show and it will attract audiences. On the other hand, I really don’t understand anyone that would want to watch this film.

Lastly, Jennifer Bealss’ dancing is great, but I really didn’t like her character in this film. She just seems so ungrateful and overly sexual. I feel like she didn’t have any respect for herself; she portrayed a good role model in the sense that you should chase your dreams, regardless of the obstacles presented; but that ended there. She’s just someone I would not want to be. This character didn’t really offer Beals a chance to better her career either. She’s just kind of forgotten ( in my opinion).

Also, in a lot of scenes, she just made me uncomfortable. Don’t know how people found her to be sexy when eating that lobster. I just thought it was embarrassing (scene can be seen here: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2011/09/the-10-sexiest-food-scenes-in-movies/flashdance) Doesn’t she just make you want to eat some lobster? No, thank you. She should just stick to dancing.

 

 

My First “Slasher” Flick

I’ll be the first to admit it. I get scared easily. Which is why I avoid any horror movies. I’ve seen less than 10 in my lifetime. However, in honor of it being the first of October, and I feel I can take, at the very least, an older film, I decided to branch out and try a classic, Friday the 13th. I didn’t have any background information on it, other than the trailers that came out for the sequel in 2009 and the Freddy vs. Jason film in 2003, so I was going in completely cold turkey.

The big question I had after watching the film was who was the actual killer? When Jason’s mother came in near the end and tried to kill Alice off, it led me on to think that she was the killer, and Alice simply had a dream about Jason attacking her and pulling her into the water. Also, it had to be someone in town because when Steve, the camp manager, faced the killer unknowingly, he said, “Oh, it’s you”, and then he was killed. So Steve had to have known the person who killed him, and it being a small town, it didn’t seem crazy that it was Mrs. Voorhees.  But, one thing that does makes me feel that it was not Jason’s mom who was the killer is from the scene when Kevin Bacon’s character dies. While he’s lying in bed, the arm that reaches up and grabs him is a manly looking arm covered in plaid, not a slender wrist in a baby blue sweater. Also, the shadows that were lurking throughout the film appeared to be of a man with broad shoulders. I guess I’ll have to watch the other films to truly discover who the “killer” is, but for now I believe that there are some supernatural elements at play, which I was not expecting from a classic slasher film.

As for the “scare” factor, I did jump at parts. Who wouldn’t with the frightening musical accompaniment that chimed in at the perfect time? I did keep my cool though, and I found myself more so laughing than jumping out of my seat. Maybe it was a defense mechanism, but it sure did help. Like when Annie was running and stumbling heavily because of her hurt leg – despite her graceful roll out of the vehicle – through the forest, I couldn’t help but laugh at how silly she looked, tripping on the leaves and gripping her leg. I tried putting myself in her position. Would I be able to suck it up and run, knowing that I had somebody dangerous chasing me? I couldn’t really say, because I had never been in that position (knock on wood). However, it made me think about other movies where the characters were hurt, but still had to fight/run for their lives. The only ones I could think of were movies where the characters were trained fighters, or at least lived dangerously for a living (Charlie’s Angels kept coming to mind). So, obviously, it is not impossible to grit your teeth and keep fighting for your life. I just don’t think poor Annie was well equipped physically for it.

Another little thing I found interesting about the movie was when the counselors were going to fix the emergency generator. The counselor Marcie, after the light was turned on, stated, “What hath God wrought?” The line kind of made me chuckle, because the line would be more appropriate to declare, say, right before you’re about to be killed, and not when a lightbulb turns on.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It even made me think about watching the original Nightmare on Elm Street. But I’ll save that for another time. When it’s light out. And I’m around a big crowd of people.