Top Ten Favorite Villains

October 26, 2013 James Humphreys

One of the ways that you can gauge the success of a story is in the strength of it’s villain, or more specifically it’s antagonist. A successful and memorable villain is something that can always make or break a good narrative, because when we follow a story-line, there has to be someone or something driving the tension. A lot of the greatest villains that we’ve ever seen have not only effectively filled their role in a story-line, but have also become the thing we’ll enjoy and remember the most in them. Cinema has given us a great variety of memorable villains over the years, and some of the best ones have not only stood out in their own films, but have transcended out into our pop culture in general. I guarantee that the majority of Halloween costumes that are going to be worn in the next week are going to be based off famous movie villains. Take a count next time at a Halloween party and see how many Draculas, or Darth Vaders, or Jason Voorhees you can spot in the room. And it’s understandable; we as an audience love villains. They are usually the most interesting characters and, depending on how diabolical they are, the most entertaining. Actors often say that they enjoy playing the villain more than the hero, because it allows them to indulge in some of the baser aspects of the humanity. In other words, it feels good to act evil.

So, as part of this Halloween season, I would like to share my own list of favorite villains. Interestingly, after looking through them all, I noticed that not all of them are particularly scary characters or overtly mean-spirited. The reason why I chose these characters is because they were the ones that left the biggest impression on me, and were part of the reason why I enjoy their individual films so much. Mainly, these are the villains that I just love to hate. Some are pretty obvious choices, while others might surprise you. I’m was also surprised how so many of the characters on this list also start off seeming so normal at first, until you start to peel the layers back. I think that’s a character development that I enjoy seeing the most; darkness hiding in plain sight.

But before I delve into the list itself, I want to share some of the villains that didn’t make the list that are still worth mentioning: The Wicked Witch of the West (Wizard of Oz), Darth Vader (Star Wars), Hannibal Lecter (The Silence of the Lambs), John Doe (Seven), Reverand Powell (The Night of the Hunter), Cruella deVil (101 Dalmatians), Nurse Ratched (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest), Saruman (The Lord of the Rings), Max Cady (Cape Fear, both versions), Hans Gruber (Die Hard), Voldemort (Harry Potter series), Annie Wilkes (Misery), and Frank Booth (Blue Velvet). Now, here’s my list for you to read and rip apart if you wish.

10.

MOLA RAM from INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM (1984)

Played by Amrish Puri

Here’s the first choice that may surprise some of you. Of all of the villainous characters in the George Lucas stable, how can I choose this character over Darth Vader? The truth is that Darth Vader may be a great villain and a great character in general, but he never scared me as a child. Mola Ram did. Because of that, he left a much bigger impression on me and to this day, I still enjoy seeing this character every time I watch the movie. Unarguably the best villain in the entire Indiana Jones franchise, Mola Ram stands out because he seems to be the very personification of unchecked evil. His evil nature is shown most clearly in how he holds power over his cult of followers and in how he has exploited everyone towards his dark ambitions; including enslaving children. He even turns Dr. Jones evil at one point, which is quite an accomplishment in itself. Surprisingly, for such a memorable villain, he actually has very little onscreen time. His first appearance doesn’t happen until halfway through the movie, but man what an entrance. Indian actor Amrish Puri makes the most of his limited scenes and steals every moment he’s in. Plus, no one has looked more badass pulling a living heart out of someone’s chest.

“Kali Ma. Kali Ma.”

NOAH CROSS from CHINATOWN (1974)

Played by John Huston

Here’s an example of a villain whose true evil nature is hidden below the surface. Chinatown is a great throwback to classic noir mysteries, and for the majority of the film, we follow along as Detective Jake Gittes starts to believe that energy supply tycoon Noah Cross isn’t the fine upstanding businessman that he pretends to be. But, when the film reaches the final act, we learn that Mr. Cross has done far more horrible things than just illegal business practices. We discover that he had raped his own daughter in the past and that a child out of incest was born as a result. Jake confronts Noah about it, and it turns out he feels no shame about what he’s done. In one of the greatest villainous lines ever delivered, Noah Cross explains the way he sees the world by saying, “Most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of ANYTHING.” The scary thing about the character though is that he’s become so powerful and influential, that he’s now untouchable, and will probably go on doing his deprave things unimpeded until he dies comfortably at an old age. A lot of credit goes to director turned actor John Huston for portraying that aspect of the character so chillingly. Huston was an imposing figure both on and off the screen, and he makes Noah Cross one of the cinemas great villains in a terrifying yet subtle way.

“It’s not worth it Mr. Gittes. It’s really not worth it.”

COLONEL HANS LANDA from INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (2009)

Played by Christoph Waltz

You know you’re a memorable antagonist when you appear in the same film as Adolf Hitler, and you’re still considered the main villain. That’s the case with Hans Landa, aka the “Jew Hunter”, in Quentin Tarantino’s WWII epic. Brilliantly portrayed by Christoph Waltz in an Oscar-winning performance, Col. Landa is one of the greatest examples of portraying a character in the opposite way than what is usual. The majority of time, Nazis are appropriately portrayed as sadistic monsters; best example being Amon Gothe in Schindler’s List, played brilliantly by Ralph Finnes. What defines Hans Landa, however, is his pleasantness. He’s polite and courteous, even when he’s committing the most evil of acts. Behind that beaming smile we know there lies the mind of a true monster. He lures you in with his pleasant personality, but the moment he turns silent and the smile disappears, that’s when you know you’re in trouble. The only time he reveals his true nature in the movie is the scene where he chokes the double agent actress to death after returning her shoe, and of course once the deed is done, he smiles again like nothing has happened. Both Christoph Waltz and Quentin Taratino deserve a lot of credit for creating a villain like this that changes around character archetypes, and as a result, created a true original in Hans Landa.

“Ooooo, that’s a BINGO. Is that how you say it?”

MALIFICENT from SLEEPING BEAUTY (1959)

Voiced by Elanor Audley

Disney Animation can be credited with creating many of the most memorable villains in cinema history, and it’s mainly due to the fact that their dark villains stand out a lot more in comparison to the usual light-heartedness commonly found in a Disney film. In many cases, that contrast has led to some notably sinister villains and villainesses; some of whom have inspired some of our darkest nightmares in our childhood. And if there was a Disney villain that you could pick out as the gold standard of the bunch, it would be Malificent. The evil fairy from Disney’s Sleeping Beauty has not only become a memorable villain in her own right, but she has gone on to influence many other villains in animated films in the years since. Anytime when you see an animated film’s villain transform into a giant monster at the film’s climax, it calls back to Malificent’s own transformation into a fire-breathing dragon in the finale of Sleeping Beauty. That’s an impact that few other villains have had, and Malificent deservedly continues to be popular to this day. Outside of her film appearance, Malificent has gone on to become the unofficial arch-nemesis of the whole Disney universe, thanks to highlighted roles in things like the Fantasmic show at Disneyland and in video games like Kingdom Hearts. To be considered the top dog in a rogues gallery as impressive as Disney Animation’s, it’s understandable to see how impactful Malificent has been.

“Well, isn’t this a pleasant surprise. I set my trap for a peasant, an lo, I catch a prince.”

KING EDWARD I (LONGSHANKS) from BRAVEHEART (1995)

Played by Patrick McGoohan

Some of the villains on this list have made it here because they scared me as a child while other have made it because I find them so fascinating. In terms of Longshanks, however, he made this list just because I find him so entertaining. The movie Braveheart undoubtedly takes a lot of liberties with history in service of the story, and the portrayal real historical figure King Edward I is no different. The reason why the film works is that it is unashamed about being a romanticized account of history, through both the writing of the story and the portrayal of it’s characters. Longshanks, as he’s called frequently in the film, is probably the most transparent, mustache-twirling villain on this list, but he earns his place for just being so overt and over-the-top in his evilness that he becomes entertaining. Actor Patrick McGoohan is a delight to watch in the role, and he takes such pleasure in being so diabolical. A lot of the character comes out in the writing as well. Every line that Longshanks delivers is a snarky put-down to someone else, whether it’s directed at William Wallace or to his own king’s council. One of the reasons why I hold the film Braveheart in such high regard is because well Longshanks works as a villain. And only the greatest villains are the ones that command repeat viewings.

“The trouble with Scotland, is that it’s full of Scots.”

HAL 9000 from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968)

Voiced by Douglas Rain

HAL 9000 is one of the most unusual villains to have ever been conceived for a film. What makes him such a frightening villain is the fact that he is all intelligence and no emotion, which as it turns out leads to the impulse to murder in this film. HAL 9000 was created by scientists to perform all of the higher functions of a space shuttle while it’s crew hibernates on the way to their mission near the orbit of Jupiter. Unfortunately, he was programmed to make sure that nothing got in the way of completing the mission. With out much wiggle room or clarity in that order, HAL saw the crew itself as a threat to the mission’s success, and he begins killing them off one by one by cutting their life supports. Only Astronaut Dave Bowman survives and he promptly shuts down HAL before he can do any more damage. It’s amazing how director Stanley Kubrick could turn such a featureless and zero personality character into such a compelling villain, but the trick works to perfection here. HAL 9000’s cold, emotionless voice helps in selling the chill factor, as does the omni-presence of the unblinking red eye. And given our increasing reliance today on electronic devices in our everyday lives, the concept of a dangerous computer mind like HAL’s doesn’t seem that far fetched nowadays.

“I’m sorry Dave. I cannot do that.”

MRS. ELEANOR ISELIN from THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE (1962)

Played by Angela Lansbury

It’s a chilling thought to think that you greatest enemy in the world could be your own mother. But that’s the case in the brilliant John Frankenheimer film, The Manchurian Candidate. The film centers around a multi-layered conspiracy to assassinate a Presidential candidate that includes brainwashed POW soldiers, Chinese communists spies, a firebrand Senator that’s obviously inspired by Joseph McCarthy, and the Queen of Diamonds. At the center of the conspiracy is Golden Boy war hero Raymond Shaw (Laurence Harvey), who has been displaying unusual behavior since his return home. When the mystery starts to unravel, we soon learn that the one pulling all the strings is non other than Raymond’s mother, Elanor, who is married to the fiercely anti-communist Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate John Iselin. In one of the greatest casting against types ever, Angela Lansbury portrays a truly terrifying mother-figure in Elanor Iselin. She creates a truly nasty character by balancing the motherly aspects of the character with the more vitriolic aspects. She also portrays the Oedipal aspects of the relationship with her son in very fearless, and ultimately grotesque ways. In a political thriller where political games leads to a lot of people doing bad things, Elanor Iselin stands out as a truly dangerous and ruthless manipulator.

“I wanted a killer from a world filled with killers and they chose you.”

THE JOKER from BATMAN (1989) and THE DARK KNIGHT (2008)

Played by Jack Nicholson (Batman) and Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)

I’m cheating a little bit here, by selecting two different versions of the same character. It was hard to pick just one, so I thought it was better to put the them together. The Joker is not only one of the greatest cinematic villains, but also arguably the greatest comic book villain of all times. A brilliant counter-point figure to the caped crusader, Batman, The Joker has that special ability to be laugh-out-loud funny one minute and then horrifically frightening in the next. There have been 4 cinematic takes on the character (special mention to Cesar Romero in the 1966 film, and Mark Hamill in the 1993 animated feature Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.) But the two most notable version are the ones played by Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger. Jack Nicholson seemed to be born to play the part, and his performance in the Tim Burton directed feature proves that to be true. Albeit, he plays up the funnier aspects of the character a little more, but when the movie calls for it, he can be truly terrifying in the role. Heath Ledger, however, was not the choice people had expected when director Christopher Nolan cast him in the role for The Dark Knight, and he had to overcome a lot of doubt in the audience’s eyes. Not only did he prove us all wrong, he set the bar even higher with his performance, creating one of the most terrifying villains to ever appear on screen. Both versions have their merits, but I might rank Heath Ledger’s a little higher, just because of the impact he made. That’s not to say that Jack’s version is any less fun to watch. The great thing about the Joker is that like Batman, he will continue to be remade and reinterpreted in both films and comics for years to come.

“Wait until they get a load of me.”

“You want to know how I got these scars?”

NORMAN BATES from PSYCHO (1960)

Played by Anthony Perkins

Like many of the other villains on this list, Norman Bates doesn’t come across as purely evil, until you start to look deeper. Taking the term Mama’s boy to the ultimate extreme, Norman has become one the greatest villains in cinema history mainly because of how compelling his character is. He seems so normal and harmless at first, which helps the audience to identify with him right away; that is until we see what he’s really capable of. Director Alfred Hitchcock always enjoyed subverting conventional wisdom and Hollywood archetypes, and here he transforms the boy next door into a homicidal killer. We don’t see Norman do a lot of killing in the movie, but that’s not what makes him terrifying. It’s the psychosis behind the character that makes him a chilling villain. Anthony Perkins pulls of that balancing act to perfection. His charming personality in the first half of the film fools us into believing that he is no where near capable of committing murder and that the homicidal one is really his mother. That notion proves wrong once we see his mothers rotting corpse in the basement and him in his mother’s dress with a butcher knife. The most terrifying aspect though is that Norman has progressively been loosing more of himself to his psychosis and that he’s developing a split personality based on his mom. The idea that he sits alone all day having a two way conversation with a rotting corpse is definitely enough to make anyone’s skin crawl and it definitely certifies his place among the most memorable villains ever.

“A boy’s best friend is his mother.”

ALEX DELARGE from A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971)

Played by Malcolm McDowell

In most films, a villain will sometimes be a more compelling character than the main protagonist. In Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, the main protagonist just happens to be the villain. In this classic film, we are presented with probably the most compelling and memorable portrayal of a true psychopath, and the journey that his life takes. Alex is an unapologetic violent thug who terrorizes the streets of his hometown along with his gang of followers, whom he calls his Droogies. Much like the Joker, he also takes delight in doing the most horrible things, and never once feels guilty about it. He is just pure unchecked evil, which makes his villainy all the more unsettling to watch, especially considering how young he is; in the original novel, Alex is only a teenager. What makes Alex even more fascinating, however, is what happens to him once he becomes reformed in the latter half of the film. After being arrested, Alex volunteers for a new experimental treatment, which leaves him docile and unable to give in to his more baser instincts. As a result of this, he is unable to fight back, and all the people he has wronged start to take out their revenge in ever more increasingly violent ways. It’s as if Alex is a lightning rod for all evil actions in the world, and if he’s not the one doing it, then he’ll bring it out in even the most good-natured people around him. Malcolm McDowell plays both aspects of the character brilliantly and unlike most other villains, he makes Alex a villain we want to root for. I wonder what that says about humanity; that we value even the most extreme of anti-heroes, or that there’s evil instincts in every one of us that we enjoy seeing others act out. All of this is what makes Alex what I believe to be the best villain in movie history.

“I was cured alright.”

So, these are my choices for the greatest movie villains of all time. I hope that some of these picks are among yours as well. Out of all this, it’s clear that a great villain has to come from a great story, but that’s not always the case. Some mediocre story-lines can be improved upon if the villain is memorable enough. The worst thing that a movie can do is to make their antagonist weak and insignificant, even if their hero is a compelling one. Villains drive the tension of the film, so it’s essential to make them a worthwhile character. For me, the best villains are the ones that are unexpected and multi-layered. Overtly evil characters can work some of the time, but the ones that will frighten us more are the ones that are the most like us, which shows the thin line that we all walk between right and wrong. That’s what makes villainous characters such an integral part of our movie-going experience. We just enjoy watching characters being bad and loving it.

Focus on a Franchise

Focus on a Franchise – Friday the 13th

October 19, 2013 James Humphreys

After complaining last week about horror franchises that never end, I decided to actually examine one such franchise that has been going on now for over 30 years and still has managed to remain relevant in audience’s eyes. I’m speaking, of course, about the Friday the 13th franchise, and it’s seemingly unstoppable central villain, Jason Voorhees. Few other characters have spawned as many movies as Jason has, especially in the horror genre. For a total of 10 feature films, 2 spin-off crossovers, and one forgettable remake, Jason has earned a place in the pantheon of iconic movie monsters. Truth be told, I was familiar with the Jason character in general, through cultural osmosis, but I’ve been unfamiliar with many of his films. Also, the ones that I have seen, I hadn’t seen all the way through. So, this week, I set out to watch all 10 of the canonical Jason movies (thanks to AMC Network’s movie marathon for the Halloween season). Albeit, these films were in the edited form, but I was still able to take away from them how the character has been built up over the years and how each movie made an impact on one another. And watching the series the whole way through led me to some interesting observations.

First of all, what is my take on the series as a whole, before I delve into each one individually? For the most part, I think the character of Jason himself stands up much better than the movies that feature him. I actually began to like him more the further I went into the series. I love the fact that, for the most part, Jason never changes. He’s an unstoppable killing machine put on this earth to brutally murder randy teenagers who cross his path. What also surprised me was how every film in the franchise actually followed that same formula through every entry; with mixed results. The best parts in each movie are when Jason takes out his victims and the unique ways in which he does it. The low points are when the plots slow down to explain away what makes Jason tick. In the end, who cares. Jason just is; enough said. Overall he makes for one memorable character that deserves a long running series; even when not all of the movies are up to the same standard. Now, let’s take a look at the Friday the 13th series in more detail.

FRIDAY THE 13TH (1980)Directed by Sean S. Cunningham

The one that started it all, and a movie that you wouldn’t have expected to have started such a long running series. Set around the fictional Camp Crystal Lake in New Jersey, a group of camp counselors begin to fall prey to a sadistic serial killer who picks each one of them off, one by one. Many believe that the killer could be a former camp attendee named Jason Voorhees, who they thought had drowned in the lake years before and has now been resurrected to exact his revenge. Eventually, only one survivor named Alice (Adrienne King) seeks refuge with Mrs. Voorhees (Betsy Palmer) in the hopes that she may have answers regarding her murderous son. But as it turns out, mild-mannered Mrs. Voorhees has been the killer all along, hoping to avenge her son and keep the camp closed. Alice soon escapes and fights back against Mrs. Voorhees, eventually decapitating her with a wood ax. The film ends with Alice taking a boat across the lake to safety, but before she can reach the other side, she is attacked from behind by the decaying remains of Jason.

Friday the 13th was highly criticized when it was first released, but I think time has helped to give this film the strong reputation it deserves. It’s a well-crafted movie that does represent the best qualities of the horror genre. It’s shocking without being too exploitative and it’s story-line actually offers up some nice surprises. Betsy Palmer in particular gives an effectively chilling performance as Mrs. Voorhees, where she is able to balance the motherly aspects of the character well with the psychotic aspects, making her a well-rounded villain. What pleased me most about seeing this film is that all of the traits of a Friday the 13th movie are used here to their full potential, even when the iconic character isn’t present.

FRIDAY THE 13TH: PART 2(1981)Directed by Steve Miner

Released only a year after the first movie, which started off the short release pattern seen between the movies in the 80’s, Jason Voorhees made his full-fledged debut in this sequel. How he went from a child to a full-grown adult between films is never explained fully, but you’ll quickly forget about that once the killing starts. And Jason’s first victim turns out to be Alice (one again played by Adrienne King), which sets off the feeling right away that this was a new beginning for the franchise. Again, camp counselors are murdered one by one leaving just one survivor in the end to face Jason in a final showdown. She manages to outsmart the killer by finding the shrine Jason has set up in his old home with his mother’s rotting remains. Ginny, the final survivor, puts on Mrs. Voorhees sweater and makes Jason think that she is his mother, which manages to work, leading Ginny to subdue the monster by stabbing him in the back with an ax. The movie does an effective job of introducing Jason into the series as the killer, but the film suffers a bit by just following the same story-line as the first, more or less. Albeit, there’s not much more you can build upon in the first place, but it just felt like the film didn’t take enough chances apart from adding Jason, and just felt like more of the same, something that’ll plague most of the films yet to come.

FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3 (1982)Directed by Steve Miner

Perhaps the most gimmicky of the Jason films, at least up to this point, this film became the first one to be shot in 3D. So, pretty much you’ll be seeing a lot of things pointing straight at the camera while watching this movie. That works well enough when you see someone’s eye get poked out with an arrow as it shots right off the screen, but when you start to see someone holding a shovel out in front of them for no reason other than to take advantage of the 3D gimmick, then it begins to take you out of the film all together. That’s part of the problem with Part 3; it just seemed to be made solely for the purpose of producing 3D gore. The story-line is exactly the same as the others and even steals some of the better scares out of the first two, including the body coming out of the lake scare. What is noteworthy in this film however is that it introduces one of the most iconic elements of the Jason character; the hockey mask. Surprisingly, for something that has become so synonymous with the character, it is given very little importance in this film. Jason just casually picks it up in a garage and puts it on and that’s that. But I guess like everything else in this series, the small things gain significance over time.

FRIDAY THE 13TH: THE FINAL CHAPTER (1984)Directed by Joseph Zito

Obviously with a title like that, you would think that this was meant to be the final Jason film, as parent studio Paramount Pictures wanted to put the series to rest after the previous movie had under-performed. Of course, this wouldn’t be the end of Jason Voorhees by a long shot; and in fact this movie would be the start of what would be known as the “Tommy Jarvis Trilogy” in the series. Jason once again begins murdering teenagers around Camp Crystal Lake, until he runs into the Jarvis family. Trish Jarvis (Kimberly Beck) holds up her family in the lakeside cabin they call home, including her younger brother Tommy (a pre-Goonies Corey Feldman). Eventually Jason follows them to their final refuge and is about to kill Trish when he is suddenly distracted by a quick thinking Tommy. In a weird finale to the film, Tommy distracts the monster by shaving his own head and making himself look like a young Jason without his mask. Once subdued, Jason is soon brutally killed by a crazed Tommy, to Trish’s horror. You heard that right, Jason meets his match, and it’s Corey Feldman. The ending to this film is a strange one, but it certainly left a much better impression on the series than the previous two films had.

FRIDAY THE 13TH: A NEW BEGINNING (1985) Directed by Danny Steinmann

Set several years after the previous film, we find Tommy Jarvis (now played as a teenager by John Sheppard) still haunted by the ordeal he went through as he recovers in a halfway house for troubled youths. One of his fellow residents named Joey is murdered in cold blood by another resident, and this incident suddenly begins a string of other murders. No one knows who is doing it until Tommy and a younger resident named Reggie spot the masked man in the act. This leaves Tommy powerless as he is still deeply haunted by Jason, but eventually he gets the courage to face his fears and subdue the murderer. Once the masked man is killed, we find out that it wasn’t Jason after all, but the father of the murdered Joey, seeking vengeance on the halfway house and its residents. This is the best of the Tommy Jarvis films and probably the best entry since the first Friday the 13th. It manages to give the story some depth when it needs it, but still keep the gory aspects as ridiculous and gruesome as ever. I liked the twist at the end that the killer was only posing as Jason, which was an interesting change of pace. The only aspect I didn’t like though was actually Tommy Jarvis himself. Actor John Sheppard just kind of sleepwalks through the film and makes Tommy a rather passive protagonist. Honestly, when you’re making Corey Feldman look like the better actor, then you’ve got a problem. The film does close on an interesting note, however, when Tommy dons the mask and looks as if he may become the next Jason himself.

FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VI: JASON LIVES (1986) Directed By Tom McLoughlin

Unfortunately, the follow-up film drops that interesting idea from Part 5 in favor of more of the same. The film finds Tommy Jarvis (now played by Thom Mathews) digging up the body of Jason in the hopes that he can destroy him once and for all, just in case he might come back. To his dismay, the body of Jason is reanimated once the coffin is open by a sudden bolt of lightning. And, like a hornet returning to it’s nest, Jason goes right back to Crystal Lake and begins killing teenage camp counselors once again. Tommy follows him there and manages to get Jason back into the lake by tying a huge boulder to the monster and drowning him once again. There’s not much to this plot and it rather weakly ties up the Tommy Jarvis story-line. What’s interesting about this film is that it introduces more self-referential humor into the series, much like what we’ve seen in the Scream films; for good and for bad. There’s a hilarious bit where Jason takes out a bunch of paint-ball shooters in the woods and Jason’s first victim is none other than Horshack from Welcome Back Kotter, or more specifically actor Ron Pallilo. But some of the other bits of humor seem either too forced or out of place. Overall, the story-line felt like a step backwards after the interesting turns it had taken in the previous installments.

FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VII: THE NEW BLOOD (1988) Directed by Joel Carl Buechler

This film could be considered Jason meets Carrie, although the title character from Stephen King’s famous novel plays no part in this story-line. In this movie, we are introduced to Tina Shepard (Lar Park Lincoln) who has telekinetic powers that she struggles to control. She is being brought back to Crystal Lake for treatment after an incident years ago with her powers had killed her father and left her in a mental institution. While at the lake, she attempts to bring her father back to life, but unintentionally she resurrects Jason, still anchored by the stone at the bottom. Once free, Jason begins attacking a group of vacationing teenagers housed at the lake, some of whom Tina has befriended. Tina soon learns that her powers are an asset rather than a curse, as she uses them to combat Jason and protect herself. Eventually she manages to return Jason back to the lake and hopefully has him destroyed for good. This film adds a lot of new things in the series and does them right. This is by far one of the better entries in the franchise, even if it has some of the same flaws as some of the other films. I like the injection of another supernatural element into the story-line, which could have been problematic if done poorly, but here it actually works. Lar Park Lincoln’s performance is much better than it needs to be and she manages to create a compelling protagonist in Tina. Also, we finally get to see what lies under the mask and a lot of credit goes to the make-up crew for creating a truly terrifying look for Jason. We see that he is now more creature than man, helping to make this both a terrifying and enriching entry into the series.

FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VIII: JASON TAKES MANHATTAN (1989) Directed by Rob Hedden

The title for this film is misleading because Jason doesn’t make it to New York until the final act. A better title would’ve been Jason’s Final Voyage, because the majority of the movie takes place on a ship travelling up the Jersey Shore; which looks an awful lot like Vancouver, BC. This film is much weaker mainly because it is one of the more gimmicky Jason movies. Mainly we just watch how many ways Jason can kill his victims on a boat, and that’s the movie. There’s some character development around a teenage girl named Rennie and her fear of water at play in this movie, but that’s about it. The film does gain some steam towards the end once Jason and the survivors reach dry land on Manhattan Island, mainly because they exploit the locals pretty effectively. When Jason chases down Rennie and her boyfriend down a subway, it’s effectively harrowing. Most of the rest of the movie is far less terrifying and oftentimes more unintentionally silly. I usually find that when a film series has to start injecting gimmicks into it’s story-lines, its a sign that the series is losing it’s way, and Jason Takes Manhattan is a clear example of that. That being said, Jason is still the best element in the movie, and he gets one really great moment when he faces down a champion boxer and takes his head off in one blow.

JASON GOES TO HELL: THE FINAL FRIDAY (1993)Directed by Adam Marcus

After a decade long run and 8 total films, Paramount was done with Jason and they sold the rights to the character over to New Line Cinema, the home of another horror icon: Freddy Kruger. Out of this deal, New Line started off their Jason “era” with this entry, the ninth in the series. Unfortunately this is the worst one by far. Here’s a “clever” idea for you; Jason dies in the first scene in the movie, but then transforms into a parasite that invades human bodies and turns them into monstrous killers. This lame idea somehow made it passed the development stage and became the basis of this really stupid movie. The Jason parasite makes no sense whatsoever, not even in the convoluted logic that has been built up in this series over the years, and sadly reduces the effectiveness of the character as a whole. Not only that, the plot and the supporting characters are also laughably bad. Even an attempt to create a bad-ass supernatural bounty hunter named Creighton Duke (Steven Williams) falls flat. For a while, this movie was so notoriously toxic that it killed the franchise for many years; not a good start for New Line Cinema. It’s a reaction that I totally understand. After watching all the films in succession, this was the film that nearly made me give up on the marathon. Yes, even Jason going to Manhattan didn’t make me want to stop watching the series. One particular interesting note about the film though is that after Jason is dragged down to Hell at the end, his mask is left behind, only to be dragged away by the claw-like glove of Freddy Kruger; a sign of things to come, but not for a long time after.

JASON X (2002)Directed by James Isaac

Nearly ten years after Jason Goes to Hell sank the franchise, New Line tried once again to make another Jason film, and this time they attempted probably the biggest and most outlandish gimmick of them all; taking Jason into Outer Space. Now a premise like that would lead you to believe that the series was getting desperate and that anything that made Jason a viable character before was now gone; but you would be wrong. Jason X fits squarely in that “so bad it’s good” category that you usually see happen to a lot of the SyFy channel brand of films. In fact, the movie does have the same look and feel of one of those notorious SyFy movies, like Sharknado. I think that has a lot to do with the execution done by director Isaac and his crew. The movie is reverential towards the Jason character and all of the common elements that make up a classic “slasher” movie, but it also plays out everything with it’s tongue firmly planted in its cheek. The characters are thinly drawn stereotypes on purpose, the CGI effects are atrociously awful, and the murders are so outlandish that you can’t help but laugh through it all. That helps to make Jason X not only tolerable, but probably the most thoroughly entertaining film in the series. Credit goes to the filmmakers for finding the right balance in this film. Unlike Part VI, every gag works here. And not only that, but it goes a long way towards enhancing the Jason character even further; especially when he becomes part cyborg towards the end. It’s great to see a film series actually change pace and tone 10 movies in and make it work. It’s no masterpiece, but I’m glad I stuck in there long enough to make it to Jason X, especially after the garbage that was Jason Goes to Hell.

And so, that’s my look at the Friday the 13th franchise. After seeing all ten films, I can appreciate the fact that people hold up Jason Voorhees as one of the icons of horror. I like that what started off as a small scale murder mystery in the first film has grown more outlandish over time, eventually leading to Jason being the first mass-murderer in space. While about half of the series is fairly forgettable (Parts 2, 3, 6, and 8) to just downright awful (Jason Goes to Hell), there are a couple films that do stand out as effective, like the memorable first entry and Part 7. Also, the series did create one gonzo of a finale with Jason X, which kind of falls into a category all it’s own. I didn’t look at the Freddy vs. Jason crossover because I felt that’s a separate franchise set apart from this, other than the tease in Jason Goes to Hell. Also, I’m ignoring the bland 2009 remake, mainly because it reinforces my initial complaint about how remakes are diminishing the horror genre as a whole by completely missing the point about what made these horror classics work in the first place. Jason’s rampage in cinemas may be over for now, but his legacy is still ongoing and it’s one that has left an impact on the genre for the better.

Editorials

Not So Scary – Modern Horror Movies and the Lack of Genuine Scares

October 12, 2013 James Humphreys

Horror movies have been around since the very beginning of cinema. From F.W. Murnau’s classic vampire flick Nosferatu (1922) to Universal Studio’s monster movies like Dracula (1931) and Frankenstein (1931), audiences have made watching scary films a long standing tradition. And, like most other genres, horror has grown and evolved with the times, satisfying the changing tastes of it’s audiences. In the 50’s, we saw the rise of the Sci-fi monster movies and in the 60’s and 70’s, “schlock” horror began to become popular, thanks to relaxed restraints over acceptable on-screen violence. It is a genre that has more or less stayed strong in every decade and is much more adaptable than any other genre of film. But, in recent years, I have noticed that there has been a severe drop off in horror movies that actually leave a mark. It seems that today, studios are more interested in quantity over quality and its a trend that is having a negative effect on the genre as a whole. My belief is that studios are using the horror genre as a way to generate a quick influx of cash, knowing that there is a built in audience of people who watch horror movies no matter what it is. That’s why you see so many horror films quickly drop off after their opening weekend. There seems to be the belief nowadays that you can pass off something as a horror movie if it has one or two big scares; but the reality is that the best horror films don’t always rely on things that make us jump out of our seats.

What makes a great Horror movie is the use of atmosphere. This has been the case since the very beginning; back when cinema was still silent. F.W. Murnau’s silent masterpiece Nosferatu shows exactly how atmosphere can be used to signify terror. In the movie, we see how simple staging and effective use of shadows can be used to terrifying effect. The vampire Count Orlok, played by actor Max Schreck, is able to strike at his victims using just his shadow, an image in the film that is made simply with the movie’s use of lighting, but still done with chilling effectiveness. Early Hollywood horror films likewise made great use of atmosphere. If you look at a movie like Dracula, there is actually very little on-screen violence present. Instead, the film presents a feeling of dread through the gloomy atmosphere of the vampire’s castle. Thanks to that, and Bela Lugosi’s iconic performance, you don’t need to see the bloodletting of Dracula’s victims in order to be scared. This has helped to give these movies lasting power over so many years. It’s amazing that movies made in the early days of cinema can still be scary, given all the limitations they had. And given all the bad things we’ve seen happen to movie vampires in recent years (I’m looking at you Twilight), I’m glad that Lugosi’s version of the Count still can create a chill.

Understandably, the horror genre has had to grow and evolve with the times in order to survive, but for many years there was still an emphasis on atmosphere at play. The more rebellious era of the 70’s allowed for more use of onscreen violence, and while many filmmakers perhaps went a little overboard in this period, there were a few that actually made an impact. Dario Argento created films that were not only gory but also artistically staged like The Cat of Nine Tales (1971), Deep Red (1975) and the very twisted Suspiria (1977), which showed off how atmosphere could still be used to enhance the gore on film. Director George A. Romero likewise used atmosphere effectively in a sub-genre of horror that he helped create; the zombie flick. Despite the fact that these directors were given more leeway to do what they wanted, what made their early work so effective was in how they showed restraint. You can show a lot more in horror movies nowadays, but sometimes what remains unseen becomes the scariest element, and that’s why films of this era managed to be effective. The filmmakers knew when to be shocking and when to show restraint, based on what the horror movies that inspired them had done in the past. But, as generations of filmmakers become more desensitized to what can be allowed in a horror movie, that sense of restraint also goes away.

The problem that I see in most modern horror movies today is that there is no self-restraint left in them. For the most part, the filmmakers chose to throw atmosphere out the window in favor of “jump scares.” A “jump scare” is when something suddenly pops onto screen out of nowhere in an attempt to make the audience scream and jump all at the same time, usually accompanied with a loud music cue to maximize effect. A “jump scare” can work, when it is used sparingly, but too many films today are overusing it, which diminishes it’s effectiveness over time. One of the best examples of a jump scare is actually in a film that you would consider more of a thriller than a horror movie; Jaws (1975). The scene in question is when scientist Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) is investigating a shark attack on a fishing boat at night. While examining the hole in the bottom of the boat, a severed head pops out suddenly, creating a genuine scare for both him and the audience. This scene is effective because it is unexpected and is built up thanks to the atmosphere of the moment. Also, it is one of the few times that director Steven Spielberg actually uses a “jump scare” in the movie. The fewer times it happens, the more effective it is, and unfortunately that’s a technique that few horror filmmakers today understand. When you use a technique too many times, it becomes tiresome and the audiences become more aware of it. Unfortunately, too many filmmakers get carried away and have too much fun creating these kinds of “jump scares.”

One other problem I have noticed with modern horror films is the over-abundance of CGI. While computer effects can sometimes be helpful in a horror film, like making it look like a character has lost a limp or manipulating an environment in a way that defies physics, there is a larger problem of effects work making moments that should be scary less so. The problem is that most computer effects look too artificial. Of course, when you see puppetry and prosthetic work used in horror movies, they are far from realistic too, but those effects are at least are physical in nature and actors can still interact with them. When you see a horror movie use CGI too much, you just know that the actors are reacting to nothing else but a green screen effect. A recent movie like Mama (2013), loses all effective chills when you see the digital apparition in it appear. This is more apparent in smaller budget horror films, which you can kinda excuse due to limitations in budgets. But when a bigger budget horror film, like the upcoming Carrie remake, looks so pathetic because of the overdone CGI effects, then you begin to see how digital imagery has a negative effect on the genre. Even a good horror film like World War Z suffered from some unnecessary CGI work, which had the unfortunate affect of making the zombies less frightening. If ever there was a place where I wish horror filmmakers would show more restraint, it would be here.

One other problem that I see plaguing the horror genre is the lack of original ideas. Today we are seeing an overabundance of the same kinds of ideas used over and over again. Seriously, how many haunted house movies do we need? Not only that, there are far too many remakes and sequels in the horror genre. Do we really need seven Saw movies and four Paranormal Activities? Horror sequels have become so absurdly common, that we have ridiculous titles like The Last Exorcism 2 and A Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia appear as a result; and yes that second title is real. I see it as commerce taking precedence over artistic vision, and the fact that film studios are more likely to invest in something already established than in something new. Every now and then, you do see a movie with a fresh idea come about, like Paranormal Activity in 2007, but even that was driven into ground with too many follow ups with diminishing returns.

Remakes are also a negative factor in horror movies today. What you usually see in these horror remakes are films that get rid of all the atmosphere from the originals in favor of upping the gore factor and the scary bits; just because filmmakers have the ability to do now what could only be implied at in the past. The problem with this is that it completely misses the point of what made the original films so effective in the first place. A particular example is the terrible remake of John Carpenter’s The Thing, which loses all of the substance of the original in favor of just making the film as gory as possible. Gore does not equal scary. Filmmakers like Carpenter knew that, and that’s why they used gore sparingly. The sad thing is that remakes try to one up these originals because the tools today are so much better; but it fails miserably every time.

Thankfully, despite the attempts by Hollywood to try to push the Horror genre into more exploitative territories, the classics still hold up all these years later. Even a 90 year old film like Nosferatu still gives audiences chills to this day. And I think that it all comes down to atmosphere. It’s like how people tell ghost stories around a campfire. Would you rather listen to the story that builds up to a chilling ending that’ll leave you with nightmares, or would you rather listen to someone’s story that gets caught up in the gory details and then just ends without a payoff? That’s what’s being lost in horror movies today. The classics knew how to build their stories around scary ideas, and not just the imagery. The Twilight Zone became popular on television because it presented us with unsettling scenarios that made us anxious the longer we thought about them. Not once did we see the monster on the wing of a plane attack William Shatner in the famous episode; it was the frightening possibilities that could have come about that made the episode scary and also Shatner’s paranoia in his performance. The best horror movies have staying power because they knew that their audiences had the imaginations capable of filling in the gory details that remained unseen.

So, is horror a dying genre? Of course not. There is an abundance of terrible horror movies out there, but that’s only because the market has been flooded. Every now and then, a fresh new idea comes along and not only makes an impact, but it will also go on to influence the genre as a whole. One thing that I would like to see an end to in the horror genre is the over-abundance of terrible remakes. Just looking at the new Carrie remake trailer makes me laugh, because it’s taking everything that worked in the original and makes it less subtle. I believe it strongly; CGI, and shaky-cam for that matter, are making horror films less frightening. They are showy techniques that ruin atmosphere needed for a good horror movie and I wish more filmmakers would show more restraint. I’ve stayed away from horror films generally because of this, and the horror movies that I gravitate towards are ones that have been around a long time. If you’re wondering which one I consider my favorite, it would be Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980). Talk about a film that makes the most out of it’s atmosphere. I hope that other horror filmmakers take a look at what makes the classics as scary as they are, and learn the effectiveness of restraint. You’d be surprised how much a little scare can go when it’s built up well enough.

Movie Reviews

Gravity – Review

October 5, 2013 James Humphreys

A realization of someones worst nightmare or a rousing adventure into the outer limits. Either way you look at it, there’s no denying that director Alfonso Cuaron’s new space-set thriller Gravity is one unforgettable cinematic experience. I was looking forward to this film ever since the first heart-pounding trailer made it to screens months ago. I was worried a bit that the film would be a let down, because the marketing was so strong and the trailers were so intense, but thankfully my fears were moot once I saw the final product. Gravity is a film unlike anything I have ever seen before and may very well stand as one of my picks for the best of the year. It comes with my highest recommendation, though I should also stress that this film probably won’t be for everyone. This movie is essentially a survival film set in the most unforgiving environment that mankind has ever ventured into; outer space. And while this is something we have seen before in other sci-fi films (parts of Alien (1979) comes to mind), none of them have ever been done on this scale and with this kind of authenticity. Harrowing would be the best word to describe the film’s benchmark action scenes, and believe me, they will be agonizing to some people out there.

The plot is beautifully simplistic; keeping everything focused on the situation at hand without any outside distractions. In fact, the movie begins with the inciting incident in the very first shot, and the rest of the film just follows through to the very end as if it’s making things up as it goes along. The story follows a couple of astronauts repairing a satellite in Earth’s orbit when suddenly their shuttle is struck by space debris from an exploded Russian satellite. This incident leaves only two survivors, Astronauts Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), both of whom are left drifting in orbit without any way to get down. Their only means of escape is to get to another space station within a reasonable distance. This is not without peril considering that their oxygen supply is low and the debris field is headed back their way within 90 minutes. This is essentially the plot to the film, and without spoiling what happens next, I will say that the film deftly handles this premise perfectly; letting things play out logically and keeping the main thrust of the plot in focus throughout the whole of the run time.

What is remarkable about the movie, and what helps to make it feel so real, is the way that Alfonso Cuaron has edited it together. If you know anything about Cuaron’s work, you’d know that he is a fan of the extended tracking shot. This technique is when the camera continues to roll and follow the action on-screen without ever cutting, sometimes for minutes on end. This was prominent in Cuaron’s 2006 film Children of Men, which featured two such shots, both of which ran continuously for about 6 minutes in length. That’s like an eternity in film editing and to pull one of these off requires a lot of pre-planned staging. If one actor messes up the shot, it means that everything has to go back to where it started in order to get everything right in one take. This is why the technique is rarely used, because of the extra effort involved, but it’s a challenge that Cuaron has gotten so good at doing, that it’s become a staple in his films. Gravity is no exception. The opening shot alone runs continuously for 12 minutes before the first cut appears. Now, of course, I’m sure the staging of this shot was helped greatly by the aid of CGI enhancement, but still it requires a lot of faith in the audience to stay involved. And the shot is a remarkable way to introduce us into the film. We see the Earth from space at first and then slowly, a space shuttle comes into view and we begin to hear the com chat of the astronauts, introducing them individually to us, all before the debris begins to rain down.

It’s a remarkable beginning to the film and I can’t think of anyone who won’t be hooked after watching this opening take place. Cuaron has certainly mastered the art of the tracking shot and best of all, it actually goes a long way towards establishing everything we need to know in this movie, regarding the story, the characters and the setting. The rest of the film continues to follow along in this style of story-telling, and I don’t think there is more than 20-30 shots in the entire movie. You would think that a movie wouldn’t be able to sustain it’s tension over a long period of time if it didn’t cut to other things once in a while, but in this movie, it’s an essential element. It adds to the claustrophobia felt in the characters predicament. I don’t think any other film has done this good of a job portraying what it actually feels like to be in outer space. As the characters are drifting around in space, you are right there with them, experiencing the emptiness of the setting. There is no external sound except what we hear from the astronauts’ transmissions. When something big happens, it builds and builds the longer the shot goes on, which makes the tension even stronger. Overall, you get that feeling of being un-tethered to existence and being consumed by the nothingness of space, which in the end is a very terrifying thing.

That’s why I think this film will put of some viewers. I think that everyone will agree it is a good movie in the end, but for some people it will be a one and done experience. This movie will test you; no doubt about it, and I think that’s a testament to the film’s authenticity. This movie must have been very well researched because the atmosphere in this film is so fully realized. Again, the editing has a lot to do with that, but the design and camera teams have likewise done a commendable job here. I almost guarantee that cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki will win an Oscar for his work, not only for the amazing tracking shots, but for the way he utilizes the effects work in this film as well. This is an outer space that is not stylized or minimized; it looks about as real as actual NASA footage. The way that the earth fills the screen in many shots is also a chief design element, and it really helps to establish the immensity of the setting. And by making it all feel real, it all gives the viewer a “you are there” feeling, which only enhances the feeling of anxiety when something goes wrong. Believe me, the audience I watched the film with was so tensed up by what they were watching that you could have heard a pin drop in the theater. It’s rare to see a movie do that nowadays, when so many films are geared towards making an audience laugh and cheer at every turn, whether it succeeds or not. For a movie to leave an audience silent throughout the whole showing is quite an accomplishment itself, so the filmmakers should be pleased in having done that.

And while there’s a lot of great work done with the style and staging in this film, I am pleased to see that the actors involved didn’t get lost in the thick of it all. The cast is minimal to an extreme degree; meaning there are only two actors in the entire film that have any face time. I should especially single out Sandra Bullock, since she is onscreen for pretty much the entire film, and she makes the most of it. I believe this is the most impressive work she has done to date. She captures both the vulnerability and the strength of the character in a very believable way, and makes Ryan Stone a character that we want to see make it out of this ordeal alive. She is effectively our guide through this adventure. We see everything through her eyes and every mishap she encounters is given a personal resonance that the audience will surely feel along with her. Sandra Bullock manages to embody this character without a single inauthentic note in her performance, and that’s a pleasing thing to see in a challenging movie like this. George Clooney’s performance may not be as nuanced as Sandra Bullock’s, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be either. He’s supposed to be the handsome and charming astronaut character in this film, and that’s exactly what Clooney is good at. He provides the film with some much needed levity, and his inclusion is a good balance for the movie. It’s rare when you get a film with a cast this small, but I’m certainly happy that the two actors involved made it work.

Any flaw you may find in this film may come from the different attempts the filmmakers made in extending the film’s run time, which is a surprisingly compact 91 minutes. Admittedly, the film hits it’s lowest points when things start to settle down, but that is a rare occurrence. Also, the authenticity feels as real as it possibly can be, but I don’t know if everything is scientifically sound. Some people may nitpick and say that some moments could never happen in reality, particularly towards the end, but I doubt that anyone will make much of a fuss over this film. This movie is a standout and rightfully earns it’s place among other sci-fi classics. Alfonso Cuaron crafted this movie as both an experience and an inspiring portrayal of man’s ingenuity in the face of nature’s extremes. I can see this film inspiring a lot of other people to take an interest in space exploration, even when it turns just as many people off that kind of idea. There are even some subtle loving nods to other sci-fi classics, like 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Alien (1979), which shows where Cuaron had clearly drawn some of his inspiration. Also, it makes sense that the voice of the unseen Mission Control commander in this movie is none other than actor Ed Harris, who played the same kind of role in Ron Howard’s Apollo 13 (1995).

This movie succeeds on every level, and I’m glad to see a film actually live up to it’s potential and deliver on what it promises. The trailers for the film did a good job of conveying the intensity of the film, but the entire experience is something that everyone should take in, even though it will push a lot of people harder than they would like to. I should also mention that I watched this movie in IMAX 3D, and if there was ever a film that was justified for this format, this was it. The IMAX screen does a lot towards enhancing the vastness of the outer space setting, which made all of those heart-pounding scenes even more of an experience. The 3D also was used effectively, if not entirely un-noticeable. Sometimes you’d see a piece of debris shoot past the camera or a drop of liquid floating in mid-air, but otherwise everything else was subtly done in three-dimensions. Overall, one of the best cinematic experiences I’ve had so far this year, and I’m sure that many will share that same feeling. I’m pleased to see a director like Alfonso Cuaron pushing his cinematic styles into new places, because it leads to unforgettable experiences like this one. Hopefully, whatever project he chooses next will be as engaging as this one. It’s rare to see a movie be “out-of-this-world” and so grounded at the same time; something all audiences must see just for the experience alone.

Rating: 9/10

CINERAMBLE

Monthly Archives: October 2013

Top Ten Favorite Villains

Focus on a Franchise – Friday the 13th

Not So Scary – Modern Horror Movies and the Lack of Genuine Scares

Gravity – Review

This is….