The Cabin in the Woods (2011). A film whose starting point is very definitely The Evil Dead (and, I presume, The Evil Dead 2). It’s a very modern take on the stranded-group-of-young-people slasher flick. Trying to be as obscure as possible to avoid spoilers, there are larger, corporate forces at play when it comes to the systematic murder of the main characters.

Unlike the very many films from which it is derived, Cabin is high-budget, polished, well-scripted and populated by decent actors. Directed by Drew Goddard, written by Joss Whedon, stars Richard Jenkins, Sigourney Weaver and Chris Hemsworth… and it’s not like it’s their first film. It’s great. There are many great moments. The whole premise is super fun. The gore (whilst very well done) is incidental and therefore not the whole film. I did well to watch this towards the end of the month, as it directly and indirectly references all kinds of scenes and tropes from horror movies.

Good work, zombie arm.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The very many explanations for the otherwise illogical things that happen in horror films. The betting whiteboard (particularly, following yesterday’s film, the ‘Angry Molesting Tree.’) The way the opening title appears in a classic ‘jump scare’ way, whilst apparently humdrum things are occuring on-screen. The fact it takes a very self-referential genre and turns the ‘meta’ up to 11.

What are the worst bits? Can’t really think of any. Maybe that you have to watch lots of truly awful schlock-horror to get the in-jokes. This means I’ve probably missed lots of in-jokes.

So it follows the modern trend of being meta then? Yes. And no. This is another thing I’ve probably not explored enough with horror. Horror films are a relatively closed shop, in that they really take their cues from what’s come before. Horror films seem unable to exist without referencing other horror films. I’m not sure if that is because there’s a shallower pool of resources to work with when trying to make things frightening or shocking, or if a rudimentary knowledge of what has passed before (effectively a basic understanding of film studies) is a general requirement for horror audiences. Maybe people who watch horror, watch horror and people who don’t, don’t, meaning that the audience is in some ways part of the film. The success of horror films relies on a previous knowledge of horror films. This might not be true, as the idea that “the more you put in, the more you get out” applies to practically everything. However, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen more recurring themes and direct call-backs to other movies in this month of morbid madness that in other films of different genres. Also, the use of certain actors in horror films seems to be a way of validating the horror ‘positioning’ of a film. Despite having made all kinds of films, placing someone like Jamie Lee Curtis (or Sigourney Weaver) in a horror film makes it somehow more bona fide. The Cabin in the Woods is therefore a great film, knowingly employs a vast selection of tropes (everything from “do not read the latin” to the reasons for the gratuitous nudity) and is traditionally horror in it’s referential nature.

Jeffrey Combs, the actor who played Herbert West in yesterday’s film Re-Animator, is described by Time Out as ‘the thinking man’s Bruce Campbell.’ This had no bearing on The Evil Dead (1981) being today’s choice of film, it was simply (spooky…) coincidence.

The Evil Dead seems to be a bit of a strange film in that The Evil Dead 2 is apparently the better movie and is also less of a sequel than a slight reworking of the original to avoid apparent rights issues. That said, The Evil Dead does manage to get on Time Out’s list. I decided to go for the earlier one which is not quite the paradigm of horror-comedy that the ‘sequel’ is purported to be, but is still well respected as vaguely amusing and gory.

It’s not great. The fairly amateurish, homemade look is apparently part of its charm, but it’s just a bit basic. In many ways it treads a similar path to Re-Animator, with a reliance on gory, shock-filled special effects, but it’s not as satisfyingly wacky or amusing.

Look at her eyes. Look at her eyes! For God’s sake, what happened to her eyes?

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? It’s not the worst film I’ve seen this month. I noticed that Joel Coen (THE Joel Coen) was the assistant film editor. The breadth of special effects used is impressive, even if they’re not particularly realistic. There’s so much fake blood. Some of the camera shots seem truly innovative. The tree special effects, and the woodland sexual assault as a whole, was impressive in its unexpectedness, although I’m not sure you can really describe it as “good.”

What are the worst bits? The sound of the ‘evil dead’ is generally quite annoying, from their screaming to laughing. It’s all a bit jarring, and not in a psychological way. The acting’s not the best, with the Scott character being the truely lowest common denominator. Most of the film is quite predictable. It’s just a bit incoherent and not as fun as it could be. It “goes on a bit” despite being less than 90 minute long.

Do you wish you’d watched The Evil Dead 2 instead? A little bit. Yeah.

Today’s movie just managed to sneak into the Time Out Top 100 horror films and it is as madcap and grotesque as advertised. Another product of the apparent eighties horror boom, Re-Animator (1985) is filled with gore, wackiness and crazy characters. It’s largely about two medical students in an American university: the first one, Dan, is pretty straight-laced, the second one, Herbert, who becomes Dan’s roommate is a complete loose cannon. Essentially Herbert has been transferred in from Germany, is generally very odd and seems to have figured out how to “re-animate” dead things.

It contains all of the hallmarks of a good eighties film, or a good horror film, or a good eighties horror film; it’s gruesome, silly, unpredictable, the special effects are outlandish (check out the fluorescent re-animating serum), there’s gratuitous nudity aligned with gory/hilarious sexual practices, and an ending that is predictably unpredictable.

“Cat dead. Details later.”

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? So many special effects. The whole Herbert West character, who is a fantastic anti-hero. It cracks along. It manages to take some recurring motifs that are typical of film/storytelling and inverts them (I’m thinking of the resuscitation scene amongst others). There’s a really nice Frankenstein vibe.

What are the worst bits? People still make strange decisions about the best course of action to take in any given situation, but the whole film is strange, so that makes it ok. It doesn’t suffer from an adherence to reality.

Have you learned anything else about horror films recently? I feel like the last few days/films haven’t added much to my general knowledge or insights, into horror films as a genre. Sadly, it feels like I’m beginning to form a rough estimation of what to expect, or what I might ‘prefer’ when it comes to horror. This may be due to some sort of horror ‘fatigue’ from spending every evening watching a new film, many of which rely on gore, or shock value, to carry a thin story. Unfortunately, whilst there have been instances of gore (or at least impressive special effects) that I’ve enjoyed, I do seem to struggle with ‘shock.’ I think the most impressively ‘shocking’ scene I’ve seen so far might be towards the end of Hereditary, but I can’t say it was particularly scary or unsettling.

So are horror films about being scared? I think that maybe they’re not and that might be something I’ve learned over the month. Scary films do not have to be scary, or at least not for everyone. Horror, therefore, cannot be judged purely on their ability to frighten or even disgust as, certainly from my subjective viewpoint, that’s pretty difficult to achieve with fictional (and generally unlikely) scenarios. The movies I’ve enjoyed most so far haven’t tried too hard to be frightening or clever. There may be a little more to learn, but I think I’m mostly going to be relieved when this is over…

I’m not sure where this next film came from, or if it had anything to do with the fact that the main female protagonist as the same surname, Kessler, as the main male protagoninst in An American Werewolf in London… It’s the modern-day slasher/body-swap comedy-horror-thriller called Freaky (2022). It jams together the general premise of the Freaky Friday films with an old-school face-mask-wearing slasher murderer preying on school-age teenagers.

It is great fun. It’s a bit silly. There are genuine moments of horror and surprisingly good tension-building at various times. The acting of the two main characters, Vince Vaughn and Kathryn Newton, is great and it doesn’t take itself too seriously.

Don’t underestimate a straight white man’s propensity for violence Isaac, I don’t care how fucking old they are.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The acting is great. The overall premise introduces new avenues of jeopardy for our favourite characters, apart from the standard slasher/murder/death angle. There’s some very fun, innovative and gruesome deaths right from the beginning. There’s certainly enough gore and uncomfortable moments to qualify it as a horror, despite being a bit silly at times. The ‘first kiss’ scene is at once brilliant and absoutely terrible.

What are the worst bits? It is a bit silly, but it’s supposed to be, so that’s not a major criticism.

Is it a great horror film? It’s not a great horror film. However, it is a good and enjoyable film, which combines a clever take on a couple of horror sub-genres whilst providing pretty accomplished gore and suspense moments.

John Landis directed National Lampoon’s Animal House, The Blues Brothers and then, our next film, An American Werewolf in London (1981). The special effects were created by Rick Baker, who won his first Oscar for them (he has since won 6 more and been nominated 5 other times!) The film also features Jenny Agutter, Brian Glover, Frank Oz and, in a tiny non-speaking role, Rik Mayall. For once this is a highly-rated horror film that delivers. Hooray/finally!

It’s not the scariest film, but it’s certainly not the least scary either. It’s great fun and the story goes along at a decent pace. It really quite funny in places and overall there’s a lot to enjoy.

Benjamin, have you ever been severely beaten about the face and neck?

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The special effects are great; particularly the variations on Jack and the transforming werewolf. You know the special effects are great because they are often shown in full light and don’t have to be obscured by dark or dingy light to smooth the edges. It’s really quite amusing with even the film-within-a-film “See You Next Wednesday” being really quite funny (as well as bringing some horror-standard gratuitous nudity).

What are the worst bits? The actual “full” werewolf is the weakest special effect, but it’s still not terrible. The narrative is not particularly believable (the actions of the doctor, the main nurse and all the people who want to crowd around the werewolf seemes unlikely) but that’s not massively important, because the movie isn’t taking itself too seriously. The film doesn’t include Warren Zevon’s hit Werewolves of London, which is a shame.

One of the better ones then? Definitely.

The next film is another exercise in taking the day-to-day and pointing out that it is frightening. I tell you what’s scary: pregnancy. I tell you what else is scary: old people. It’s Rosemary’s Baby (1968), another undisputed great in the pantheon of horror classics…

This film has clearly informed and inspired pletty of horror films hence. The earlier-watched Hereditary (which wasn’t too bad at all), is essentially the same story approached from a slightly different time point; it could easily be a reboot, or at least some sort of sequel. There are also some similarities with Suspiria (which was too bad at all) and maybe also The Exorcist. Unfortunately, despite the fact that unsettling horror is “a gimme” when dealing with non-straighforward pregnancy, the film is somewhat predictable, weirdly-acted, boring and not-scary-in-the-least. For my taste, like so many other horror movies, it loses much of its ability to be frightening or unsettling because the characters are so wilfully stupid, or at the very least difficult to empathise with, that you feel apathetic towards their fate.

And it was kinda fun – in a necrophile sort of way.

The only character that we might really care about is Rosemary (played by Mia Farrow) and any disquiet we might feel comes from her experience of pregnancy, entwined sense of isolation and uncertainty over her grasp of reality. Again, it is disappointingly difficult to empathise with her character because, on the whole, she comes across as rather stupid and a bit “wet.” Now, there are plenty of reasons why one could forgive Rosemary for her general demeanour (SPOILERS FOLLOWING)… perhaps most prominantly there is clearly witchcraft afoot, which is capable of making people blind/suicidal/evil and could be a broad-brush explanation for her general lack of agency or intelligence at key moments. Secondly, she does not have a sympathetic character upon whom she can rely, so is very much alone in her situation. Thirdly, there’s widespread drugging (although this might fit in with ‘witchcraft’ above)… This leads us to ‘fourthly,’ and perhaps from a non-supernatural psycholgical viewpoint, ‘most importantly’ she is in the worst kind of abusive and coercive relationship. Her husband, Guy (played by John Cassavetes), is an absolute DICK and certainly the most loathsome person in the film (who commits the most heinous act, which he explains nonchalently as a different but possibly-equally-heinous act). There are therefore many reasons why one could forgive Rosemary her general lack of backbone, but it doesn’t make her particularly likeable, and thus when the completely predictable happens (which is effectively everything) it’s hard to feel either way about it, or her, or the film as a whole.

It’s definitely a horror though? Well there are demons, an intimated (if not at all misleading) twisting of reality, witchcraft, unexplained blindness/comas/death, gratuitous nudity and an complete absence of anything you might describe as frightening… so probably yes. Also, it’s massively underwhelming and, to my mind, overrated (#7 Time Out, #11 Empire, 8.0 on IMDB!) so, once again, probably a horror.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? Mia Farrow does an excellent job of acting pathetic. A pregnant woman drinking loads and being surrounded by smoking people is particularly fun in the 21st century. Hutch is a likeable character.

What are the worst bits? Some of the dialogue, or exchanges between characters, is difficult ot listen to… particularly any time Guy speaks and thinks he’s funny, or when Rosemary has a brief conversation with Terry Ginofrio in the laundry room. It’s difficult to understand why Rosemary does anything, she is like basic flotsam. The things which could be utilised to ramp up some tension or sense of disconcertion… pregnancy, the horrendous, coercive actions of the husband, the inherent creepiness of unnecessarily friendly (elderly) neighbours… is underused or perhaps so dilute as to be aromatherapy-levels of ineffective. There’s some vague commentary about satanism and catholicism, although I’m not sure why, or what the point was, if any. It goes on a bit.

You’re surely missing the point, isn’t this one of the best films (not jsut horror) of all time? Apparently so. I am a great believer in reading/watching/listening to the classics, to better understand the roots of cultural artifacts, enjoy the originals as they were first presented and generally get to grips with the development of storytelling/films/music/etc. However, I do feel like horror films (or even films of certain eras if they were sufficiently critically-acclaimed/popular in their time) or sometimes ‘given a pass’ when the storyline is inconsistent or they have narrative flaws. I’m not saying that joining Roman Polanski, Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes in transmuting a then-very-popular novel into film, whilst adding a strong dose of then-risque satanism, nudity and subversion of domestic norms, is sufficient to make a film heralded in the highest regard (a position it has never really relinquished), despite it being widely defective… oh wait… that IS exactly what I’m saying.

In some ways following the same general premise of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, with a young woman being terrorised by crazed criminal redneck types, the next film I watched was more horrifying but whilst it probably had more consistent plot, better acting and higher production values than Texas Chain Saw, whether it’s a “better film,” or certainly whether it is a “better horror film,” are difficult questions. It’s I Spit on Your Grave (1978) which has since seen remakes and sequels.

This film is horrific, there are genuine moments of suspense and a sense of imminent peril throughout. The problem I struggle with (and there are spoilers here) is that the “horror” is based on repeated sexual abuse of the main protagonist, who repeatedly tries to escape a group of redneck rapists, only to be brutally beaten and raped by them. Now, when it comes to slasher films, with blood-splattering murder, unlikely weapons (chainsaws, hammers, kitchen knives being used from the elbow…) and characters making poor life choices resulting in their gruesome demise then, in a weird way, it seems more harmless. Somehow, helpless young people being slaughtered seemingly at random is much less horrific than a young person being repeatedly sexually abused then murdered (although, for the story to conclude, the murder doesn’t happen). Following all of that, the woman then proceeds to take bloody revenge on all of them, which feels more like a horror, but in no way removes the unsettling feeling that the whole thing is not really entertainment.

A lot of horror films have gratuitous nudity. That seems to be an industry standard that I’ve commented upon earlier in the month. Jennifer (the heroine) in I Spit on Your Grave probably spends more of the film naked than not, which would fit with the genre generally if it wasn’t for all the sexual and related non-sexual violence she suffers. Even if someone tried to argue that the nudity wasn’t exploitative in the first part of the film, in the second (revenge) part, Jennifer not only gets naked with one of the original perpetrators as part of her revenge plan, but actually has sex with another one… all for apparently no good reason. She has ample opportunity to shoot her rapists (she has a gun at this point), yet does something a lot more elaborate, inherently illogically risky and personally degrading… presumably because it means the actor can spend more time naked on-screen. It’s not great.

I have no friends because of you.

It’s definitely a horror though? I’m not sure. If the first half was different (maybe the men killed her family/friends in a classic slasher way or perhaps if there was less gratuitous abuse), then the second half would definitely be a horror film, because the gratuitous nudity, odd decision-making and general elaborately constructed gore-scenes would be more acceptably entertaining. Again, I struggle with what a horror film “is,” but there’s something about this movie that makes me feel like it “isn’t” (at least in parts).

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? There’s a whole interaction where one of the men essentially explains his actions to Jennifer by victim-blaming her, which may have been ahead of its time in terms of social commentary. Some of the acting was good (Camille Keaton in murder-mode is a particular highlight).

What are the worst bits? There are no winners in this game. The whole premise of the film does not make the bloody revenge seem as euphoric as you’d hope. It’s all pretty grim. In the second half, the protagonist (with respect to horror movie tradition) does make a series of odd/bad decisions, but unhappily they just seem invited to blur the line further between entertainment and sexual violence. You feel like this is definitely not the sort of thing that would get made now.

But what about the 2010 remake… and sequels? It might be interesting to know what a modern version of this movie looks like, but I’m not sure that curiosity is enough to make me find out.

A few time on this journey I have watched a film which was so rubbish that writing about it seemed an even further waste of my time. Hoping to forget yesterday’s low-budget disappointment, and following relatively closely to Halloween (which I surmised was alright as films go), today was time for another classic slasher, similarly highly rated, and spawning a similarly high number of sequels, prequels and reboots. It’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) (or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, not sure which one is right).

Spolier alert: it’s rubbish.

It deals with the standard slasher set up of young people ending up somewhere, then getting murdered one by one. There’s a slight twist on who the killer is, but it’s mostly a plotless, low-budget pile of nonsense which involves a lot of screaming. It seems to follow the old horror adage that the American countryside is terrifying and full of criminally crazed redneck types. There’s a lot of abattoir talk.

My family’s always been in meat.

Everyone is killed with a chainsaw? You would think that wouldn’t you.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? I can’t think of a single thing. To be honest, it was a struggle to keep watching it, let alone care about what was going on. The killer, leatherface, is big.

What are the worst bits? The fact I had to watch it, closely followed by the fact that it is considerd one of the high-points in horror movie making.

Anything else to say? After 21 films, including a large number which have very good IMDB ratings or otherwise are highly valued in the genre, I believe that whilst there are good horror films, the vast majority are bad or truly awful. The graph from ‘Excellent’ to ‘Truly truly awful’ would apparently rise exponentially from a quite flat, x-axis-hugging start.

Halloween had one guy in blue overalls, some decent acting, a reasonable runtime, a surprising lack of gore and a coherent storyline. Today’s film had lots of guys in blue overalls, terrible acting, an excessive runtime, lots of rubbish gore and an veritable surfeit of nonsense. Whilst Dawn of the Dead (1978) was made in the same year and still features high up on lists of the best horror films, it is just so, so awful. It thinks it’s an action film. There are zero redeeming features. After a handful of acceptable, even borderline enjoyable movies, this is horror films back on form: shit, pointless and a massive waste of life.

Dummies! Dummies! Dummies!

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? There’s an attempt at gentle humour, regarding the behaviour of the zombies and some satire on how people, and the media, would react to a full-on zombie apocalpyse. However, this is disjointed and not very clever or funny. Some of the music is fun.

What are the worst bits? The acting is rubbish. Painfully so. The zombies have blue faces like smurfs, and are rubbish. Actors are used multiple times, with little attempt to make them seem at all different. There’s a lot of gore, but it is rubbish: the blood is like red oil paint. It is far too long and feels even longer than that. Nothing makes sense. The zombies are useless, but are fortunately faced with even more useless human beings. Name anything you might find in a film, and it will be rubbish in this. At one point someone tries to hit a zombie with a hammer and they just fall into each other; it would be funny but it’s just sad. The ending is completely unsatisfying.

Anything else to say? No. I want to forget I ever watched that film now please. Just don’t watch Dawn of the Dead. You have been warned.