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.