Thankfully, first impressions don’t always prove to be entirely
representative, and you can’t always judge a book by its cover — or a
horror movie by its rapper. As I watched BONES unfold I was repeatedly and
surprisingly impressed with how well director Ernest Dickerson and all
parties involved handled the film and managed to make it a really fun movie
to watch — if not an entirely original one. Dickerson (who directed the
horribly underrated DEMON KNIGHT) once again crafts a movie that seems to
really capture the spirit of flat-out s-styl horror without falling prey
to annoyingly ‘hip’ reflexivity. BONES is not a movie that winks at its
audience at how cleverly ‘old-school’ it is, but rather just opts to give
you the goods. And the goods are pretty darn good. This is by no means a
‘psychological thriller’; this is a horror movie, complete with plenty of
surprising and fun killings and a very, very hearty helping of gore (the
blood, right in tune with the overall vibe of the film, has the feel of
late s splatter — garish and pasty).

Throughout the first minutes of BONES I was amazed at how genuinely
interesting the story was. It’s not wholly original, but it’s compelling
enough to keep you wanting to see more. There are some pretty blatant nods
to A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET and HELLRAISER, but Dickerson and Co. pull
them off very well, and they fit perfectly into the saga of Jimmy Bones.

Which leads right into the all-important topic of Snoop Dogg The Actor vs.
Snoop Dogg The Rapper. As I stated earlier, it’s hard not to have doubts
about a rapper turned first-time actor, but Snoop Dogg actually comes
across pretty well in his debut horror feature. Part of the reason for this
is that the story keeps him as a side character for much of the film,
preventing him from growing stale or turning into a joke — which,
unfortunately, is what ultimately happens towards the latter half of the
film. Once Snoop does show up in the film BONES begins to lose a little of
its edge, but it’s not really Snoop’s fault. The final half-hour of the
film treads on some corny ground, but manages to come out without losing
TOO much credibility, and the last moments reeked of enough Fulci-ness to
keep me smiling as the credits rolled and I was subjected to an obligatory
rap tune by the star of BONES (thankfully Dickerson waited until the end of
the film proper before throwing it in).

#OVERALL SUMMARY
BONES, while by no means the most original or complete horror
opus to come out of Hollywood, knows what it wants to be and pretty much
hits the mark dead-center. Though it dips into mediocrity in the closing
act, there’s enough great stuff in the film to keep you entertained through
its lesser bits.

John Dedeke

The post Bones (2001) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

Describing DONNIE DARKO to someone who hasn’t seen it is almost an exercise
in futility, and would more than likely actually discourage one from seeing
it rather than give the film a plug. After all, this is a film where a guy
in a rabbit suit haunts a teenagers dreams — all in complete seriousness.

I went into the film expecting something along the lines of LOST HIGHWAY or
some of the other works of card-carrying cinematic weird-guy David Lynch,
and while DONNIE DARKO does head into Lynch-territory here and there, the
film is largely in a universe of its own. The film shifts gears repeatedly,
which in a lot of movies would only serve to lessen its impact. In DONNIE
DARKO, however, the tonal shifts and sudden unexpected (and seemingly
unnecessary) developments all seem to work perfectly. It’s a story that
doesn’t really appeal to everyone, and yet at the same time just might be
weird enough to interest anyone.

Donnie himself is an immediately compelling character — he’s not
necessarily someone you love, but you can definitely identify with his lot
in life trying to navigate the bizarre world of upper class America in the
election-charged year of . All around Donnie are people who are just
ever-so-slightly off-kilter: the vaguely anti-establishment English teacher
(played by Drew Barrymore), the crazy lady who does nothing but continually
though, as the supporting characters do exactly what they’re supposed to do
by giving Donnie something to play off of, shaping his environment and
leading the film to its fairly shocking (yet completely necessary)
conclusion.

OVERALL SUMMARY
Few recent films have tied so many bizarre elements together as
DONNIE DARKO does. The very concept of the film itself might be enough to turn off casual viewers. Let the weirdness and seeming incoherence slide by you, however, and you’re likely to discover that you like the film, too – even if you don’t understand it.

John Dedeke

The post Donnie Darko (2001) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

The truly thrilling experience that is RING begins with a very familiar set-up, but quickly becomes something other-worldly and unsettling. Two teenage girls discuss the legend of a young boy visiting a resort community who programmed a VCR to tape his favorite show late one night. Instead of his show, however, the boy found that his tape contained some random bizarre images, and the legend states that after watching the tape, the child received a phone call telling him that he would die in one week. Exactly one week later, the boy was dead, and a myth was born. The supposedly cursed tape has been passed on again and again by curious high school kids looking for a thrill, and the legend suggests that none of those who have seen the tape have lived longer than a week after watching it. True to the tale, one of the two girls has actually seen the tape, exactly one week prior, and right before our eyes she becomes the victim of a mysterious murder — an event that sets into motion some of the most compelling and satisfying minutes the horror world has seen in a while.

Part of the appeal of RING lies in the nature of the curse itself, the way the story expertly revolves around it. Like the makers of the BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, the creators of RING developed a rich history behind the film’s central device. What differs between the two films is how this rich history is revealed. Whereas BLAIR WITCH just tossed its great backstory out on the table in the first twenty minutes and failed to ever adequately return to it, RING takes its time revealing the fascinating and frightening circumstances behind the cursed video tape that is the subject of the film. What is also quite impressive is the way RING manages to avoid being just about this video. While much of Japanese horror suffers from ridiculous acting and cartoon-like set-pieces that hinder the believability of the subject matter, RING features some great performances and well-defined characters, even with such small room for development. Reiko is not just a reporter chasing a story. She’s also a single mother who has a lot of trouble balancing her professional duties and desires with the task of raising her young boy. The dynamic between Reiko and her son Yoichi may be missed on the initial viewing of the film, but it greatly enhances repeated screenings, and even serves to make the film seem creepier (especially when reference in relation to the film’s first sequel RING ).

As is often the case with great horror films, RING avoids showing too much, giving the audience just quick glimpses of its true terrors here and there, and leaving the rest of the horror up to the imagination. What IS shown is done so in a calculated manner to elicit the maximum effect, and it works. In fact, the entirety of the film is shot and constructed amazingly well, coming across as both beautiful and disturbing. Director Hideo Nakata even cleverly alters the film itself at certain moments to take on the look and feel of grainy and distorted video, reinforcing the unsettling nature of the evil videotape.

#OVERALL SUMMARY
Foreign horrors are not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea, but those willing to take a chance on RING should not be disappointed. This is a film that really is as exciting, compelling, and (most importantly, of course) scary as everyone says it is, and is definitely must-see fare for those looking for more psychological chills than just your average stock schlock.

John Dedeke

The post Ring (1998) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

While the first RING (much to its credit) was quite narrow in its story and vision, RING is full of an assortment of widely divergent characters, themes, and visuals. Sequels have to be bigger than their predecessors in order to succeed. You can’t simply show the same thing again and expect results to be as good. Slasher sequels have to up the body count; the BATMAN movies add more villains, etc. In the case of RING, a film about a psychological terror and the cursed video through which it lives, a sequel could go in many directions, from following the further exploits of its surviving characters to exploring the very nature of the cursed video itself. RING actually attempts to cover both of those angles at once, along with several other interesting ideas. It’s almost too ambitious for its own good, trying to tie together so many elements in its big final moments that the end result — as good as it might be for its own unique reasons — fails to have as much punch as the first film.

Story-wise, there really is a lot to like about RING . It’s a film that seemingly has a life of its own; you really never know where it’s going to go next. Unlike a lot of cliche-ridden sequels, RING never takes the easy route, which is both good and bad at the same time. It’s fresh, daring, and can often yield unexpected turns (something that is certainly good for a ‘shock’ movie); nevertheless, it can also leave the viewer feeling somewhat stranded, unsure of exactly who to empathize with and wondering which story is the main one. Still, RING ‘s ability to pack a lot of key characters into its relatively short running time AND have each of their stories pan out fairly well deserves a lot of respect. And while certain elements (the scientific study of the ghostly curse and its real-world ramifications, which comes across a little too Cronenberg-inspired) aren’t as good as others (the relationship between reporter Mai and his desperate teenage confidant), the film still manages to satisfy in the end.

Part of the reason RING doesn’t fall apart is due to the fact that despite its misgivings, it still does what a horror film is first and foremost supposed to do, and that’s BE SCARY. Moments in RING are every bit as frightening as the scary scenes in the first film; certainly enough so to make up for a crowded storyline and somewhat convoluted conclusion. In fact, it’s arguable that the film might even be scarier at times than the first RING, an aspect that even some of the best horror sequels can seldom claim.

Furthermore, this sequel’s direct relation to the first film — and the overall story arc of the entire saga — is quite refreshing. The things that happen to and between Reiko and her son Yoichi in RING are not just rehashes of what took place in RING, but rather logical progressions given their characters and what we have seen them go through. Yoichi begins to develop psychic abilities, a straight correlation to the backstory of Sadako and her mother that began the entire RING saga. In addition, he is a young boy that has been exposed to one of countless copies of the cursed videotape circulating down the chain — a videotape that was interestingly originated by a young boy. These and other compelling elements help keep RING from falling into the usual downward slide of most sequels, and more than make up for the lesser portions of the film.

#OVERALL SUMMARY
RING can definitely not be called a stand-alone film, but as a continuation of the story began in the first RING, it succeeds quite well. Gone is the straight-forward and time-driven narrative of the first film, replaced here by so many varied stories and themes that it may be hard to keep up. It is an extremely different film altogether from the original, but nonetheless one that is equally (if not more) frightening.

John Dedeke

The post Ring 2 (1999) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

Based on Peter Benchley’s excellent best-selling novel, Jaws is part action movie, part drama, and part old-fashioned monster movie. Director Steven Spielberg (in his first outing with a sizeable budget) actually follows a fairly cliched plot, particularly popular in the monster flicks of the s, but crafts his film so masterfully that you don’t even notice that this is a story you’ve heard multiple time before. Throw in some expert acting from all parties involved and a landmark score from John Williams, and Jaws becomes an epic adventure that deserves every bit of praise it has ever received.

Populating Spielberg’s film is one of the finest casts he’s ever worked with, Richard Dreyfuss as young scientist Hooper and Robert Shaw as the unforgettable sailor Quint. Were it not for the charisma between these two and Roy Scheider (Chief Brody) and the wonderful sense of character provided by the script (which Benchley co-wrote), JAWS would likely be nothing more than an average monster movie. Instead, the characters in JAWS are alive, each of the three leads likeable in their own distinct ways. If you’re not fully convinced of this fact, all you need to do is watch the scene in which the three compare scars (culminating in Quint’s chilling Indianapolis story and a rousing rendition of ‘Show Me The Way To Go Home’) to answer any doubts.

Spielberg also wisely chose to refrain from showing the shark until the latter half of the movie, allowing suspense to build at a natural pace, and making that moment when we do finally come face-to-face with the -footer all the more incredible. Many feel the shark machine (nicknamed ‘Bruce’ by the cast and crew) looks fake in Jaws, but in truth, with the exception of perhaps one scene, the effects in Jaws are top-notch; impressive enough when they are shown, but restrained enough so not to draw unnecessary attention away from the story.

Jaws is one of the scariest films not just of the s (a decade that itself was overflowing with superb horror films), but of all-time. Spielberg sets up the shocks in the film at such moments that you don’t have a clue what to expect, or when to expect it. One second a scene is calm and peaceful, the next it’s full of action and sudden danger. Accentuating the mood (and mood shifts) is an incredible score by John Williams. Williams and Spielberg have collaborated on dozens of other films, almost always with spectacular results, but Williams’ work for Jaws is exceptional; arguable the most recognized music in film history. Even people who’ve never seen Jaws immediately identify those two low notes repeated in increasingly faster order as a sign of impending doom.

Jaws was an instant success upon its release, creating (for better or for worse) the phenomenon of the summer blockbuster movie as we know it. Today, more than years later, few films that followed in its wake have been able to reach the standard set by JAWS. It’s difficult to make an action film OR horror movie that’s on par with Jaws, let alone a film that can combine the two as seamlessly as Spielberg did in .

#OVERALL SUMMARY
Not just a great action movie, not just a great horror movie, Jaws is undoubtedly one of the greatest films ever made, a work were ever element comes together beautifully and makes for a wholly enjoyable experience every time it is viewed. It’s a move that to this day, years later, has never lost its ability to make people afraid to go in the water, and probably never will.

John Dedeke

The post Jaws (1975) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

Furthermore, the notion of an ‘adult’ horror film had all but vanished into thin air by the time the early s arrived. Horror was meant for teenagers, and that was it. The definition of horror at the time consisted of little more than a masked killer stalking and slicing young kids. Studios were convinced that adults just weren’t interested. One film changed all of that. That film was INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE.

A true modern masterpiece, INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE chronicles the exploits of Louis, who accepts the ‘dark gift’ of the vampire Lestat late one night in the s, only to spend the next two-hundred years forever tormented by his decision to become a monster. The film was based on the legendary novel by Anne Rice (who also wrote the superb script), and revolutionized the way audiences looked at vampires. Instead of portraying the children of the night as simple, bloodthirsty villains, INTERVIEW turns the vampire character into the protagonist, showcasing the creature’s torments and turmoil, both inside and out. The vampires in INTERVIEW are not the mindless, menacing creatures we’ve seen a hundred times in vampire films, but well-defined, thoughtful souls, lost in their own struggles with the things they have become.

Portraying these powerful beings is the most star-driven cast ever to accompany a vampire movie. Brad Pitt plays Louis, showing a side of his varied acting abilities that had never been seen before, and really hasn’t been seen since. Young Kirsten Dunst, just -years-old at the time, portrays the orphan girl Claudia, who is taken from her plagued home by Lestat and turned into a vampire child who will never age. Dunst shows amazing prowess, truly making viewers believe that she is a grown woman trapped in the body of a child. Christian Slater appears as the young journalist interviewing Louis, playing a role intended for River Phoenix, who died just prior to filming (all of Slater’s profits were donated to Phoenix’s favorite charities). Supporting stars Antonio Banderas and Stephen Rea also do an excellent job. But the true star of INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, and the most controversial casting choice in the film, is Tom Cruise as the decadent Lestat.

An icon of underground circles, Lestat is the real central figure in the Vampire Chronicles, the series of novels of which INTERVIEW is the first installment. Author Anne Rice and the legions of fans of her work had already had a strong sense of who the character of Lestat was by the time this film adaption was created. With the casting of Hollywood hunk Tom Cruise in the pivotal role came an onslaught of negative criticism, not the least of which from Rice herself, who lambasted the decision in the press. Once she saw the film, however, Rice admitted that she was quite impressed with Cruise’s portrayal, as was the public at large, and retracted her comments in a full-page variety ad. Indeed, Cruise is not just playing Lestat in INTERVIEW; he IS Lestat. So faithful is his Lestat that Cruise himself seems like an entirely separate person.

What is so impressive about the film, however, is not its ability to present rather mature themes or major Hollywood stars, but rather the fact that the film so brilliantly presents them WITHOUT losing its sense of identity. INTERVIEW never falls too far away from what it is at heart: a wickedly conceived outright horror film. As one would expect from an epic vampire film, INTERVIEW flows with blood from start to finish, but the horrors of the film are not just physical. The torment of the human (or inhuman) soul is spotlighted through the film, as Louis, Lestat, and Claudia all experience equal doses of love, betrayal, loneliness, and pain. The film is not abundant with scares, but what thrills do exist are carried through excellently.

Finally, attention must also be given to the fabulous musical score by Elliot Goldenthal. Goldenthal’s work for INTERVIEW really gives the film life, and helps solidify the epic scale of the film. INTERVIEW is no ordinary vampire movie, and one need not look much further than the score to find evidence of that fact. The music is jolting and scary, but also haunting and quite beautiful, nicely complimenting the two sides of the film’s conflict.

#OVERALL SUMMARY
Both bloody and beautiful, haunting and harrowing, INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE takes the viewer directly into the dark heart of the vampire. Easily the best vampire movie of the decade, it excels both in its depictions of touching, soulful drama and chilling, outright horror.

John Dedeke

The post Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

Director John Landis interestingly made a name for himself not in horror films, but in comedy. His early career is marked by movies like ANIMAL HOUSE and THE BLUES BROTHERS, yet in AMERICAN WEREWOLF he demonstrates great skill at crafting solid scares just as well as he can orchestrate laughs. He also puts his comedic touch to work in the film, tempering the scares with a lot of dark and delicious humor. His largest contribution, though, is the ability to keep the audience in suspense for a long time without losing their interest. AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is for the most part the story of a guy in a hospital bed for its first hour before things really get going, but the viewer never finds the film boring or uninspired. In fact, Landis paces the film so well that once its minutes are over, one wishes the film would go on longer.

It’s a difficult task to mesh humor and horror, but both of those elements blend nicely in AMERICAN WEREWOLF. When you’re not laughing at the great dialogue or hilarious situational comedy, you’re jolted out of your seat at one of the numerous scares throughout the movie. Also remarkable is the way the film was shot, maximizing all of the potential to be had both by the beautiful English country scenes and those taking place in the heart of busy and bustling London. All of the visual imagery is backed by a great score and some wicked sound effects, which further add to the scares, enhancing both the sense of impending danger as the full moon draws closer and emphasizing the beastly nature of the werewolf itself.

And speaking of the werewolf, this would not be a proper review of AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON without mentioning the spectacular effects of Rick Baker. Baker’s work in the film is truly some of the most amazing effects ever put on film in the history of the motion picture. While it may be open to argument that AMERICAN WEREWOLF is the best werewolf movie ever made, there is no doubt whatsoever that the transformation scene Baker put together is the best of its kind. Never before and never after has the depiction of a human being turning into an animal seemed so real, so painful, so tangible. It stands today as a credit to the true power of prosthetic and make-up effects, and serves as a reminder to all who see it now of what great things were accomplished with effects before the days of CGI.

If there is a downfall to the film (and mind you that’s a very large ‘if’), it would probably be in the balance of goofiness versus serious horror in the film. There are times where the story could have gone either way, and many opportunities to make a scary film even scarier, but Landis opts for some lighthearted laughs instead. There’s nothing with that, especially considering it is done so well, but it does make one wonder what the film would have been like without as many puns.

#OVERALL SUMMARY
An amazing blend of humor and horror, John Landis’s AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON is one of the best times a person can have watching a horror movie. Gorgeous visuals, a great score, and some of the most incredible special effects ever made all come together in a perfect mix of laughter and fear. Horror movies don’t get much better than this.

John Dedeke

The post An American Werewolf in London (1981) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

Inspired by the EVIL DEAD movies and, heavily, the NIGHT OF THE DEMONS series, THE CONVENT concerns a bunch of kids trapped in an abandoned house and forced to fend for their lives from a growing horde of demons. While the premise isn’t exactly groundbreaking, it really isn’t supposed to be. This is intended to be a great big belly laugh of a horror film, meant to be seen by a theater full of kids having a good time. Given its trouble finding a distributor, however, the film looks unlikely to ever be seen the way it was meant to be. That’s a shame, actually, because seeing a movie like THE CONVENT with a big group of people in a theater and watching it at home on a bootleg video are two completely different experiences, with the former obviously being the more ideal choice, and the latter being the sad truth. As a result of NOT being seen in its ideal environment, THE CONVENT tends to suffer from a lot of detriments that wouldn’t necessarily seem so glaring if viewed in an auditorium with a bunch of hollering kids all there to have a good time.

Like its s inspirations, THE CONVENT isn’t exactly an award-worthy film in terms of acting or character development. % of the cast in the film is put there simply to be demon-fodder, a fact that is quite clear the minute they open their mouths and begin spouting bad dialogue. That’s not to say that they’re aren’t any decent performances, but the cast overall falls short of authenticity throughout much of the film; a fact that doesn’t necessarily hinder the movie too much, but somewhat furthers the notion that THE CONVENT is a straight-up B-grade horror movie. The script by Chaton Anderson (who has a role in the film as one of the devil worshiping vixens) is over-the-top with ‘witty’ banter for the kids to say. Some of the moments come across very well, proving quite humorous, while others feel forced and trite, but in the context of the film it all seems rather appropriate. In a theater full of excited horror fans, none of this would really matter, because THE CONVENT delivers on other multiple levels.

One of those levels, of course, is the gore, and there’s plenty of it in THE CONVENT. Heads are cut off, demons are blown apart with shotgun blasts. The blood flows, and it flows well. Evidently in an attempt to stay closer to an R-rating, many of the effects in the film are interestingly designed to glow under black lights, making all of the blood and grue less realistic and more cartoon-like and exaggerated, like a demon massacre at a rave party. This works better at some points than others, but overall it’s a really nice, original effect. The lack of any computer effects (the demon eyes glow thanks to black-light sensitive contact lenses, etc.) lends to the film, as well, reinforcing the low-budget feel.

Also rather amusing is the tongue-in-cheek attention Mendez and Anderson give to the religious aspect of the film, peppering the film with lots of riffs on Catholicism and the ever-important element of virginity. As one character mentions, ‘These demon things always involve virgins.’ The film treats this concept very playfully, with some amusing results. Additionally, Scream queen Adrienne Barbeau (SWAMP THING, CREEPSHOW) has a lot of fun with her role as a machine-gun-toting ex-nun (though even this element seems rather similar to the Rambo-esque nun of NIGHT OF THE DEMONS ), keeping THE CONVENT’s campy atmosphere intact and preventing the film from taking itself too seriously. If there’s one thing that can definitely be said for Mendez and Anderson, it’s that they knew exactly what type of movie they wanted to make, and they did it.

#OVERALL SUMMARY
How much you enjoy THE CONVENT greatly depends on the circumstances in which you see it, and how much of a low-budget horror fan you are. Casual fans of the genre or those seeing the flick alone on a video (as I was forced to do) might find it a bit trite and boring, as well as quite derivative (especially of NIGHT OF THE DEMONS). The film, however, would really work much better in a theater environment (especially a midnight screening or a drive-in), where the focus would be on all of the gory fun to be had from the film, and not on its shortcomings.

John Dedeke

The post The Convent (2000) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

And then there is Dawn of the Dead. It’s hard to convince someone who’s never seen Dawn of the Dead that it’s not only the greatest zombie film of all time, but also one of the overall greatest horror films. Those outside of horror circles have never even heard of the film, and many find it hard to swallow that an independent film made over twenty years ago with no major stars and a trim budget could possibly rank among titles like Halloween and The Exorcist. But those who’ve seen George Romero’s masterpiece know better.

A loose sequel to Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead begins in Philidelphia, where, just like everywhere else in the world, chaos has engulfed the public. The dead are returning to life and attacking the living, and nobody knows what’s causing it or quite how to stop it. Between the zombies themselves and the rampant gang warfare in the streets, and the stubborn citizens who refuse to follow governmental guidelines and destroy the corpses of their loved ones before they can rise and create more victims, it seems humanity is fighting a losing battle. The police are giving up, abandoning their post. The TV news crews are following suit. Everything is falling apart, and fast.

In an effort to escape the increasingly dangerous city environment, two Philly SWAT team members take off with a traffic reporter and his fiancee in a stolen helicopter, intent on finding some rural area to settle into and catch their breath. Instead, what they come across is an entire shopping mall filled with the living dead. They set up camp at the mall, growing quickly accostomed to all of its material pleasures within which are now free for the taking. After purging the mall of the zombies, the foursome grows further and further domesticated in their makeshift home, but also further and further detatched from each other. So comfortable are they that they are ill-prepared for a scavenging gang of bikers (headed by gore effects master Tom Savini) who break into the mall, allowing the zombies to horde inside as well, giving way to one of the goriest climactic massacres in film history.

Dawn of the Dead is an ultimate horror movie, but it is also much, much more. Romero’s initial idea for his zombie sequel came one afternoon while he was walking around the local mall and noted the blank stares on the faces of shoppers, who seemed like zombies themselves, wandering aimlessly from store-to-store and buying anything and everything, regardless of need. With that one afternoon came the germ for Dawn of the Dead’s primary theme: we are the zombies; Suburban America and all of its cozy comforts has created a legion of mindless consumer ‘zombies,’ more comfortable with going out and buying into a fantasy than staying home and coping with the reality of life.

Romero’s commentary on bourgeoise American society is harsh, and it is complimented well with the superb in-your-face gore effects of Tom Savini. Dawn of the Dead is filled with some of the best and bloodiest scenes of head explosions, severed limbs, and gushing gunshot wounds.

Most importantly, Dawn of the Dead does what so few contemporary horror films manage to do; something that makes other horror films like Halloween and The Exorcist into the classics that they are. It lingers with you long after the final moments of the film. It forces you to think about what you’ve seen, and how it applies to you.

OVERALL SUMMARY
Perhaps the most important aspect about Dawn of the Dead, the reason it deserves its spot at the top of the horror film elite, is that it does what great horror films are supposed to do. It leaves you very, very scared.

John Dedeke

The post Dawn of the Dead (1978) appeared first on Horror Asylum.

From its groundbreaking and trend-setting opening credits sequence all the way up to its shocking final moments, Seven is a harrowing journey of a film, taking viewers deeply into the hearts and minds of its two protagonists, as well as the twisted thoughts and visions of a psychotic killer. Few horror films – or films of any type, for that matter – convey a tone, a ‘feeling,’ as well as Seven. The film is two hours of dread, pain, disgust, and shock; a non-stop sense of general malaise, made even more believable and tangible by three outstanding performances by Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, and Kevin Spacey. Andrew Kevin Walker’s first screenplay is one of the most amazing, riveting pieces of scriptwriting of the past twenty years. Director David Fincher shows a genuine passion for creating beautiful films, crafting each and every meticulous shot of Seven with extreme care and thought. Simply put, it’s one of the most spectacular films of s, and possibly of all-time.

But is it horror? That’s the burning question, one that has been raging ever since the film was released in . At a glance, it’s easy to dismiss the horror moniker simply because Seven doesn’t follow suit with the common notion of what a horror movie is. This is not a film about a guy in a hockey mask killing off cardboard teenage characters, nor does it concern an alien terror or ancient creature threatening mankind’s existence. There are no vampires, no werewolves; no revived corpses, no demonic possessions, no ghostly hauntings – none of the things we’ve become accustomed to seeing in a horror film. Furthermore, at the time of Seven’s release, using the word ‘horror’ to describe a film in the press usually meant certain box-office death, as no one but kids and teenagers wanted to go see horror movies. Hence, New Line Cinema avoided any association between Seven and ‘horror,’ choosing to market the film as a thriller – a genre that was practically created by Seven and has gone on to become a staple of modern cinema.

Still, though the film doesn’t follow the usual pattern or contain any of the common trappings of the genre, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it isn’t horror. Instead, Seven represents an entirely different kind of horror film. There are no masked killers or vampires or deformed monsters because they aren’t needed — the monster that is the human being can be quite horrific enough. Why would we need big, ugly monsters, when the world is filled with people who act like ugly monsters towards each other? There’s no point in a film with another masked killer stalking innocent teenagers, since, as the killer John Doe explains in the film, there really are no innocent people. The horror of Seven is not about supernatural terrors, but rather the terrors of the human soul — the sinful nature of humanity as a whole, and what it has done to the world we all live in; a subject that is, frankly, far more disturbing and terrifying than anything in most of the films we consider ‘horror’ movies.

#OVERALL SUMMARY
Horror or thriller? Call it what you will, Seven is undeniably one of the most unnerving and unsettling films of all-time, a timeless modern masterpiece that is as relevant today as it was at the time of it’s release (and will no doubt continue to be just as relevant). With no exceptions, this is a film that needs to be seen by everyone, everywhere. Few films have ever managed to tackle the notion of just how cruel people can be to each other and the world around them, and none have ever done it with as much style as Seven.

John Dedeke

The post Seven (1995) appeared first on Horror Asylum.