It Follows (2014)

"A young woman is followed by an unknown supernatural force after getting involved in a sexual encounter."

I've tried several times to get all the way through "It Follows" in one sitting, but I can't do it. Either I don't have the attention span anymore (which is unlikely) or it's just too boring as shit for me to want to. Thus, this isn't going to be a review as much as it will be some general bitching about the parts of "It Follows" which I noted before hitting fast-forward to get the torture over with.

From reading through what some of my online friends had to say about this movie, I understand that "It Follows" is supposed to be all "faux retro"—and it clearly seems to appeal to the hipstery "millennial" demographic who ironically weren't even alive back in the '70s, '80s, or even the '90s—but surely it should be meant for people my age (mid-40s) in that case too? So why doesn't "It Follows" generate all those happy nostalgia feelings for me? What's wrong with this picture?

The simple fact of the matter is that "It Follows" isn't to my taste as a movie. Not only are its non-specific retro qualities forced, pretentious, and inconsistent, but the slow-paced story is a load of meaningless and padded drivel with no satisfactory explanation for the "creature" or any danger of a cathartic payoff at the end.

Although the acting and dialogue is fine, the characters are somewhat flat, unlikeable, and sexually unappealing, and are too young and from the wrong country to have any cultural relevance to me even with my obligatory suspension of disbelief. As I can't identify or sympathise with American teenagers, there's no development of pathos possible.

Most importantly, however, as is the case with all new horror movies, "It Follows" is not in the least bit scary!

You'd have to tie me to a chair to make me watch this movie ever again.

I've often encountered arguments where someone says that "scary" is subjective. Well, it is to a point. Some people have varying degrees of phobias about certain things, for instance, big hairy spiders, and some people don't have any fear of those things at all. But in the case of any "scary movie", it's pretty much failed in its purpose if it doesn't have a percentage of scary for even the lowest common denominator. There are also universals which can be identified as potentially scary for other people even if you aren't scared of those things yourself, but "It Follows" doesn't contain any of them. It may be R-rated, but it's not even worth bringing the extremely sparse and still not scary "gory bits" into this discussion.

What "It Follows" does have is a decent score which sounds like John Carpenter composed parts of it (except he didn't, it was Rich Vreeland), and some initial visual similarities to "Halloween" (1978). Of course, you can film nearly any residential streets in America during Autumn and they'll look a lot like the ones in "Halloween" because nothing architecturally important has changed in the last 40 or more years. Arguing about that aspect is clearly redundant. "It Follows" is set in Detroit, Michigan, rather than Haddonfield, Illinois (or really South Pasadena, California), which only reinforces my point that America looks the same everywhere anyway.

Another big homage is to Jacques Tourneur's "Cat People" (1942) which is apparent with the indoor swimming pool scene, but it's hardly an exact match and isn't meant to be. In fact, "It Follows" owes way more to "Final Destination" (2000) for the core of its narrative, plus Brundlefly's vain attempt to delay the inevitable from "The Fly" (1986), than anything which it tips blatant nods towards. Let's face it, if you really need an allegory about sexually transmitted diseases, Bram Stoker's "Dracula" will always be the classic. It doesn't exactly take a genius to see the similarities between vampire legends and "It Follows" either.

It needed more cats. Any cats. Cats would have made it better.

I'm not the kind of philistine who would ever be stupid enough to argue that David Robert Mitchell doesn't know how to make a movie or hasn't done a great job with "It Follows" when it comes to the outstanding cinematography (which only has a few glaringly ragged handheld shots), but it's the languid pace of this thing which kills it. I'm not joking when I say that if I had to watch this movie more than once, it would soon become my go-to fix for insomnia.

One final little rant and I'm done.

I've read a ton of stuff about Maika Monroe being the new "scream queen" of horror and all that usual crap, but I don't get it. Yeah, she's an above average actress as well as being a pretty-ish blonde with only occasionally annoying lapses into vocal fry and all that jazz (for those who care), but she's certainly no Fay Wray, Ingrid Pitt, Delphine Seyrig, or even an Edwige Fenech (who wasn't blonde). I think many people need to think before throwing that "scream queen" title about willy-nilly.

And since I've accidentally mentioned it, I couldn't care less about the nudity and "sexy bits". For one thing, I'm British and nudity doesn't bother me in the slightest, and second, even the tamest porn site on the internet will show you more than "It Follows" has to offer. I have to admit that Leisa Pulido playing Greg's mother is quite the MILF though.

There are simply some movies which you know right away aren't meant for you, and lamentably, I'll have to concede that "It Follows" wasn't meant for me.

If you feel like pointing out exactly which parts of "It Follows" an adult should find shit-yer-pants-scary, you can post them in the comments section below.

Happy Hallowe'en 2014!

Happy Hallowe'en, everybody!

The Fog (1980)

"A Northern California fishing town, built 100 years ago over an old leper colony, is the target for revenge by a killer fog containing zombie-like ghosts seeking revenge for their deaths."

To say that John Carpenter's "The Fog" is slightly overrated would probably be hypocritical of me since I'm one of the people who has been overrating it for years. Despite the story being created mainly by ingenious editing, it's still a decent film overall and one which I highly recommend for Hallowe'en.

Back in the day, I was disappointed that "The Fog" wasn't an adaptation of James Herbert's famous novel from 1975. Although John Carpenter claims in his director's commentary that his inspiration came from a trip to England where he passed Stonehenge and wondered what it would be like if something came out of the fog, I've always found that to be too coincidental. Stonehenge is in Wiltshire, and the fog of James Herbert's novel appears first on Salisbury Plain which is also in Wiltshire. As the bestselling book predates the movie by five years, I would have preferred it if John Carpenter had admitted the true source of his inspiration since it wouldn't have hurt him to mention it. Several times in the director's commentary, John Carpenter freely admits to borrowing a lot of ideas and locations from Alfred Hitchcock's movies (and a couple of others) so it's always seemed odd to me. Maybe he just didn't like James Herbert for some reason or, more likely, he had to keep quiet about it for fear of being sued.

Obviously, John Carpenter's "The Fog" and James Herbert's "The Fog" are completely different stories. The latter is all about a kind of nerve gas which drives people insane rather than being a supernatural slasher. The only thing they've ever had in common is fog and the shared title. Any confusion about the two seems mostly confined to British horror fans. I just felt that I'd mention it though because when someone brings up "The Fog" in conversation, I always have to ask, "Which one?"

Making matters even worse now is that there was an appalling remake in 2005 which I barely made it through and have no intention of ever reviewing unless I get really bored one day. Actually, sometimes I get tempted to rewatch it just to look at Selma Blair in her skimpy knickers, but that's another story.

One of the reasons why I grew to love John Carpenter's "The Fog" over the years was undoubtedly Adrienne Barbeau's performance as Stevie Wayne. Her character may play some of the worst elevator music that I've ever heard on her radio station, but she is quite believable otherwise as a disc jockey. I also like her rather cosy radio studio in a lighthouse set-up. If I was ever a DJ or could be bothered to make more podcasts, I'd kind of like to do it in such an environment.

Some people find Adrienne Barbeau sexy as Stevie Wayne. Maybe it's the combination of her husky voice and sexy body. I would, of course, be lying if I said that I have no idea what they are talking about. She's definitely the best reason to watch "The Fog" unless you are really into Jamie Lee Curtis who I've always thought was too boyish looks-wise. I never could understand her appeal or her promotion as the "Emperor's new clothes".

I also always found Tom Atkins to be rather ugly, and one of the biggest plot holes for me in "The Fog" is how Nick ends up in a relationship so fast with Jamie Lee Curtis' character (whose name apparently is Elizabeth after one of John Carpenter's previous girlfriends). When she cracks onto him after only a few moments in his truck, I don't know whether to think "slut", "easy lay", or "you need glasses". No matter how many times I rewatch that scene, it's just so bizarre. Let's face it though, any low-budget horror film that deals with ghosts who come back from the dead as physical zombies isn't likely to be big on realism.

The leprous, zombie-ghosts of the murdered sailors used to scare me when I was younger, and rightly so. It would have taken a lot more Dutch courage than Father Malone (Hal Holbrook) had inside him for me to ever confront them. As an aside, I once worked as a security guard on a rural industrial site in the middle of nowhere during the time of year when it was particularly foggy, and I kept imagining these very beings lurking in the mist. Suffice it to say that the job didn't last long.

The disadvantage of rewatching "The Fog" on DVD (I have the old green one not the newer blue one with all the useless trailers) rather than my previous "4 Front Deletions" VHS tape which I got from Woolworths was that I was too tempted by the special features and learned far too much about the technical aspects involved in the making of the movie. A lot of the plot holes such as how sparse the fictional town of Antonio Bay was or why only six people met up at the church when Stevie Wayne told everybody to go there were explained by John Carpenter and Debra Hill as being due to the lack of budget. I think that over a million dollars back in 1979 when "The Fog" was made hardly counts as a low-budget, but Hollywood-based movie people are weird when it comes to finances.

Given what they had to work with, "The Fog" turned out to be quite the genre classic although admittedly tame in terms of gore to what we have nowadays. As more of a product of the late '70s than a truly '80s horror movie, it still works for me as an old school horror. It's not perfect and is kind of far-fetched in a few places, but it's stood the test of time very well indeed.

The Thing (1982)

"Scientists in the Antarctic are confronted by a shape-shifting alien that assumes the appearance of the people that it kills."

A lot of people class this as sci-fi and I can see their point, but I think of it as horror and absolutely love it.

John Carpenter didn't so much remake "The Thing From Another World" (1951) here but completely reinvented it as a practical effects laden gorefest. The alien creature effects truly are the star of the show but there's still the tension and paranoia of the original.

I first heard about "The Thing" while listening to trailers for it on the radio. I could only imagine what it looked like because I was too young to see it at the cinema but a couple of years later it was on TV completely uncensored (because British TV is always good like that) and it was exactly as I expected it to be.

When VHS came along it was one of the first I bought. I've watched "The Thing" more times than just about any other movie in my collection especially since getting the "Collector's Edition" on DVD.

There's just something about being trapped in a hostile, snowy environment with a shape-changing alien who could be anybody (or anything) that ticks every box in the "survival horror" category for me.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm really looking forward to this year's "premake" so I'm definitely including "The Thing" in my Hallowe'en countdown.

The Ward (2010)

"A thriller centered on an institutionalized young woman who becomes terrorized by a ghost."

It's hard to believe but there is actually a worse film now than "Sucker Punch". Yes, that was a major spoiler for those who even care. If you haven't seen "The Ward" yet then I simply advise you to not waste your time and money on this turd unless you are the world's biggest fan of Amber Heard. Oh, how funny, her name even rhymes.

It's not actually Amber "Mandy Lane" Heard's fault that John Carpenter tried his hardest to rip-off "Shutter Island", "Sucker Punch", "Fight Club" and "Identity" all at the same time nor is it her fault that, apart from being pretty and having great legs, she has no screen presence whatsoever. If you create a horror film this plodding with so few scares and then use TV standard cinematography, nobody is going to look like a Hollywood starlet.

Unfortunately, Amber Heard also belongs to the "eyes and teeth" (or Joey Tribbiani) school of acting which doesn't do her any favours either with her wonky front gnashers. To say that she is beyond bland is an understatement though, obviously, I don't think anyone else could do any better considering the script and terrible lines that her character (Kristen) has to say.

I think you've guessed by now that I hated watching "The Ward". The main reason for this was that I thought it was going to be a ghost story and it turned out to be one of those stupid cop-out twist-ending stories which make a mockery of everything you've watched for the hour and a half previously. As usual, I didn't see the twist coming. This time it was because I was too busy focussing on Lyndsy Fonseca until she, the only truly gorgeous girl in the film, disappeared. After that, I really struggled to keep any interest in any of it at all. Forget the tease of a shower scene from the trailer too since that's all you get to see. "The Ward" is a PG-13 in all but rating.

"The Ward" is most certainly going into The Dungeon now even though it would be foolish of me to say that it was even close to being the worst horror film that I've ever seen. If I was to compare "The Ward" to anything else in the genre then it would be one of the weaker episodes in the "Masters of Horror" or "Fear Itself" TV series though it still wouldn't be as bad as one of the "Afterdark Horrorfest" movies from the last couple of years.

Like everyone, I still think that John Carpenter was great back in the days of "Halloween", "The Fog" and "The Thing" but ever since "Ghosts of Mars" he really seems to have lost all directing ability (or credibility) in the horror genre and "The Ward" is far from being his best work.