Nope. Another horror film from modern-day marvel of media Jordan Peele, director of the universally-critically acclaimed Get Out (2017), which also stars Daniel Kaluuya. I did see, and enjoy, Get Out shortly after its release, so was hoping for a similar experience.

Nope.

I liked this film. In many ways this makes me want to avoid the ‘horror’ question entirely, but I’m sure it’ll come up. The scenery and general landscape cinematography are really nice. There are some mysterious things going on. The acting’s great and largely believable. The story is quite fun. There are confusing parts and, if pushed, I would say the film was more science-fiction than horror, but that’s what I’ve come to expect this month.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The whole ranch setting is good and naturally lends itself to being creepy. The film also harnesses the fear factor of natural weather systems when living in an isolated area, particularly when they become unnatural. Horses are great actors, they really nail either calm or terrified, and are great for heightening the mood of the piece. The film sets up nicely for a climactic ‘showdown’ which all makes sense. The ‘nope’ motif is good, especially as it often contravenes the recognised horror film cliche of going into somewhere, or doing something, which is a blatantly a terrible idea.

What are the worst bits? In no particular order… Not sure what the whole Gordy thing was about; if it was just to create a sinister atmosphere, it seems entirely unnecessary. Not sure why Antlers Holst was there; we all want Michael Wincott in the film but I’m not sure anyone knew what to do with him and he had to make an unjustifiably bad decision just to get him back out of the film again. Also, like many of the characters, he was difficult to listen to. Not sure if this was a sound mixing issue, a problem with the version I watched, or whether the actors were asked to speak in a particularly growly (Antlers), low-key (OJ) or fast-paced (Em) way, but some of the dialogue escaped me. Once we got past the creepy section into the monster section, the monster was not frightening. The ‘guts’ scenes were just (I can only assume intentionally) rubbish.

So more bad then good? No. The film is still good. The horror aspects are not great. It’s not very frightening. There are not a lot of jump-scares. The gore is fairly minimal. The monster is not frightening. The Gordy section is one of the more unsettling aspects although it is so incidental and only tangentially-related as to almost appear like a Twilight-Zone-esque short-story within a story. But the film is good enough.

Surely you’re going to set yourself up with a question that invites a quote-unquote hilarious pun answer? Nope.

I have seen a few Hitchcock films. The Birds, North by Northwest, Rear Window and (possibly, but can’t really rememeber) Vertigo. I had, up until this point, never seen Psycho, although basically know the shower scene (from its regular reference/appearance in popular media) and have, what I wrongly-assumed was, a good idea of the theme tune (from Busta Rhymes).

She might have fooled me, but she didn’t fool my mother..

Psycho is ‘up there’ in terms of horror films (#5 TimeOut, #17 Empire) but, unfortunately, it is still a horror film. Whilst, in all likelihood, a masterpiece of cinema which broke and recreated conventions, it is unfortunately also a horror film (whatever that means). Approaching this from a 21st century viewpoint (SPOILERS incoming and persistent from this point on), I’m probably underestimating the shock value of repeated bloody stabbings, the infectuous corruption of otherwise everyday situations (like visiting a motel,or having a chat), the visuals of a decayed corpse or how an imbalance in a person’s mental health can lead to frightening, otherwise unconscionable outcomes. However, having now watched (what feels like too-) many horror films, Psycho seems to contain many of the things that make the genre a bit… silly. Hitchcock may have actually invented these things, which would be a shame.

What things are you talking about? Breaking into a person’s property is justifiable, even when it is clearly the most inadvisable course of action for the corporeal safety of oneself or others. This specific rule perhaps falls under the wider directive that ostensibly normal people can/should just act plain weird and make bad decisions.

So normal people in Psycho act in unconvincingly odd ways? Exactly. When Marion (played by Janet Leigh) meets a police officer on the road, she acts so suspiciously it’s almost farce. She later acts even more suspiciously when talking to a car salesman practically in front of the same police officer. It is worth mentioning that, following her encounter with the police officer, Marion decides to change cars (presumably to make herself less conspicuous and generally evade said police officer), which she does ‘in a rush’ and to not-insignificant personal expense. Completely illogically, she also does this in direct view of the same police officer.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? It’s a Hitchcock film, so there is a tense atmosphere, with all the creepy accoutrements that you might want (stuffed birds, imposing gothic mansion, motel (literally) off the beaten path). Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates is loveably/pitiably freaky from the off.

What are the worst bits? All the horror film aspects. The initial murder is ‘horrific’ but, until that point, the film is more of a thriller than a horror. Even following the death, it is difficult to pinpoint when the film becomes a ‘horror’ as such. I’m beginning to formulate some sort of theory that in order to become part of the horror genre, a normal thriller/drama/comedy needs to simply loosen any grip it has on reality or sufficiently abandon logic. Horror is what happens to fill the gaps when a story becomes largely unbelievable.

Horror films are all bad then? Maybe horror is a synonym for bad or at least far-fetched. There are certainly horrific things that can be portrayed in film, but this does not appear to be the threshold for ‘horror’ films as such. What makes them ‘horror’ films seems to be the nonsense which is only incidentally related to the horrific stuff.

Is Se7en (with Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt) a horror? Exactly. Or is it a crime drama/mystery/thriller?

So are you saying that the horror film Psycho (rated 8.5 on IMDB and largely considered one of the greatest works of Alfred Hitchcock) is bad? No. It’s a good film. It’s a revolutionary film. It has some great acting, tangible creepy atmosphere and a solid, enjoyable twist that 1960s audiences may not have seen coming from a mile off. One could argue that it is hardly a horror film, or that only the weaker elements of it are horror, or that it is a great horror film with weaker parts.

How deep is the swamp? Deep.

One Cut of the Dead. A Japanese Horror-Comedy. Or maybe horror/comedy. Essentially it’s a low-budget zombie flick until it isn’t, at which point it goes from ‘meh’ to AWESOME!

This work will become a masterpiece.

Like all horror films (in my experience so far) this film is not scary in the slightest. The horror is quite formulaic, a bit chaotic and generally basic. There are loads of things that make you think “yes, this is a horror film” and many of them are down to the amateurish feel and the histrionics of the actors. However, unlike all horror films (in my experience so far) this one gets good. Really, really good. Not for ‘horror’ reasons particularly, but who cares?

So what happens that makes it so good? Unfortunately I can’t tell you, and you shouldn’t look it up. It is best watched. Similar to a twist ending, the realisation that something else is happening is very rewarding. I’ve already said too much. Suffice to say the whole thing is a joy, and even the final credits manage to add a layer of awesomeness to the story.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? One of the minor triumphs is the eponymous “one-cut” part of the film. You have to love an epic single shot, like in Boiling Point with Stephen Graham. Also, practically everything that happens in the film after the thematic ‘half-way point.’

What are the worst bits? You feel like you’re persevering a little bit at the start. It seems to be just another horror film (i.e. a bit rubbish and pointless), before it’s not.

Should I go and watch it now? Yes. Go now. Find it. Watch it. It’s great.

Horror films are not all bad then? That really depends if One Cut of the Dead is actually a horror film. It’s not NOT a horror film. But if this exercise has given me anything, it has been this film, so arguably worthwhile overall. It deserves every tenth of its 7.6 IMDB rating.

Following the very modern Barbarian we decided to roll back a few years… over a hundred to be more precise, to watch The Cabinet of Dr Caligari. Apparently one of the earliest recognisable horror films, I thought it may be edifying to go back to the start of the whole genre.

Nacht.

To start, it’s a great film. The backdrops are all excellent and there’s definitely quite a lot going on in terms of story, which is impressive for a silent film where most of the acting seems to involve opening one’s eyes really wide. Despite being monochrome and having multiple fixed theatre-like setscenes (the camera is fixed in one position each time), the film feels vibrant and even arguably ‘colourful.’ It’s not scary per se, but seems packed with layers of meaning. It was made in inter-war Germany, so you can definitely feel there are messages about control, abuse of authority and people’s general ability to ‘go along with’ things.

So are there any recognisable ‘horror’ aspects? Yes. There’s a vaguely dracula-esque character. There are LOTS of wide-eyed horrified looks and some malevolent supernaturalism. Also, we get a ‘twist’ ending and some nicely distorted reality which perfectly fits the twisted, almost cartoonish, scenery.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The clever use of light, even if it is artificially painted onto the set using white paint. Some of the shots are so crisp and vibrant, it is often a fully HD experience, albeit with old-timey sepia film. The last act makes you think about the film, and the events therein, as a whole, which is good. There’s a special effect/madness moment where words are appearing across the screen at the same time as the action which seems mould-breaking.

What are the worst bits? It’s old, and reading exposition can seem a little slow. It’s difficult to be afraid of what’s happening, or even feel it’s in any way creepy.

Does it fit with the ‘horror films’ remit? Yes. No doubt. It’ll be good to compare it to something from the same era.

Following yesterday’s consideration of whether a heightened sense of reality (particularly in terms of special effects) might improve the ‘fear facor’ of a film and aware than all movies preceding had been from the 80s or earlier, I decided to watch Barbarian; a bang-up-to-date horror flick from 2022. You know it’s modern, because it’s about a woman staying in an AirBnb. Macabre goings-on ensue.

Do I look like some kind of monster?

Now I was expecting/hoping that the horror in Barbarian would come from the modern premise of staying in a rented homestay, thus making the prospect of all future trips to a non-branded rented accommodation seem unsettling or even terrifying. That was not really the case. Once again the ‘horror’ aspect seemed to require ostensibly-intelligent people to make a series of poor decisions. The initial decision to stay in a place for no good reason, despite all the indications suggesting you’d be better off just going home in your car, in the daylight, was silly. The later decisions to put yourself in fear/a weird place/almost certain physical danger was just stupid…

We had a discussion about how, when a scene suggests impending danger/horror, it is natural to feel some trepidation, or be ‘on edge’ because you anticipate bad things. However, I apparently do not feel this if people have put themselves in said position through either complete lack of common-sense or some inexplicable masochistic urge to invite pain and/or discomfort to themselves. Effectively when someone in a film does something that is so obviously going to end badly, I feel little or no trepidation for them and certainly no fear at the outcome. Put another way, it’s like being afraid of willingly stabbing yourself in the eye.

What this film did prove is that better special effects (or maybe modern special effects) do not necessarily make monsters scarier. In Barbarian, once again, it was difficult to fear the monster once you’d seen it.

The film is interesting in that it seems to be like a mini-film, with a mini-sequel and an in-built mini-prequel. These sections seem a bit disparate but ultimately make some sense. Arguably the most frightening of these is the mini-prequel, but that is hardly explored, which is fortunate/unfortunate, because that whole thing is probably truly terrifying.

Any other dawning realisations about horror films? The police are stubbornly useless. Perhaps in horror any possibility of outside help has to be so bad, that people make terrible decisions. Maybe all police must be rubbish or corrupt… we’ll see if that’s a thing.

Worth watching? Again, probably not. Not sure how it has a 7.0 rating on IMDB. No-one does anything sensible. The characters are too stupid to be likeable… actually maybe one is alright…

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? I like the ‘normal’ bits of the film, where people are going about their business.

What are the worst bits? It’s all a bit obvious, which may be a strange thing to say.

After five horror films, are you thinking that watching one a day was a bad idea? Yes, it is potentially a terrible decision with a completely foreseeable outcome. Which is ironic.

I felt quite confident about today’s choice. Directed by Steven Speilberg, #26 on the Time Out list, #40 on the Empire list and incredibly well-known, Poltergeist is another classic horror film from the 80s with a very strong 7.3 rating on IMDB. Surely this would bring a little more enlightenmentabout A. what a horror film is, and B. why they’re good.

Cross over, children. All are welcome. All welcome. Go into the light.

There’s no doubting that this is a horror film, albeit a relatively un-frightening one. It sometimes feels like a family-friendly suburban Speilberg film interspersed by jarring moments of face-tearing self-multilation, spectral demons and malevolent plant-attacks. The film is generally quite creepy, with the main exponent of this being Carol Anne, a very small and very disturbing child. I cannot be the only person who suspects that the whole supernatural situation of the Poltergeist movie is somehow the created through the intention of this one child.

I have seen The Shining and, in looking for suitable films for a month of horror, have noticed how many titles seem to feature the inherent freakiness of children as their main source of terror (think Children of the Corn, The Exorcist, Village of the Damned, etc…) It’s never a full-grown adult who says “I see dead people,” always a child. This, I expect, is because all children are constantly seeing dead people. It would be more of a shock if children weren’t seeing dead people. There’s definitely something going on with horror, creepiness and a general fear of the otherworldliness of children, in the same way that there’s something going on with zombies, old people and the fear of ageing. It’s almost like the nothingness before and after life creates a space for horror which seeps into the human states (childhood and old age) adjacent to it.

However, despite the feeling that the small, blonde child is entirely in league with the malignant forces in the house and the fact that a TV buzzing with white noise is surprisingly unsettling, the film is not very frightening and, as the visible instances of evil manifestation increase, becomes less so. We have not watched any “modern” horror yet, but it will be interesting to find out if special effects have progressed (or, indeed can progress) to the point where ‘seeing the monster’ no longer results in an anticlimactic deescalation of fear.

What else did you learn about horror films? Gratuitous nudity is not a pre-requisite. There was an opportunity for nudity and it was not taken. I was starting to think that ‘horror’ might just be a catch-all term for anything that some people might find unpalatable (gore, violence, nudity, chaotic plotlines), but Poltergeist seemed more consistent in both theme and story, which makes a nice change. Also they did the false-scare-then-scare thing where you are set up for a jump scare, only for it to happen immediately after you think the moment has passed. Not scary, but I still think it’s a relevant technique. Also, like Phantasm yesterday, there seem to be a few sequels. Horror films love a sequel. Especially a bad one.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? Zelda Rubinstein; she’s a joy. The skelton jacuzzi. All the jelly.

What are the worst bits? It’s just a bit boring. I think the child was creepy enough that losing her to otherworldy forces could have been seen as a preferential situation. The special effects were probably quite decent for the time, but not exactly terrifying.

Did you say something about jelly? Yes. Possibly strawberry but, in my non-professional opinion, probably raspberry.

Leaving no room for uncertainty, the day 3 choice is Phantasm (1979), which IMDB lists as a horror/sci-fi deserving of a 6.6 rating. The name seems suitable for a horror film and the opening sequences involve a graveyard, music very reminiscient of the Exorcist theme and suspicious murder. The movie that follows also includes practically everything I would expect from the horror genre such as a moments of excessive gore, unseen noisy monsters, people deciding to only do things during nighttime hours, weird vaguely-supernatural chracters and generally unexplained goings-on. In fact, if there is a list of elements necessary for the correct realisation of a horror film, Phantasm certainly seems to tick a lot of boxes. A good start.

The funeral is about to begin, SIR.

This is effectively a tale of a young orphan boy (Mike) and his brother (Jody) who start investigating an undertakers and his very elaborate parlour/graveyard when the boy notices something slightly strange at a funeral. This is something I feel may be common to horror films: people making poor decisions for completely arbitrary reasons. I don’t want to introduce too many spoilers, but breaking into places at night because you saw someone who looks a bit weird do something which seems a bit weird is a very idiosyncratic logical move. Also, throughout the film, every time someone (mostly Mike) is told not to go somewhere, or to stay where they are, or to not follow Jody, he does the opposite.

Another apparently constituent part of any horror movie seems to be gratuitous or largely incidental nudity. which is another box ticked by Phantasm.

So is it horrifying? No. Whilst the film has a handful of jump-scare moments, gory futuristic murder devices, people transmogrifying in a creepy way, bending of reality and lashings and lashings of custard, it manages to satisy the requirements of a standard horror film without being at all scary.

Is it worth watching? No. I am pretty convinced it is a horror film, but the whole thing is just nonsense. Nothing happens that really makes sense from an objective viewpoint. The fact that there are supernatural occurences all over the places in no way justifies the random behaviour of the main protagonists.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? Two of the main actors are played by people with the same name as their characters (Mike and Reggie). Jody jams a door shut by pushing a screwdriver into it. Some of the special effects are quite fun.

What are the worst bits? The actor who plays Jody is just awful. Perhaps he struggles with the fact that his real name is not the same as his character’s. He certainly seems to spent a lot of time looking blankly straight ahead. At one stage he opens a coffin with an expression I can only describe as eyes-closed palpable sexual excitement. So, the acting in general, the plot, and the fact no one learns anything from what happens in the film. At one point Jody gives Mike very specific advice about shooting guns, before failing to follow any of his own guidance.

Did you say something about custard? Yes. Terrifying custard.

Definitely horror and, if you ignore all the failings of the film as a storytelling device, quite sufficient to pass the time. Apparently there are a load of sequels. I am not going to watch them.

Day two. Hoping for a little more terror, some horror or at least mild peril. Moving forward into the 80s, we chose They Live, an action/horror/sci-fi film starring ‘Rowdy’ Roddy Piper of old-school WWF (the wrestling one) fame and Keith David, whose ostensibly forgettable name makes him seem much less memorable then he actually is. Firstly, as a title, They Live (which would surely warrant an exclamation point in the current era) basically sounds like a horror film. Secondly, it sports a more-than-respectable 7.2 rating on IMDB. Both good signs.

I have come to chew bubblegum and kick ass… and I’m all out of bubblegum.

Well… They Live is more of a horror film than The Wicker Man, but probably still errs towards being an action film with horror elements. The premise is fine, it’s generally good fun and in many ways it taps into the conspiracy-theory, lizard-people, chemtrail-type nonsense that seems still prevalent in the US. Essentially Roddy’s character (Nada) gets hold of some sunglasses which allow him to see beyond the apparent ‘reality’ of his existence. Then he gets hold of some guns. Shooting happens. There are explosions. Some people become very adverse to putting on sunglasses when asked to. There is a whole alleyway fight/wrestling sequence which goes on so much longer than it needs to. Then, when you think it’s finished, so much longer again. However, the film is alright. The horror might just be more like commentary on social inequality and capitalism, but it might be horror. These first two films have made me wonder if horror is actually a thing at all (perhaps I should watch The Thing next). But They Live is fine and probably horror.

So does it deserve it’s IMDB rating of 7.2? Probably not. It’s a pretty straightforward romp, but has some nice touches.

Is it worth watching? It’s a bit of fun. You don’t have to think too hard, or for too long (1hr34mins, boom).

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? The whole sunglasses thing is good. Maybe it could have been expanded upon a bit, but still well done. The ‘OBEY’ message reminded me of Shepard Fairey’s Andre the Giant has a Posse campaign, particularly with Roddy Piper being a wrestler and the general ‘street’ feel of the film. Keith David is always great, although his voice sometimes goes to quite shrill places in this film (which, I admit, seems barely plausible).

What are the worst bits? The aforementioned long and entirely unnecessary wrestling/fight sequence. Nada’s action-hero one-liners are awful from every angle. Our protagonists make poor, and inconsistent, decisions as to when (or why) they choose fight, flight or hide.

But is ‘Rowdy’ Roddy Piper actually an actor? Yeah. He’s in loads of stuff and, other than the odd occasion where he seems to look the wrong way, can certainly do what he needs to do for this film. Fortunately, if there is ‘horror’ in this movie, his role is one of an uncomplicated man dealing violently with it. So eminently achievable.

In many ways a progression, although the ‘horror,’ whilst present, once again seems somewhat ‘background.’ I will endeavour to find an absolutely nailed-on pure horror film next time around…

I’ve not seen that many horror films. I would say that I’m not sure why, but actually I’ve just never been that interested in the genre as a whole. I may be entirely missing the point or my first forays into fear films may have simply been wildly underwhelming. Whatever the reason, it is much quicker for me to list the horror films I have seen, rather than those I haven’t: The Shining, Alien, The Blair Witch Project, The Witch, The Birds, Scream, Shaun of the Dead, Zombeavers… that may be it.

However, with Halloween falling at the end of October, I decided it would be a good exercise to try and watch a horror film every night in November. It might be a fun use of the post-clocks-going-back longer evenings, and I’d hopefully get a much better grip on the whole genre and what it has to offer. So we compiled a list of potential candidates for a month of monstrous movies.

After some thought, it was decided that a strong start would be sensible. By choosing a true undisputed classic, which graces practically every list of the greatest horror cinema has to offer, the whole exercise would be instantly justified and its November-spanning continuation made more palatable. That was the thinking anyway…

Shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees bent.

The Wicker Man. A British folk horror from 1973 set on a remote Scottish island, ranked #36 on Time Out’s 100 Best Horror Films and #10 on Empire’s 50 Best Horror Films. Having now watched it (and trying to avoid any spoilers, as there are probably other people who haven’t seen it), I can safely say that the phrase “great horror film” is only as accurate as the word “film.” Time Out describe it as a “creepily unfolding tale of dawning terror” which I personally find incredibly inaccurate. Again, I am no expert on horror films, but I would expect something a little more horrifying, frightening, unsettling or, at a pinch, less mundane.

The story is actually a fairly straightforward one of bigotry, small-mindedness, religious intolerance and criminal behaviour. A policeman turns up on an island to investigate the disappearance of a girl and proceeds to be an absolute dick to everyone. As the main protagonist I feel like we’re probably supposed to empathise with the copper, or at least have an interest in his ‘investigations’ or ultimate fate. However, he turns up, is rude to everyone, projects his value system on the anyone who will listen to him (not that he gives them much choice) and essentially makes himself instantly completely detestable. Granted, there’s objectively quite a lot of weird shit happening on Summerisle but, from a narrative perspective, everything that happens is somewhat predictable. The only rogue element is the police officer, Sgt Howie, who makes very questionable decisions and has clearly never heard the phrase “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” The only horrific element of the film seems to be the fate of some animals, but that’s standard man’s inhumanity to animals. Whatever discomfort the police officer may encounter seems a probable outcome of his own actions and, with his character being such an insufferable idiot, strangely justifiable (he does spend the whole film arbitrarily breaking the law and upsetting people after all). He certainly does nothing for civil-police relations.

The tale is one of religious intransigence. I’m not sure where the horror is. There’s some good old-fashioned weird shit happening, including a healthy 1970s dose of gratuitous nudity, but I couldn’t establish where any terror, trepidation or (at the very least) uneasiness was supposed to come from. The most unsettling thing was probably seeing Christopher Lee with spectacularly-coiffured hair. Either that or the very many musical numbers.

So does it justify its 7.5 rating on IMDB? No. Not at all.

Is it worth watching? Maybe… not as a so-called ‘horror film,’ but perhaps as a cultural marker.

What are the best bits (intentionally-vague slight-spoilers)? Cinematically, some of the cinematography is really crisp and vibrant. Otherwise, simple things like Britt Ekland dancing naked in front of a wardrobe, the excellent mechanical hobby horse, the middle-aged woman playing a child, Christopher Lee’s 1970’s American housewife haircut, nude late-night stradding of a gravestone, Sumer is icumen In being sung at one point, and the fact it’s less than 90 minutes long …

What are the worst bits? The story. Edward Woodward’s unrelatable and loathsome police officer character. The stark absence of anything I would describe as horror.

Am I missing the point? I don’t think so. I think the film can only work as a horror if we (at least on some level) want Sergeant Howie to succeed in his endeavours. If it is supposed to be a satire on religion, then that’s more convincing, albeit somewhat diluted by the comic overzealousness (or just bat-shit craziness) of both sides.

Don’t bend your knees as the tale unfolds, because the creeping feeling that ultimately dawns on you is that there is going to be no shock.

The Wicker Man is considered one of horror’s high-points and I have a whole month of horror films on my schedule. Now that’s terrifying.