Oscar

No Country basically swept the big awards: Director, Supporting Actor, Screenplay, and Picture. The only "major" award it lost is Cinematography, and it almost feels like the voters gave it to There Will Be Blood out of pity. I was happy to see Sweeney Todd win an Oscar. Not because I thought it deserved it, but it's just so rare to see Hollywood honor a horror film on such a big stage. I was disappointed 3:10 to Yuma lost some of the technical awards to Bourne Ultimatum (huh?). How the hell did Transformers lose Visual Effects? Chalk that one up to the anti-Michael Bay sentiment that's all over Hollywood. Classy move for Jon Stewart to let the "Once" girl come back out after the commercial break and give her acceptance speech after her partner hogged the light and they cued her off the stage. That was ridiculous. Anybody else notice that Brad Renfro wasn't in the "In Memoriam" segment? They extended it from 2007 into 2008 to accommodate Heath Ledger. Tacky. Diablo Cody is such a flash in the pan. I'll eat my words if I'm wrong, which I'm not, but this chick is a one-Oscar wonder. She's like Cuba Gooding Jr. of strippers. Happy today, writing Snow Dogs 2, tomorrow.

I'm finishing up everything for the Splatcademy Awards. I think this will be fun. As far as I know, we'll be the only podcasters that have ever attempted something like this (I could be wrong on that. Honestly, I just don't listen to podcasts very often. I find them annoying) and maybe this will get us some more listeners.

Barack needs a xenomorph to visit Hillary

So I saw Ridley Scott's Alien on the big screen this past tuesday. It was great. Nothing like seeing the famous chestburster screen in a theatre full of people. Next up on my list of free movies this semester is Mad Max, Blade Runner, and Robocop among others. What I absolutely can't wait for is The Thing. That film is part of my Holy Trinity as far as movies are concerned (the others being BTiLC, and Halloween) so to see it in a theatre is hugely exciting for me. According to my mother, she took me to it when I was 6 months old. Unfortunately, I don't remember any of that experience :)

Obama is dropping in the polls in South Carolina, which leads me to think that Bill Clinton is single handedly beating him in this race. You know what the interesting thing is? Before Bill got personally involved in the way he is now, Hillary lost to Obama straight up. It was only when Bill Clinton started being the attack dog for his wife that Obama started losing. One South Carolina poll showed Obama's support amongst white's down to 10%. Unbelievable. It's ironic that John Edwards is actually keeping him afloat in South Carolina by splitting the white vote with Hillary when he's hurt him in Nevada and New Hampshire. Obama's support is coming almost solely from blacks in SC. I wouldn't be surprised if this becomes another New Hampshire scenario: a voting bloc that tells pollsters one thing (I'm voting Obama), and then votes Bill Clinton when they get to the voting booth. I'm sitting back and watching all of this with a big blank stare on my face. Bill Clinton has decided to run for president again and Obama really can't do anything to stop it. He's got to hope that something dramatic changes the dynamic, because he's toast. I'm beginning to think he won't even win South Carolina now.

New York is destroyed tonight

In a few hours I'll be watching a giant monster destroy New York. At least, that's what I hope to see. Hopefully the hand held nature of the film will allow for some real glimpses of the monster and not some "blink and you'll miss it" crap. A lot of people are saying Cloverfield is good and a lot of people are saying it's hollow disposable garbage. I'll find out tonight which camp I fall into.

Because I'm watching Cloverfield tonight, I'm going to miss the Democratic debate. In any event, below is the video that everybody is calling a "historic" speech by Barack Obama (it seems that that label is thrown around with him quite often, actually). I question the "historic" tag of it, but it goes to what I've always said that he's such a better speaker with a prepared speech in front of him. Whether you agree with what he says or not (Jeff, I can see your eyes rolling at the Scooter Libby Justice comment :) ), what can't be argued is that he does have a really magnetic and powerful presence when he speaks. I do find it great that he doesn't just pimp the black community (poor choice of words, sorry), but also tells them that the black community has been just as intolerant of King's vision as white's. C'mon South Carolina, don't bow to the Clintons: Vote Obama.

P.S. I won "Backloader of the Year" at Gallup's awards ceremony. I'll let your imagination try to figure out what that one means :)

Bored and cold

Caught two excellent flicks on Friday. First, Alyssa and I went to Sweeney Todd. It's a really good movie. I wouldn't say it is great, though. The songs can get a little long and repetitive in places, I would have liked to have seen more of Sweeney's back story explored (such as his prison time and escape, which wasn't shown at all), and I absolutely hated the stupid "sailor" Anthony. Every time he came on screen, I wanted to punch his face in. The guy just looks like a total sissy and his musical numbers make him the most annoying character I've seen on screen in a long time. Sort of sad, because the film was almost perfectly casted with the exception of that whiny man-bitch. Johnny Depp is aces as Todd and is the highlight of the film. If I were writing a review for Deadlantern, I'd probably give it a 7.5/10

I also caught Eastern Promises over some delicious Valentino's pizza. Cronenberg is one of my favorite directors and I just loved this flick. Great cast, story, and direction. My girlfriend commented that she wished the film had been longer, which I suppose is a compliment in and of itself considering that the film isn't what you'd call "action packed". Cronenberg is such an underappreciated director. I can imagine film scholars fifty years from now rediscovering many of his films and bumping him up the ladder of great directors. I read a rumor that his next film is going to involve Freud and Jung and their interaction with a patient of some sort. Sounds weird, but I'll watch it. Somebody coax him back to the horror genre, please!

I'm still waiting on one more grade to come in this semester. I got A's in Aesthetics, Greek Religion, and Gender/Communication and am now waiting impatiently for my World Politics grade. That's the one class I have no clue as to what my final grade will be and it sucks to have to wait this long to find out.

I purchased Splatterhouse and Punch-Out with my Wii Points cards that I got for Christmas. I haven't spent any time in depth with Splatterhouse, but from little I played, it seemed fun. I got past a couple mini bosses but succumbed to a flying killer picture frame. I'm gonna spend my New Year's Eve slaying monsters. As I was playing, the though occurred to me that if some company were to develop a God of War type game but stuck it in a horror-inspired universe, that could be the greatest game ever. If they can do it for mythological monsters, why not classic horror monsters?

I predict that the Patriots are going to lose to the Giants Saturday night. Just got a feeling...

Sweeney Obama Cheaters

Sweeney Todd has been getting rave reviews and I'm getting anxious to go see it. I absolutely love the broadway version with Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Lovett. It's great and has hilarious tunes. I'm not a big fan of Tim Burton, but this flick looks really nice. I also like the fact that Hans Gruber has been getting so many big roles lately. Dude has the perfect villian voice. He looks a bit too much like an Trent Reznor as an old man in the Harry Potter movies though...

A kind old woman quizzed Obama on his Islam ties today. Even when he explained, she still felt the need to verify that he was a Christian by making him define what a Christian is. This exchange shows that Clinton's goon squad's tactics are working. Planting the question of Muslim in voters' minds doesn't work as well with younger people, but it DOES work great with older voters who tend to be far more prejudiced towards those sorts of things. In other words: The voting bloc Hillary is depending on. If Obama cracks the older vote, then he's won Iowa.

It's going to take a miracle for Florida State to win its bowl game against Kentucky. 36 players aren't going to be playing, most of those because of an academic cheating scandal. What an utter embarrassment. I mean, it would be one thing if these players were cheating and WINNING, but sucking and cheating together stings all the more. And it's not like this shit doesn't happen all over the country. Alyssa had a class a couple years back where the professor let the football players take the same test after the rest of the class take it (thus knowing every question on it) as a matter of POLICY. Which probably explains why there were dozens of football players in that class. Unfortunately for Florida State, they've had, shall we say, a shady reputation of past problems, so they're always going to be under the microscope. I wouldn't suspend these dipshits. I'd gank their scholarships.

I Am Kickass?

I've been anticipating seeing "I Am Legend" all year long. I love the story, I love the the Vincent Price version "Last Man on Earth", and I love post-apocalyptic stuff.

Checking Rotten Tomatoes, it's currently right below a fresh rating at 59%

The general consensus seems to be "Will Smith is awesome, the CGI is god-awful, and the ending is sappy". As I was walking home from work tonight, I passed by a stream of people who were getting out of a showing and all these guys were like "That movie was fucking sad!". Everybody was chatting about it like it was cool, so I've got high hopes that this is one of those films that kicks ass but the critics are too proud to rate highly, for fear of looking like they enjoy a big budget Hollywood flick. I think I might be going to this with Alyssa tomorrow night after work if it isn't snowing badly.

Speaking of work, I heard a bunch of people around me doing USA Today surveys and asking questions about the presidential elections. I'm not sure if this is just a general nation wide survey, or if Gallup has started individual states yet, but soon I should have a better idea as to where Obama actually stands. One of the latest in state Iowa polls shows Obama with a commanding 9 point lead over Hillary. That seems a little overly optimistic. Still, he's gotten nothing but great press since Oprah and Hillary has looked like a shrill, vindictive bitch the past week or so. If you want to see a campaign in absolute desperation mode, you have to watch Hillary's campaign strategist try and weasel his way out of the negative publicity in this video. Mark Penn wobbles back and forth and actually uses the "Cocaine" word when denying Shaheen's attack (Shaheen himself didn't even say cocaine when talking about Obama's past drug use). Keep your eye on Joe Trippi who looks at Penn in utter disgust.

Mark Penn: sleazeball.

There's some news out that the Halloween 6 producer's cut may finally be coming out on DVD in the future. I hope so. I've always wanted to see it.


Dog Soldiers miraculously showed up in my mailbox this afternoon (along with Hollywood Gothic by David Skal) and I watched it with some Subway and Doritos. I had seen this, gosh, probably 5 years ago, but didn't really remember much of it. I think I was distracted at the time. Anyway, watching it again, I liked it more than I thought I did. I was pleasantly surprised to see Kevin McKidd in the lead role. He's one of my favorite actors going right now (still mad I missed Journeyman this year). There's just something missing in this film for me. It's got so many great elements that I like, but I can't shake the feeling that it doesn't all come together like it should. Some of the editing is bad and the werewolves seemed to be under-utilized to their full potential. Still, I like it, just not enough to give it a glowing review.

B-

Braving the cold for a Nintendo Wii

Batman Begins was fantastic. Arguably, the best part of it was the last scene where Commissioner Gordon gives Batman the joker card, thus tantalizing us for the inevitable kickass sequel. Heath Ledger was cast as Joker, much to the chagrin of many people? Clear pics are finally coming out and I've gotta say, Ledger looks pretty great as the Joker. There's a real sense of menace or something here. Not like Nicholson, who played it as over-the-top as only Nicholson can do. But the problem with Nicholson was that he never seemed psycho enough. I suppose that fits with Burton's world, but now that Nolan is doing a more "realistic" Batman world, I have a feeling that the Joker is going to be one scary mofo. Good to see he's still rockin' the purple, as well.

Tomorrow morning, I'm heading off with my mom to stand in front of Toys R' Us at 6 a.m. in hopes of getting a Wii. I decided to tag along for moral support. She's picking one up for my step-sister and her husband, and I figured I'd be a good son and hang with her. Then I figured "Geez, I should just buy one myself and sell it on eBay". So that's what I'm going to do if I can get my hands on one. Supposedly, Toys R' Us is getting 21 Wii's in tomorrow morning and if I can, I might as well pick one up for my misery standing in the cold and sell it for a nice profit. Yay capitalism! :)

Frank Rich has an interesting Op-Ed piece in the New York Times about how Obama could be the Republicans' worst nightmare if he gets the Dem nomination. My pal Jeff seems to have this same view as he was trying to convince me that Obama would fare much better in the general election than Hillary. I'm still not completely sold on that line of thinking. It's one thing to have all these nice predictions a year ahead of time, but for the vast majority of Americans, they still have no idea who Barack Obama is. Most Americans wake up and start paying attention to the election when there are only two choices left, Democatic and Repbulican, and then it's a whole new ball game.

Nevertheless, all these glowing Op-Ed pieces are popping up because Hillary is dropping in the polls. The latest Crapmussen is showing her lead in the single digits in New Hampshire. These daily polls are fun to digest on a superficial level, but wake me when Gallup starts polling in these states. I'm still ecstatically restrained, but could the snowball be getting bigger and could it be rolling faster?

Next week is going to be insane. I've got to write 3 long papers and 1 extremely long paper (15-20 pages). Then I've got to finish the Outpost Doom script. I've got a lot of damn writing to do in the next couple weeks.

I like the blank way you fill up my mind

Alyssa and I went out into the country Sunday night (after stopping by Taco Bell to try those new chicken taquitos) to watch the Perseid meteor shower. We watched for an hour and only saw 3 comet particles burn up in the atmosphere. Disappointing. Maybe there was just too much light from the city still glowing up the sky from a distance.

We're watching The Mummy next class period. Can. Not. Wait.

The guys seemed to really dig The Body Snatcher on the latest Splattercast. Even Deejay seemed to like it, which I found sort of surprising. Next up on my list The Ghoul and a companion piece of sorts to The Body Snatcher, the Peter Cushing/Donald Pleasance vehicle The Flesh and the Fiends. This underrated film actually focuses on Burke and Hare rather than the Robert Louis Stevenson short story that Body Snatcher is based on. It'll be interesting to see how they compare the two.

Rather than post all 113 of my favorite films in one post, I'm just going to do 10 or so at a time. These are in no particular order since most of these will just be off the top of my head until i start getting down to the last 20 or so, but here's the first 10:

1) Big Trouble in Little China
2) I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang
3) Halloween
4) The Last Man on Earth
5) Requiem for a Dream
6) The Body Snatcher (it's fresh in my memory!)
7) Wild Boys of the Road
8) Paranoiac
9) Cell 2455, Death Row
10) Vertigo

I am mad at technology. Mostly because I just don't understand it. I've got this problem that's annoying simply because I don't get how to easily fix the problem when I know an answer is floating out there somewhere.

Last friday, Turner Classic Movies had a Vincent Price marathon and there were a couple flicks that I had to obtain. There are multiple reasons why TCM is the best movie channel on television, but one of the foremost reasons is that they show old movies that are unavailable on DVD or VHS. Every once in a while, the occasional unreleased horror film will be shown. One of these films was The Mad Magician which I've only read about and eagerly wanted to record. I've got my computer hooked up so that I can watch cable television on it and used Windows Media Center to record the film while I was at school . So now I've got an unavailable copy of The Mad Magician sitting patiently on my harddrive. Awesome!

Well, sorta. I hate watching movies on my monitor, so I decided to use Media Center to burn a DVD of the film. It'll burn the film all right, but after 2 freaking hours, it was only 25% finished. It seems the "this may take several hours" message is right on. I got sick of waiting and tried to look for an alternate way to burn the disc. There must be an easier way, right? So I look at the file and it is in some div-r format. I tried opening it in Premiere and it is an unsupported file type. I tried using MovieMaker and got the same message. I was hoping to open up the damn file and trim the bit of commercials I recorded before and after the film but apparently I can't do that. I'm assuming I need to convert this div-r file to something else in order to allow me to open it in an editing program, but damn if I'm not just pissed off at the whole thing. I went into the Media Center options to see if it can output my recorded movies to a different file type but couldn't find any such option.

I really like the ability to record these rare films on my PC. I've normally had to make due with taping them to VHS, which degrades the picture quality something terrible, and I really don't want to go back to that way of procuring stuff like The Mad Magician. I know there must be an easy way to correct this situation. I just wish I had that knack for "getting" technology that all my other friends seem to have. Eh, I'm sure I'll figure it out soon enough.

Now, time to go watch Slaughter Hotel

Stardust looks sucky

Stardust looks like the biggest pile of crap hitting theaters this year since Evan Almighty. I can't decide whether it's just the horrid trailer (which unwisely states all the things "you've seen before") or if the story just looks unoriginal and stupid as all hell. Of course, I haven't read the book it's based on, and I'm sure Neil Gaiman wrote something interesting, but there seems to be zero buzz about this movie. I'm predicting that it will crash and burn this weekend. Maybe I'm just put off by fantasy male leads named Tristran...

I caught Shadow of the Thin Man earlier this afternoon. Good stuff, however it's much less interesting than the earlier Thin Man movies. William Powell and Myrna Loy are still great together, but this film is far removed from the raging alcoholics they were in the first film. Nick still likes his cocktails, but now that the characters have a kid, they are far more "mature", therefore losing much of the charm they had together on screen. The wisecracks just don't have the same oomph that they used to, but Asta is still awesome.

C+

Speaking of Monday, I'm going to be very interested to see how the guys react to the film I selected for review for this week's Splattercast, The Body Snatcher. I don't think any of them, particularly Deejay, really get into old films like this. Since I'm planning on only picking older films to review from now on (in an effort to introduce these great films to our audience, which probably hasn't seen any of them, and to give some background info on the films), it'll be fun to see whether or not the guys hate it, therefore dreading the next film they've got to watch from me, or maybe they'll like it and anticipate the next one. Should be interesting...

Random tidbits: mini-reviews and news

Made it through the first season of Deadwood. I was slightly disappointed. I really dug the characters and all the actors are perfect. But the story lines given to those characters were pretty lame. Maybe the subsequent seasons will improve the narrative, as I can understand that this first season is an introduction, but meh. The only character I'm not sold on is Timothy Olyphant as Seth Bullock and I didn't particularly like how Wild Bill Hickock was portrayed. Regardless, I liked it enough to want to watch season 2.

B-

I also watched the first episode of David Duchovny's new Showtime series Californication. Have you ever wondered what would have happened if Mulder and Scully had hooked up, had a kid, and then Scully had left him for a regular guy? That's pretty much this show. Duchovny plays a writer with an eternal case of writer's block whose "wife" has left him. In the meantime, he replaces writing by banging hot women, being a sarcastic bastard (imagine Mulder's humor and add in extreme nihilism), and banging more hot women. He's also trying to deal with his 12 year old daughter who is maturing a little faster than he thinks she should. I thought the show was pretty cool. You can tell that the creators stuck as many tits in it as humanly possible. No less then four girls are banged by Duchovny in the 30 minute episode. I laughed multiple times throughout and with a little refinement (dialog could be a little better), I can see this being a really good show. Plus, the "twist" at the end of the first episode will definitely make you want to watch the rest of the series. A good solid start.

B

Earlier today in my film class, another point was revealed as to why going to the movies is better than watching them on TV. We watched Babyface and although my professor had seen the film a dozen times, had written an entire article about the film, she had never seen it on the big screen. When it was over, she got incredibly excited and was telling us all of the unique things that she had never seen before that doesn't come across on a television. So, you have somebody who has spent years of their life watching a film, dissecting it in every way...and by seeing it on the big screen they see things in the film they've never seen before. Chalk it up to another reason movies are better on the big screen.

There are now allegations floating around that Pat Tillman was murdered. The White House and Pentagon won't release some documents about the case due to executive privilege. Hypothetically, if it turns out that friendly fire was not the cause of death, does that mean that the Bush administration has been covering up a murder? If they did cover up a murder...what the hell happens then? Now, I'm not going to jump off that ledge yet, but there's some weird information coming out about Tillman that makes you sort of stand back and say "um...this doesn't feel quite right..."

Tomorrow, I begin my candidacy for the 2016 presidency. Don't miss it!

Goofy can't smoke?

The big movie news today is the fact that Disney has banned smoking in its "family" films. I fully expect Disney to go back and digitally remove the cigarettes from Cruella DeVille's fingers.

Disney is calling this a historical and groundbreaking edict. Is it, though? Do kids watch cartoon characters smoke and say "Damn, Goofy is badass cuz he's puffin' a stogie!" The implication is that seeing characters smoke on screen causes people to smoke. Disney is making a concerted effort to keep its cartoon personalities from promoting a truly despicable habit. That's admirable, in a way.

But here's where the problem comes in: Where does Disney stop and how does it justify the other "bad" things in its films? Let me first say that this isn't going to affect films by Touchstone and Miramax. Disney's statement is that it will strongly "discourage" smoking in films put out by these companies. That's code for "We're not going to do a damn thing if Tarantino wants to make Smoking Bastards of Hellcat Highway".

So for now, it's just relegated to Disney flicks starring the pre-cokehead Lindsay Lohan's of the world...and their cartoons. I wonder why this is being treated as so revolutionary by the press? This is self-censorship. It is a company telling its artists "sorry, you can't do that". But you know what, I'll bet Disney will have no qualms about bringing 101 Dalmatians out of their vault in a few years for an HD release. Their commercials will say something like "The TIMELESS Disney classic that you will want to share with your children again and again". One of the most famous villians in animation history is Cruella DeVille. Her trademark, besides her hair, is the fact that she is a chain smoking bitch. In a film like Dalmatians, the smoking is made to look bad. The puppies regularly cough and wheeze. The cigarettes are portrayed as disgusting, yet they become an integral part of Cruella's character. I wonder how many children start hitting 8 packs a day after watching the film? My guess is zero.

But where does Disney stop? Do they tell their animators "You know what? Cut out all the fight sequences in Hercules because we don't want kids to start fighting each other. While you're at it, better cover Ariel with a little more than a seashell bikini because we don't want kids to get any unnatural ideas." I don't doubt that Disney's intentions may be partially honorable (though I do think this is a marketing ploy for some good PR), but I think it makes Disney out to be a complete hypocrite.

Groups have been lobbying forever to get smoking out of Hollywood movies. Those voices now have a much larger sound due to Disney's PR tactic. The chants of "ban smoking in the movies" is going to get much louder. Hypothetically, if in 20 years the anti-smoking lobbyists pressure into effect an actual ban on smoking in movies, what happens to the first 120 years of cinema? Do we ban every movie that ever had a character who smokes in it? Will Turner Classic Movies be forced to shove all those Film Noir's into a vault? Will John Wayne become an American anti-hero?

I firmly believe that movies have a tangible effect on people. I don't discount the possibility that someone might see David Strathairn in Good Night and Good Luck and decide to turn their lungs black in a week. But "banning" what can and can't be shown in movies is censorship, plain and simple. Disney comes out safe in this. I'd venture to guess that if you asked most parents whether or not smoking should be in cartoons, they'd say "no". Then again, if you asked those same parents if they like Elmer Fudd shooting Daffy Duck in the face with a shotgun, they'd say "yeah!". So Disney gets some good "common sense" PR and the rest of Hollywood is left to fight the dogs that have now been set upon it. Could this seemingly innocent Disney smoking ban lead to a new Production Code? I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised to see slow steps moving in that direction.

Museum of the Damned

A couple years back, I had the pleasure of viewing Wolf Rilla's Village of the Damned on film. The print I watched had the distinction of being the only one known in existence. The last known celluloid copy of Damned was as you'd expect: after 45 years, the print was hanging on for dear life. The frames were scratched badly and many of them had shrunk. Three times during the screening the film had to be stopped in order for the reels to be reloaded because many of the perforations were shredded. The quality was abysmal. I didn't find out until after the film screened that I had just seen the last original print in existence. MGM decided not to spend the money to restore and make copies for future audiences.

Over the fourth of July holiday, I overheard my mother having a conversation with a family member about Shawn Levy's Night at the Museum. I had taken my mom, grandma, and sister to the film when it was released in theaters. It's one of those perfect "family films" that is safe enough for your grandma while still being entertaining for your little sister. Everybody loved it. In fact, it was quite disturbing to me just how much my mother loved it. She instantly declared it as one of her favorite film ever, and was laughing hysterically and repeating the jokes and gags all the way home. So of course, she eagerly purchased the DVD upon its release and the subject was never mentioned again until this past fourth of July.

That's when I overheard my mother and grandma (she loved it as well, just not to the psychotic extremes of ma') complaining about the film. My ears perked up and I began eavesdropping on the conversation. Unfortunately, their talk ended with the frenzy to cook hamburgers and pie. On the way back to Lincoln, I asked my mom about what I'd overheard her say. She went into a big rant about how, though she still thought the movie was "good", that it just "wasn't the same" as when we'd seen it in the theater. I had just had a "debate" (which I firmly believe is an impossibility on the internet) with some buddies about this very topic, so I was interested in getting an outside person's viewpoint. It was a typical response from people trying to explain why the theatrical viewing experience is better than the home viewing experiece: "I don't know..it just is"

Film Scholars talk about the "warmth" of watching a film in its original format. They argue that there is a tangible effect that impacts the senses of the viewer differently than the "coldness" of the digital format, such as a DVD. My mom tried as best she could to explain it. She thought the jokes just didn't work as well on the small screen. She thought the facial expressions of the actors, especially the close-ups, just weren't as funny as they were when they were 30 feet tall. The film's sense of scope was smaller. The T-Rex just didn't seem very imposing, and so on. Basically, she was dismayed that a film that had been one of her favorites had suddenly been merely "ok" when she watched it on DVD. My mom's television is 27"; not huge, but not overly small either (although, according to some people, the theatrical experience suddenly begins at 32"). In other words, Night at the Museum was not the same movie on DVD as it was in the Theatre.

When I got back, I spent a few days at my girlfriends' parents house. They have a 52" big screen TV. I watched Running Scared, The Pursuit of Happyness, The Illusionist, and The Hitcher. Not once was I ever being affected the same way as watching a movie theatrically. It was a bigger screen, so therefore it should have been an "equal" viewing experience, right?

No. The theatre is superior to TV.

There's a reason Village of the Damned was screened in its original format rather than the DVD. The DVD wouldn't have stalled three times into the film. It would have looked a lot cleaner. The audio would have been much better. On the face of it, there should be no reason to ever watch a print in such poor quality when there is something so obviously "superior". But therein lies the greatness of the theatre. Whatever the home viewing experience can claim to do, the theatre can do it, but not vice versa.

Let me say first up that whether or not an individual likes or prefers one way of watching a movie over the other is irrelevant. Maybe you just hate going to the theatre. That's fine. But don't kid yourself by trying to argue the point that watching a movie on your TV is the equivalent of seeing it on a movie screen. Here's the reasons why:

1. The most obvious is the size of the screen. You're never going to be able to replicate the immersion a huge theatre screen can give you in your home. If a 52" television screen is not big enough to give you the exact same viewing experience as a theatre, then it's never going to happen for you. Most sane home viewing loyalists cede this point. And you can forget that line of vision bullshit. If I watch Evil Dead on my pc screen while sitting two feet away from it, that's not the same thing. Just like it's not if I watch a 52" TV sitting 8' away.

2. Less distractions. This is one of two major points that TV adherents latch on too. The theory goes that when you get to a theatre, you have to deal with cell phones, people talking, kicking seats, etc. etc. What isn't ever talked about are the distractions at home.

Here's a few: Cell phones ring at home. Sometimes you get hungry, pause the movie, go grab a sandwich, then come back. It becomes much easier, when watching a film with a friend or spouse, to make comments and talk during it. Your eyes (and this is actually a scientifically verified fact) tend to wander around the room. Maybe the flick you're watching is sorta boring, so you're more apt to look over at that Death Proof poster on your wall that seems a little off-center. There's the definite aspect of having to stop/pause and rewind something, causing an unnatural break in the movie viewing experience. Personally, I refuse to piss when I go to the theatre. At home, I'll pause the movie.

The point is that there are at the very least an equal, if not more, distractions at home than at a theatre. At best, you can call it a wash, at worst, you can call TV the distraction center of the universe.

3. The Theatre "Experience". Yes, you can have surround sound at home. Have me over sometime when you blast it at the levels of a theatre. "But it's all relative!", you say. No, it isn't. Again, maybe you like your home surround system, but that isn't replicating what a theatre can do. The sound in a theatre has a physical effect on your body that can't be replicated by the average home theatre experience. The only way this is possible is if you have your own home and neighbors that won't call the cops when they hear explosions across the picket fence. If you live in an apartment...forget about it.

Another aspect of the theatre is the "strangers" effect. When you're in a theatre with a bunch of people you don't know, you become influenced (sometimes minutely, sometimes largely) by their reactions, either by gasps and screams in a horror film, or crying and weeping during a melodrama. You can't control this variable. You may hate every single person around you, and you may do your very best to place yourself in your own personal vacuum, but it isn't possible not to be affected somehow by the strangers around you. The argument now will become "But I can bring a bunch of friends over and get the same feelings". No, you can't. This is because human beings are affected differently by people they don't know. Your friends are "safe", you can anticipate how they will react to something, and most importantly you can interact with them at any time during the viewing experience. You can't do that with a bunch of strangers in a theater.

4. The price of going to the theatre is outrageous! Is it really? It's pretty trendy to slam on the price of a theatre ticket. It's also trendy to use New York and L.A. as examples of how crazy ticket prices are. It's true. Ticket prices have gone up over the years. But according to the National Association of Theatre Owners, the average price of a ticket last year was $6.55 If you look at the stats since 1990, that's only a $2.33 increase. That may sound pricey, but considering the demand for blockbuster movies with insane special fx costs and twenty million dollar actors, it's surprising ticket prices are as low as they are. Here in Lincoln, a saturday matinee for two people, two waters, and an order of nachos is $16.50. Reasonable, considering most new DVD's cost $15 or more and if you include the high price of the HD DVD's, then that's something else entirely.

The argument against this is "I can wait until it comes out on DVD and then just rent it for $4.00". Sure, you could definitely do that. But then you aren't watching the movies, you're watching television...

5. You're not watching the movies, you're watching television. Any movie that is in a theatre is designed to be seen in a theatre. That's the whole point. You don't shoot a movie on 35mm and then say "gee whiz, I'm sure glad this isn't being shown in a retarded movie theatre!" The very medium demands that it is projected onto a big screen. The DVD medium is designed for a television. The TV screen and the Theatre screen are two different mediums that are projected differently and thus, need to be treated as such. Now, is one "superior" over the other?

What's the difference between watching Treasure of the Sierra Madre on TCM uncut commercial free, and popping in the DVD? The answer is that there is no difference. Now take Treasure and put it on the big screen. Now what's the difference? Everything. As mentioned earlier, a television cannot replicate what the theatre does, but the theatre CAN replicate what the television does.

Hi-def is the newest arrow in the home theatre quiver. Rather than get into the nuances of hi-def as it effects the cinema experience, let's just give the home theatre enthusiasts this one. Of course, theatres can be equipped with any of the same hi-def equipment that a home theatre has. You wanna watch that overrated Wes Anderson flick in hi-def at home? Think of how great it looks on the big screen of a theatre, with all the extra bells and whistles that can't be replicated in your living room. Hell, just think of how awesome The Sopranos would be on a theatre screen. The excuse that "my TV image can look BETTER than a theatre screen" is moot when one realizes that a hi-def capable theatre can do the same thing.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that on a technical level, your television is equal to the theatre. The image quality is the same. Your "line of vision" counteracts the 30 foot cinema screen. Your surround sound is on par with a theatre, relatively speaking. You still can't get the other intangibles that a theatre offers in your living room. There is only one thing that home viewing can use to try and offset the extra stuff the theatre can provide...

6. Convenience. This is what it ultimately comes down to and this is where personal preference muddies the debate. Convenience has nothing to do with a comparison of the mediums. I'm a die-hard supporter of the theatre experience (can you tell?). If I had the means, I would watch every movie in a theatre rather than on a TV. Unfortunately, I just can't do that. Nobody can. I get plenty of enjoyment from throwing Creepshow into my DVD player and kicking back with some snacks. There is nothing wrong with that in any way shape or form. In fact, I find nothing even remotely wrong with anyone who says they like or prefer that way of viewing movies. It's personal preference, not an objective perspective of the pros and cons between the theatre and TV.

From a pure convenience standpoint, home viewing has the edge. Pretty much all mainstream movies from the past 50 years can be found on Netflix (though if you try to find anything even remotely obscure, I've found Netflix to be incredibly lacking) and delivered to your mailbox. There are thousands of films that will never be on DVD, but the only demand for them is by film geeks like myself; a niche market. But watching Village of the Damned the way it was intended, with a projector and film reels, is just not the same as putting a DVD in your player and seeing it on your hi-def 32" TV screen.

Is it "warmth"? I find that term to be insufficient. The reality is that even Film Scholars have a hard time putting the difference into words. The point is that the effects can be measured. Give nearly all filmmakers a choice, and they are going to want their films shown in a theatre. The reason is because of people like my mom, who have such a different reaction to a film simply because of the way it's shown. Studios pay a lot of money to get their films shown in theatres. If the home theatre experience is so great, I've gotta wonder why they even bother with the expense of prints, advertising, etc.? There's a reason why people go back to the theatres over and over again, and it isn't just to watch the movie. It's because its an experience they can't get in their living rooms.

In closing, the theatrical experience is superior to the home viewing experience. It doesn't matter how big your TV is. It doesn't matter how clear the image is. It doesn't matter how grand your sound system is. Convenience is irrelevant. A movie on a TV is still nothing more than a movie on TV, whether it's a cable line or a DVD.

The theatre, however, can do everything your living room can do...and things it can't.

Review: Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers

With the exception of the inconceivably awful Halloween: Resurrection, no film in the Halloween franchise is as reviled as Curse amongst fans. It had been a long time since I'd watched it so I popped it in this evening (along with Resurrection) to give it a fresh look. While it definitely deserves its reputation for sucking, I found there to be quite a bit of stuff I liked about the film. The problem was the story the filmmakers decided to frame the film with.

A lot of things go into why this film is despised by Halloween fans. The main reason is the "explanation" of Mike's origin. If you haven't been keeping tabs, it turns out he's the chosen child possessed by some ancient Celtic god named Thorn. A group of modern day Druids uses Myers as a tool in which to experiment with pure evil and kill off his family in order for theirs to be safe...or something like that. It gets pretty convoluted and once Tommy Doyle shows up to explain that Shatner goes on a murder spree every time a constellation appears in the sky, the film becomes the equivalent of the Pope blaspheming God. There's no way to defend any of this "origin". It's just shit, plain and simple. The story is a continuation of stuff that was hinted at in Revenge, such as the weird rune symbol on Mike's wrist. Whatever. After watching Curse, you'll understand why H20 pretended that 4,5, and 6 never existed (although to be fair, 4 is a pretty good flick).

What I did appreciate in Curse was the attempt to bring some familiarity back to the franchise. I loved that they brought back Tommy Doyle, one of the surviving kids from the first flick. I didn't particularly care for how the actor played the part, but it seemed like an understandable continuation. It was great to see a character from the original other than Loomis try to get involved. I absolutely hated the idea that the "Man in Black" (don't get me started...) somehow kidnapping and impregnating Jamie, but I did like the concept of the baby needing protection from Michael. Not only does the baby continue the family bloodline (thus giving Myers continued reason to kill), but it makes for a great character completely helpless on one side and a burden to the others in the film that have to protect it. All the filmmakers needed to do was trash the entire Druid/demon/constellation storyline and this could have been a really decent flick.

A couple other things. I thought there were some great shots of Myers hiding/coming out of the shadows. The film has a definite cinematic polish to it and some of the death scenes and cinematography with Mike are top-notch. Donald Pleasence is just sad here. It's not that he acts bad (he's only in a handful of short scenes), but with each subsequent film in the series, his health gets noticeably worse and worse. It's almost like you're watching someone die on film, literally, before your eyes. This was his last film, and although he classes it up, you just can't help but feel awkward. It just feels like Moustapha Akkad grabbed him off his deathbed by gunpoint and said "be in this movie".

The one last thing that ruins this movie is the incredibly lame "death" of Myers. Tommy Doyle just beats him over the head repeatedly with a pipe and...that's it. Loomis shows up cryptically to say something about unfinished business and the the movie abruptly ends with Myers' mask lying on the ground. Huh?! When you couple the lame ending with all of the Druid nonsense, the movie becomes unsalvageable. Too bad, because there is a really good skeleton frame of a film here with some interesting characters and a kernel of a great continuation to the series, but there's just too much crap that doesn't make any sense (somebody explain to me how Mike got in the van to kill the deejay).

There is a "Producer's Cut" to this film that I've never been able to get a hold of. It apparently fleshes out the story a lot better than the theatrical release. I've heard it's a lot better but still retains all of the dumb Druid stuff. I'd like to see it sometime.

D+

Editorial: Revisiting a Supposed Horror "classic", Friday the 13th

In 1996, director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson created Scream, a film that reinvented the slasher film and genre. The film's now famous opening scene involves Ghostface calling Drew Barrymore and forcing her to answer horror trivia in order to save her and her boyfriend's life. The most memorable question is Ghostface asking his victim: "Who was the killer in Friday the 13th?" Barrymore quickly responds with "Jason! It was Jason!!!!". Of course, as we die-hard horror fans know, Jason wasn't the killer in the first movie and Ghostface quickly dispatches of Gertie.

What's interesting about this piece of horror writing is that most common folks would have given Jason as the answer to Ghostface's question. The fact that this minor piece of trivia becomes so clever and powerful is that it first establishes that the audience has no earthly clue as to why Friday the 13th is famous in the first place while simultaneously reinforcing the notion that the film is known not for its quality, but for one character who doesn't appear in it until a 5 second "dream sequence" at the very end.

I'm going to take an unpopular stance within the realm of horror fans and supporters. I'm going to argue that Friday the 13th is no "classic". It's popularity and notoriety are due in large part to the series taken as a whole, 80's pop-culture factors, and an unwarranted reputation (extreme gore, sex, and nudity) that has become the stuff of pop legend. To say that Friday the 13th is a "good" horror movie requires one to suspend disbelief and sense, something horror fans have seemed more than welcome to do the past 25 years.

Let me first state that I like the F13 films. I have no inherent disdain towards the slasher genre. I consider Bob Clark's Black Christmas and John Carpenter's Halloween to be right up there in my top tier of favorite horror films. As far as I'm concerned, the F13 films are all fun in their own way, some way better than others, but I don't begrudge the notion that horror fans prop this series up on a pedestal. Jason Voorhees is an iconic horror figure, no doubt about that. Watching him spear, hack, and slice up one-dimensional characters never gets old. The sheer amount of movies in the series (10, not including Freddy vs. Jason, all released theatrically by major studios Paramount and New Line) is part of the appeal and something most horror franchises (other than that venerable Witchcraft series) can't match. The fun ofthe F13 series is in the idea, not the execution of the movies themselves.

So here we are, revisiting the film that "started it all", the original Friday the 13th directed by Sean S. Cunningham. To take a close and critical look at this movie requires a couple of things. First, you must divorce yourself from all the baggage associated with the rest of the series. There's been 25 years of hype to set aside and since the F13 films are one of the premiere "gateway" franchises for prospective horror fans, you've got to suppress any warm and fuzzy feelings of nostalgia. In effect, you've got to pretend that Friday the 13th is in a vacuum; that it's a stand-alone film and judge it on its own merits. When we do that, what do we get?

The plot of the film is about as simplistic as you can get: a group of teens restarting a summer camp get picked off one-by-one by an unseen killer. From the opening scene (a killer POV shot), it becomes clear that the film is a blatant knock-off of Halloween, a film that was released a couple years earlier and became the highest grossing indie film of all-time. There is no denying that the film is an attempt to cash-in on the sudden demand for slasher films that came with the success of Halloween. Interestingly, I've never heard a supporter of F13 do so because of the film's "quality". If you compare Sean S. Cunningham's direction against that of John Carpenter, you'll find no comparison. I challenge any horror fan to watch the two films back-to-back and find an area where F13 is superior. Understand that one's personal feeling's of preference or whether you "like" one over the other is irrelevant. I'm talking strictly on the cinematic level these two films have no comparison in terms of quality. F13 to Halloween is the equivalent of De Palma to Hitchcock. The divide is immense, measurable, and easy to see. It's just not in the same league.

Now, just because something is a knock-off of something better, doesn't necessarily mean that the movie is bad per se. After all, even De Palma put out some good films by plagiarizing Hitchcock, though to compare De Palma and Cunningham would be an insult to De Palma. So let's de-construct some of the reasons, and myths, as to why F13 works. Maybe then we can get to the heart of why it is considered a "classic".

1) The story is great, the setting is classic.

The story behind Jason Voorhees (drowned in Crystal Lake while the counselors were "making love") is one of the most recognizable in horrordom. It's become a mythology in its own right. But remember, we're just focusing on the first movie here, and pretending as if the ensuing 10 films never existed. The film opens in 1958 and then flashes forward to the present. We find out that the camp has been closed ever since the deaths of the two counselors who are making out at the beginning of the film. Sprinkled throughout the film are characters who show up to offer cryptic insights, but nobody ever explicitly implies that Jason is the character who may or may not be running around. I'd argue strongly that Jason is never made a threat and his presence is not integral to either the characters or the audience themselves. Instead, you have a pseudo-mystery (who's the killer?) involving an unseen killer (who seems to be recognized by a couple characters before they are offed...) hacking up teens in non-gory ways (more on this later). The back story is serviceable, but there is nothing more to it than something like Halloween and in the context of the film, it doesn't really strike fear into the audience. The setting itself is a good one (an isolated camp) but Cunningham never makes full use of the isolated nature of the camp and the visuals become too repetitive over the course of the film. The setting is just a variation on the standard formula, and one that is not supported to its full potential.

2) This film sparked the 80's horror boom!

Sort of untrue depending on how you look at it. The reality is that Friday the 13th was just one of many that were jumping on the Halloween success train. Other slashers released the same year included Tourist Trap, Terror Train, Mother's Day, De Palma's Dressed to Kill, and even Carpenter's ghostly slashers in The Fog. There had already been a strong trend towards these films when Friday the 13th came along. Where F13 gets props is for being the most successful of the bunch, grossing about 40 million dollars. However, grossing that much money doesn't necessarily mean people liked it. The sequel released the following year (and other than the first 15 minutes, a clearly superior film than the original in almost every respect) only grossed half that amount showing that audiences had a decided lack of enthusiasm to the original film. It took word of mouth, the introduction of Jason Voorhees, and the novelty of "the final chapter" for 3 and 4 to make some bank. But the fact that the original film had such a drop-off in audience in comparison to the sequel is very telling in my opinion. I think it shows a direct correlation between the success of the character of Jason Voorhees, rather than the success of the film itself. In other words, the series started getting its love not from the original film, but from the accumulation of all the films together and the character of Jason Voorhees. Did F13 lead to the 80's horror boom? It had an impact on subsequent slashers in that they all wanted to mimic the formula to gain the same amount of success, but to say it began the 80's horror movement is giving it far too much credit. There were many other factors for that, not the least of which was home video.

3) The sex and violence are awesome! Long live Savini!

This is probably the most overrated aspect of F13 and not surprisingly the fall back position for every supporter of the film. F13 is one of those films that seems a lot more violent and racy than it actually is. This is not a new phenomenon. TCM is considered by many to be one of the goriest movies ever made even though it has less than a single bottle of Karo used throughout. Same goes for Halloween, which is incredibly light on gore and T&A (girls frolic around in their underwear a lot, but even the most famous scene, P.J. Soles's "see anything you like?" is no payoff). To illustrate this, I'm going to go through the numerous kills in the film. To be fair, F13 was allegedly butchered by the MPAA, but we can only go based off what we see in the film. Maybe it would have been more impressive without the censorship, we'll never know. So, here's the kills. I'll let you be the judge of how graphic they are:

1. counselor holds bloody stomach. stabbing is not shown.
2. counselor screams, freeze frame, opening credits.
3. counselor's throat slit. Shown for less than 3 seconds before fade to white.
4. counselor shown with throat slit on top bunk, killed off camera
5.Kevin Bacon's famous "throat scene", lasts 6 seconds.
6. counselor gets axe to the head. impact not shown. shot lasts 2 seconds.
7. counselor killed off camera
8. lead counselor killed off camera.
9. counselor killed off camera, later found to have arrow in his head and torso. shot lasts 3 seconds.
10. decapitation of Mrs. Voorhees. less than 2 seconds.

As for the T&A, only one couple actually has sex in the film. During the sex scene, no nudity is shown other than Kevin Bacon's ass. In fact, the only time you see a boob (and it's only one, funny enough) is after the sex has taken place and even then, only briefly. So what you have here is a film that has reached legendary status for how gory it is and for how much nudity is has, when in reality it doesn't have much of either. The funny thing is that this is probably one of the tamest films Tom Savini has ever done. Dawn of the Dead is an example of something far gorier than this.

So what you have is a film that is 95 minutes of plodding, uninteresting buildup and less than 20 seconds of actual violence and nudity. I wonder if anyone has ever stopped to think about that for a second. You've got a film with no characters of any discernible interest, whose only saving grace is supposedly the villian, Mrs. Voorhees...

4) Mrs. Voorhees is the shiznit!

First off, the idea that Jason's mother is the killer and not Jason himself is a great one. The few scenes where Betsy Palmer goes a little off her rocker are awesome. But a couple shots do not make a great villian. In reality, the last 20 minutes of the movie is a plump old woman chasing a young girl around the woods. They slap each other around a bit. They sorta "throw down", but in a "we don't want to get hurt making this low-budget movie" kind of way. It's really a pretty pathetic sequence when you really think about it. The character of Jason's mother has become iconic, but it's noteworthy that the character is more recognizable as a rotten head surrounded by candles .

If you really sit down and watch Friday the 13th you'll realize very quickly that as a film, it's almost nonexistent. It's got a clever title, a reputation that is more myth than reality, and frankly isn't even the most entertaining or well-made film in the series. Over at Deadlantern.com, my friend Jeff posted his top 10 in the series and listed this as #1. One of his reasons was because "it laid the foundation for one of the most enduring franchises in horror history". That's true, but that has nothing to do with the movie itself. If F13 were released today, it would be ridiculed for its terrible pacing, uninspired one-dimensional characters, lack of gore and sex, as well as its lame direction. It's amazing what 25 years can do to a film...

And ultimately, that's all I'm saying. I'm not knocking Friday the 13th so much as I'm trying to show that the credibility it has accumulated over the years is not the result of the film itself, but the entire sum of the series and everything that sprang forth from the series.. Just like Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees became a pop-culture icon in the 80's (I was Jason for Halloween one year, Freddy the next). The horror industry turned its boogeymen into merchandise. An R rated horror movie became a video game for kids to play on their Nintendo. Jason was elevated to something above cult status and became a household name. Tons of sequels were released, each more ridiculous than the last, and I think the original film became lumped into the frenzy that came about because of it. People have a natural inclination to prefer the "original" over what comes after, but a strict reading of the original film shows that the legend doesn't live up to the reality.

If you do not let the other films influence your viewing experience, you'll find that Friday the 13th is an incredibly overrated film. One that does not hold up upon repeat viewings and one that's more notable for what comes after it than for what it itself is.

a Rampage in Cloverfield

If there's one thing the internet loves, it's mysterious marketing campaigns. J.J. Abrams (the dude behind the most overrated television show of all-time, Lost) put the above trailer before Transformers and almost immediately the internet was geeking out. As you can see, the trailer is great in that it reveals just enough to make you go "wow" while maintaining an air of near-complete mystery as to what is going on.

The marketing campaign is all about secrecy, with nobody really knowing what the film's title is (Cloverfield, Slusho, Rampage...more on this last one in a second), the supposed studio behind it denying they know anything about it (government style), and everyone wondering just what the hell is causing buildings to explode (aliens, godzilla type monsters, something else?). It's a perfect marketing ploy...for now.

Eventually, the expectations will destroy the film if they continue on the path they are on by turning the trailers into 30 second Lost spots. What's going to happen is that people are going to get so worked up by the mystery, that whatever is revealed will be such a huge disappointment that it can do nothing but hurt the film. For now though, it's pretty cool what they are doing. And let's face it, there's no way that they can keep something like this a secret all the way to the release date. When internet folk get interested in something, they start digging. Soon you'll probably find grainy pics of the monster popping up on entertainment sites everywhere or one of the cast will accidentally let slip a piece of vital information during their thousandth press junket.

But of course, in the now, we love a good mystery. Rumors are flying as to what the film might actually be. The most interesting to me? The idea that this is the Rampage movie that has been talked about for years in Hollywood.

Now that would be cool

A complete and utter sense of relief

Nothing as awesome as this picture is going to occur in the next Dead Lantern Pictures film. But damn if I'm not actually excited again to make a movie. Tonight accomplished everything that I feel Dead Lantern should be: a collective group endeavor. For the first time in what seems like ages, everyone got together and pitched in ideas and actually gave great feedback. It didn't feel like it was just Steve and I dragging everyone along with whatever we had come up with.

Over the 4th of July, Steve and I had gotten a decent idea for a film, but had hit a complete roadblock. We didn't know how to end the movie, what the monster would be, or connect the dots character wise. In an hour and a half, 95% of the movie was solved just by the interaction of the rest of the guys (and gals, thanks Tina!). It's kind of strange how months of frustration can be relieved just by a good old fashioned brainstorming session.

And that's all that was ever needed. It's one thing to have a leader telling people what to do when the cameras are rolling, but the entire process before that point needs to be a collective group collaboration. It makes everyone feel as if they are a part of the process and not simply meat to be guilt tripped (coerced?) into following some dumb asses delusional dream to make movies. If you're going to go through the grinder of making a movie (contrary to popular belief, The Grand Horror was a grueling experience) then it's vital that everyone feels like they are contributing something. Maybe you didn't come up with the major story points, but if you can chime in with "Hey, it would be cool if the character did this...", you'll feel just as much a part of the process as anyone else. And that's important. It's not one person saying "We're doing this and that", it's an entire group of people who you'll need every step of the way sharing their own ideas and feeling like they are just as important and vital as everyone else. That's how Dead Lantern should operate and that's how I hope it will operate in the future.

As for the movie, I honestly think the story we've come up with is the coolest thing we've ever done. If we can nail the dialogue down and get the characters spot on, I think we could really make something vastly superior to TGH. I think that by getting back to a single location, we can really get back to making a good movie rather than trying to bite off more than we can chew, which was the downfall of all our other aborted projects.

I think part of the reason I'm really excited about this next film idea is that it really gets to my favorite aspects of the horror genre. I love movies about people trapped in an isolated place. I love movies where you can't figure out who is trustworthy and who isn't. I love monster movies. I love the old EC Comics that had creepy twists in the final panels. I think this film idea has the potential to combine all of those things into a fun horror movie.

I can't wait to begin shooting.