"The Ghost" and The Darkness

Horror Movie Marathon

Day 2, Movie 3

The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966)

Directed by Alan Rafkin

What can one say about this movie? It has a lot going for it, but suffers from the same problem that a lot of horror comedies do: it can't truly decide what to be. Granted, it's a Don Knotts movie so we can assume that comedy is going to be prevalent in it. The horror (if you want to call it that) is very subdued. It turns out there is no actual ghost. It's all some convoluted Scooby Doo plot. I suppose it makes sense, but as with a lot of other movies like this, it could have been a ton better.

The plot pertains to a typesetter at a small town Kansas newspaper who gets the idea to write a story about a twenty year old murder suicide and sends the small town into a small panic. Because of the huge impact the small story had on the community, the head of the newspaper tells Don Knotts to write a follow up story, a story that could lead him to a byline. Knotts jumps at the opportunity, trying to face his fears of the house as the editor tells him to spend a night in the house to get inspiration.

While in the house, paintings bleed, organs play by themselves and bookcases move to reveal secret rooms and staircases. He leaves the house, writes the story and the town goes into even more of a panic. The owner of the house (the son of the victims of the murder/suicide) sues Knott's character for libel, saying that all of it was a lie fabricated by a creative mind.

This is where the movie takes an odd left turn. It goes into a trial where Don Knotts is being sued and the judge, after little consideration, decides to bring all the members of the prosecution and defense, as well as the jury to the house to determine if the house is truly haunted. Things don't turn out as they should, Knotts looks like the boy who cried wolf and the suit is imminent. Just as Knotts is walking away from the house, he hears the organ playing again.

He runs back inside, seeing someone at the organ. It's his friend at the newspaper. Turns out, he used to be a gardener of the house when the murder/suicide happened and he witnessed what actually happened. I guess it all makes sense in a really convoluted way, but that's what I couldn't get over.

A lot of people tell me I take somethings too seriously. I wouldn't disagree with this, but I would say that I feel I am justified. I know it's just a Don Knotts movie, but it could have made more sense. As with Friday the 13th Part V, the plot should make more sense than it does. If they're going to be doing this bait and switch thing, they really should only do it once. Once we realize that Don Knotts could be crazy, that could be enough. They don't keep it light and airy enough. It'd kinda be like scooping up a nice spoonful of whipped cream and it's got chunks in it.

I feel like it could have been more about the investigation instead of the trial. I think that would have been more interesting. Just think of Don Knotts playing detective when he's not supposed to. Snooping around a house, asking questions to people when he doesn't know what he's doing. Instead, the movie does the trial which doesn't make any sense and isn't particularly funny.

It's really too bad. The movie could have been a hell of a lot better. Not only that, but when the movie ends and all is revealed, Knotts is barely involved. Sure, he subdues the bad guy in comic fashion, but it takes too long. There's a certain punch missing to the movie. Something it could have used.

I will say I laughed quite a few times and the score was excellent, so it's not all bad.

Maybe I'll do a Ghost and Mr. Chicken reboot. Then I'll be like all the rest of the assholes that make movies nowadays without an original idea in my head.

The one thing I will say that this movie made me realize is that I haven't watched The Ghost and the Darkness in a while. I think I might have to break that one out soon.

Ghoulies on Parade!

Horror Movie Marathon

Day 2, Movie 2

Ghoulies (1985)

Directed by Luca Bercovici

I don't think I'll have a hell of a lot to say about this movie because there's not a lot to latch onto. Yes, there's a bunch of small creatures. Yes, there are a lot of green eyes. Yes, there is an old mansion. This would seem like it would be a decent set up for a horror movie.

Not so much.

The movie starts off with a seance at a mansion and this old guy taking a baby away. We don't know the baby, we don't know much. The movie continues on to show this guy inheriting the same house from the beginning and he wants to quit college and remodel it because something is compelling him to do so.

He goes downstairs, finds these symbols on the ground and gets immediately drawn to the whole idea. He reads a book and eventually tries holding a seance to open a door to another world. He keeps saying how there will be something coming through and appearing in the middle of a triangle. Nothing comes out. He and his friends walk back upstairs. Just as they do, these really ugly creatures come out. These are the Ghoulies.

There really isn't a plot and I shouldn't be too upset about this. But, not only is there no real plot, there's no real drive to the movie. Evil Dead 2 really has no plot to it, but there's that inherent drive by Sam Raimi that pushes the picture to the limits and it's one of the most fun movies you'll ever see. This movie is just dead in the water. Sure, there are some throwaway jokes like one of the Ghoulies covering his eyes as someone gets gruesomely killed, but nothing really besides that.

If you look at a movie like Gremlins (which this movie obviously was made because of), the creatures had personalities and you cared about the humans. This movie you're just waiting to get over. I've watched this movie once before today in my friend Mike's basement pool room. I remember falling asleep to it that time. This time, I did the same thing and it was four in the afternoon. The movie couldn't even keep my interest. I had plenty of sleep last night, I shouldn't have been tired at all, but instead, I fell asleep like I was watching some four hour Biblical epic. This is an 81 minute horror movie with creatures and killing. There is absolutely no reason why I should have fallen asleep.

That being said, the DVD that I bought with it on it comes with the sequel. It's nine minutes longer. I would be lying if I were to say I wasn't the least big intrigued by watching the second one. Maybe someday.

Who knows. Could be some night when I really need to fall asleep...

There is always that part that the Ghoulie comes out of the toilet. That's something to latch onto. But it's not enough. The movie should have been a lot more fun. A lot more.

Brokeback Freddy

Horror Movie Marathon

Day 2, Movie 1

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

Directed by Jack Sholder

I can't exactly remember which franchise I saw all of first. I'm thinking that it was the Friday the 13th franchise because I could never get a hold of Halloween 4 to watch it. The Nightmare on Elm Street movies were definitely the last for me to see them all. I had watched a few here and there, but it wasn't until I got the huge box set of all of them that I watched them all the way through.

Since I've seen it, the second one always left an odd taste in my mouth. I never quite understood what the fuck it was, it just always bothered me. Not in a way that a horror movie should either. More like it made me uncomfortable. There was some odd quality about it that I never understood.

Then this past spring, it all made sense.

There is a channel in the late hundreds on Time Warner Cable called Bio. It specializes in reality TV, if there is such a thing as specializing in reality TV. Back in March, they had a special on about the Nightmare on Elm Street films. When they got to the second of them to talk about it, they explained what it was that was bothering me all these years.

The screenwriter wrote the script with a homosexual subtext attached to it. Certain imagery and plot points always seemed a little weird. With this explanation, I wanted to go back and watch it. Earlier today, I finally got the chance to watch it again.

Another quick story about the box set of these movies. A buddy of mine that I worked with two years ago had never seen all of them. One day I brought them into work so he could watch them. This was the last I saw this box set until about August of this year. Within that time, I had transferred to another store thirty miles away and he moved away to California.

When I watched it today, a lot of it made sense, a lot of it didn't. If you were to watch this film with a homosexual context, it makes sense to an extent. The main character is a man (when in slasher films they are typically a woman), he has this ridiculous high-pitched scream anytime Freddy jumps out and he has this odd relationship with a rival/friend at school. For instance, just as he's about to have sex with his oddly Meryl Streep looking girlfriend, he turns away because Freddy is about to take over. He then runs away from her and goes to his guy friend's house so he can keep an eye on him in case he changes. Freddy, of course, jumps out of the main character's body and kills his friend. The movie then cuts back to the main character, not Freddy, with the glove on.

This is where the movie starts to play fast and loose with the filmmaking. We see the main character looking in the mirror, seeing himself as Freddy. So, we as the audience assume that the main character now looks like Freddy. Okay, that makes sense (I guess...).

Later, in the movie, we see the main character go to his girlfriend's house covered in blood. Not Freddy. Then Freddy comes out of seemingly nowhere and starts killing people left and right. So, now it's Freddy again, right? Maybe...

Freddy holds all these asshole kids at the party at bay. This one guy walks up to Freddy and says something to the effect of, "Hey man, calm down. Don't worry..." He then gets promptly fucked up by the Freddy claws. Are we to assume that the main character is acting like Freddy, not looking like him? Or, is this guy that got killed just a true hero and was trying to calm down a burned to death, child-murdering, dream master of a ghost into compliance? We'll never know...

Then later in the movie, the main character's Meryl Streep looking girlfriend goes to this factory to confront her boyfriend/Freddy. She keeps telling Freddy/her boyfriend that she loves him and even kisses him on the lips. Freddy! She kisses Freddy on the lips! The burned guy that kills people. I mean, a lot of people will do anything for the person they love, but Jesus, this woman is committed. But she kisses Freddy, reacts to him as Freddy, not as her boyfriend. Meaning, she sees Freddy. Maybe the asshole at the pool party was just that. An asshole...

Now, if you read all this crap with the homosexual context, sure, yeah, the main character is repressing his homosexuality and it comes out from time to time. But, it leaves a bad taste in your mouth because it infers that homosexuality is akin to pedophilia and homicide. But, at the same time, you have to admire a movie like this. It's not your typical slasher film and it has a message to it. It might be extremely wrong and not completely fleshed out, but it took a chance. Not many franchises do that.

All in all, I think it's a decent movie. I don't think it's nearly as good as the first, the third or New Nightmare, but you can't expect miracles. That eighties feel permeates the entire film, too. That's part of the appeal of it.

Oh yeah, and it has an exploding, psychotic parakeet. How many horror movies can say that? Not many, not many...

Jason and Tommy, sittin' in a tree...

Horror Movie Marathon

Day 1, Movie 1

Friday the 13th: Part V-A New Beginning (1985)

Directed by Danny Steinmann

Jason Vorhees is an icon, simply put. There's nothing around it. Granted, he's not the best written character around. (Big deal, you were relatively retarded and drowned because of horny teenagers.) But his legacy lives on. Often imitated, pretty much every slasher film from here on out owes something to Jason, even though he owes a lot to Michael Myers.

Michael Myers was really a product of suburbia. There is a certain rural-ness to Jason. He's the reason you don't want to go into the woods alone, or at all. I know for a fact that I've avoided sets of woods deliberately at night. I'm not sure exactly what it is that bugs me so much about them, but I don't believe I am alone.

To put things in perspective as to how much of a pussy I truly am when it comes to these things, my friends and I thought it would be a good idea to venture into the woods behind my friend's house a little over three years ago. I remember, we went to Allen's house after we got done seeing Pineapple Express at midnight. He, myself and Greg thought it would be a wise idea to walk out into the woods. The moon was full, it was foggy and cold. We couldn't see much in front of us, even though we took a flashlight with us. We stayed out there for about ten minutes and left. As soon as I turned my back, I felt like something was right there behind me.

This has been a common occurrence in my life. When I was a kid (and even more recently), I'd turn all the lights off downstairs and have to go upstairs to my bed. As soon as that light got turned off, I sprinted up the stairs in order to avoid whatever it was I believed was directly behind me. It was never anything (least so I think), but I can say that it resulted in a lot of stubbed toes and swearing.

Is this phenomenon from watching the Friday the 13th movies? It certainly could be. But really, domestic horror belongs to Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger. Jason will always be something I think of when going into the woods.

I'm not really sure when my love of these movies began. I don't even know if I can seriously say to myself or anyone else that I love these movies. They're a secret, or else should be. I try posing myself as this serious minded film guy, watching the occasional foreign film and trying to pass myself off as smarter than I probably am. But when it comes down to it, everyone has guilty pleasures and each of the Friday the 13th movies falls under that category.

When I was younger, my cousin Matt and I would meet up at family functions. We would get talking about different things, but eventually, it became known that he was able to watch R-rated movies. And not just Lethal Weapon 3 and Speed, but actual horror movies. The types of movies that I was pulled away from when I was at the video store. Once I knew about this, I mined Matt for all the knowledge on these movies. He and I would walk off, talking about various scenes in each of the Friday the 13th movies. He would describe them as if they were stories around a campfire, urban legends that weren't supposed to be heard. I had a ball getting the shit scared out of me.

This is probably most of the reason as to why these movies hold a special place in my heart. I know a lot of people wouldn't find it as appealing as I do to get whole movies ruined, but it was awesome. My imagination filled in the blanks, just like a good campfire tale. I took what information I had or could get from VHS boxes and plot summaries, along with Matt's stories and constructed these elaborate scenarios.

Needless to say, I was slightly disappointed when I actually watched the movies.

But, then again, I wasn't really.

I didn't actually start watching the movies until I was working at Blockbuster. I don't exactly remember what the dates were, but I'm pretty sure it was around spring of 2003. The reason I remember this (at least slightly) is because I watched the latter three films in my parent's bed, recovering from getting my wisdom teeth removed. I sat there, gauze filling my mouth, and watched these movies. The mix of actual decent filmmaking (read: only decent, nothing more) and the nostalgia I felt for the stories Matt told me on my grandmother's farm resulted in a genuinely pleasing movie watching experience.

When I watched Part V at first, I was pretty confused. The whole plot was a little strange: Tommy (portrayed by Corey Feldman in the previous film and someone that looks like a low rent Mark Hammill in this one) from The Final Chapter is now crazy and recovering from his stint of running away from Jason and ultimately killing him. He goes to a countryside mental institution with a cast of characters that ranges from your typical slasher movie nymphomaniacs to rip-offs of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest characters.

Tommy shows up and, before long, a fat, chocolate eating, well-meaning, mentally challenged young man gets axed to death by another man who has a remarkably short fuse. The EMTs show up to take the body away. It's after this that the killings start. And man do they start.

SPOILER ALERT

A lot of fans of the Friday the 13th fans tend to not take this one seriously. Almost like On Her Majesty's Secret Service. But as with that film, this really isn't a bad movie in respects of the rest of the series. The reason that people have such a problem with this movie is that the killer is not Jason. Rather, it's the EMT father of the fat, challenged boy. He goes crazy, but not crazy enough to not have a way to explain his way out of the killings by making them all look like the work of Jason.

This is all well and good, a decent plot. But the movie is not concerned with plot at all. While watching this, my sister was sitting to the side, talking to me about different things to do with the movie. She started asking me about the plot and things of nature. I explained to her that the plot of a Friday the 13th movie is about as important as how many bullets a six-shooter has when being used against a living dead mummy. (Thanks Dad for that one.) The movie hints that the killer is someone besides Jason, but goes along with the assumption that it's him for the entire of the movie until the end.

Everyone thinks it's him. And why not? They should. He has superhuman strength, he appears out of nowhere, he kills people in an over-elaborate fashion and wears a hockey mask. But the movie never hints at anyone besides Jason being the killer. Granted, they linger on shots of him after he sees his son dead, but they never actually imply anything else besides that. I always found that weird. The movie could definitely been a decent whodunit, but it never quite elevated itself to that level.

That is not to say the movie is without merits. Oddly enough, for the killer not being Jason, it has the highest body count of any of them. It has a few inventive kills here and there, nudity and the like. This one always holds a special place in my heart because of the atmosphere it contains. I don't know why I like it, but I do. It's up there with the first and the third.

And really, though I like Jason Lives, I was always more of a fan of Jason being alive than resurrected Jason. Call me crazy, but there it is.

Jason will always hold a special place in my heart, even if he'd rather be ripping it out of my chest and holding it in front of me while I die slowly.

Dedicated to those who never saw a Saturday the 14th...

Craven a Fourth

It should be noted that it took me way too long to come up with that title. Far, far too long.

Back around January of this year, I got my first glimpse of the newest "Scream" movie. Being a huge fan of the first two, and a slight one of the third, I was really anticipating it. Saying this that way is an understatement. I have somewhat of an obsessive personality when it comes to movies. Anyone who knows me knows this. But when it comes to the "Scream" franchise, it's a little more than an obsession.

Let me explain:

When the first "Scream" came out, it was being advertised as your basic, run-of-the-mill horror movie. Some creepy sounding guy calling people, asking them about movies and stuff like that. I was 13. I didn't really know many horror movies. I know my parents didn't like me watching them unless they were PG. I know that when I went to Red's Video (a local video store that used to be located two blocks from my home), I'd hang out in the section, looking at boxes and seeing things I didn't understand. What I remember is thinking they were intriguing. That's probably not the word that came to mind when I was 13, but I'm sure it was something along those lines.

In 1996, my brother and I had a weekly date of sorts. He and I would go to the movies and see whatever just came out. "Scream" was one of these movies. Seeing it, even though it was with my brother, seemed like I was doing something wrong. A sense of danger. I was seeing an R-rated horror movie which was likely to have nudity in it. It was pretty exciting.

We saw it in the Oswego Theater. Those days, we didn't venture much past the city limits. It was the upstairs theater that is now one of the 3-D theaters. We went up there, the lights dimmed and the movie started. What happened over those next two hours was a revelation.

While I didn't quite understand a lot about the movie, I knew I liked it. I remember my brother saying to me that he thought the sheriff was the killer because of his black boots. And while I didn't exactly know what was going on (admittedly), I saw it four other times. It was the movie that I told all my friends in middle school about. As a matter of fact, I went with a couple of them. This was well before all the parents got crazy and started cracking down on teenagers seeing R movies.

With my love of the first, once the second one came out, I was there. There was no way around it. In the mean time between the first and the second, I had gotten my sister and father to watch it. They both really liked it. This was especially rare because my father wasn't one for horror movies. He was one of those weird people that like a story when they watch a movie, the type of moviegoer that is so rare nowadays.

Anyway, they liked it. When the second one came out, I made a plan to go to the midnight showing. Sure I had to go to school the next morning, but this preceded school. It was something more than school, more important than it. I understand that school is a necessary evil in some regards and do not consider it without it's merits, but I felt then (and kinda do now) that my time was better spent in that movie theater. I've had better and longer lasting memories in movie theaters than in most other places.

So, it was planned out that my friend Ben, my sister, my brother and myself would go to the midnight showing. My brother drove and we got there around 11:30. There was a line outside. It was the middle of December and people were lined up to see it at midnight. This was starting to feel more special as the night wore on. In my experience (which was limited at that point), only the good movies had lines. The two previous ones I could think of were "Ransom" and "Independence Day".

We get into the theater and sit several rows from the front. We sit through the previews (one of which I remember specifically being "The Postman" with Kevin Costner, which incidentally was laughed at during the preview itself) and the movie starts. During the movie, the same kind of stuff was going on from the first: people were guessing who it was the entire time. My friend Ben thought it was Gale, my sister wasn't sure and my brother thought it was Dewey. My entire world exploded in front of me when Randy got killed because that was the character I most identified with. I remember after he dies, there's a scene where Neve Campbell says, "It shouldn't have been Randy, it should have been me." And I remember, through tears, saying, "She's right, it should have been." Then later in the movie when the killer is revealed, she mentions to Sidney that Randy spoke poorly of someone and she got a "little knife-happy". I remember really wanting the killer dead at that point.

I was a weird kid. Sue me.

Ultimately, I ended up seeing this one four times in the theater. Once it came out on video, I was part of the Columbia House VHS thing. For those of you that don't know, or don't remember, when a movie was released at that time, they'd release it on VHS to rent. People would rent it and months down the line the VHS would be released for purchase. Well, Columbia House kinda helped with that. They offered the movies a few months before general release for a little extra on the price. You can bet your ass that "Scream 2" was going to get bought as soon as it was available.

I remember getting it in the mail and being extremely excited. I wanted to watch the first and second back to back. I wanted to bring people over to my house to watch them both with me. These movies had changed how I watched movies. I was no longer restrained to only watching what my father watched, I was developing my own taste. For better or worse, I was forming my own opinion.

My first year in high school (the same year that "Scream 2" came out, 1997) was hard. I didn't have a lot of friends and wasn't doing nearly as well in school as I wanted to. I was nervous as Hell when it came to my finals. I didn't know what I was going to do. It was such a daunting idea to take finals, I just couldn't handle it.

I remember studying for my science test and throwing "Scream 2" in and watching it. I watched the movie through in it's entirety, studying all the time. The next day, when taking my test, I was trying to remember answers for the test. I thought back to the part of the movie I was watching at the time and remembered what I was studying. I give full credit to "Scream 2" for helping me pass 9th grade.

So, with all this information, it was (or at least should be by now) obvious how much I was going to anticipate the third. Around this time (1999-2000) I was a little more savvy on the internet, had seen more horror movies and was now in my junior year of high school. The third "Scream" got me a little worried because it didn't have the writer from the original two writing it. They replaced him with Ehren Kruger, a guy that wrote on the high end "Arlington Road" and on the low end "Reindeer Games". I was a bit hesitant, but wanted to give it a fair push.

It came out in February of 2000. Again, I went to the midnight showing. Again, there was a line. But watching the movie, there didn't seem to be that much joy attached to it. I know, it's weird to say that any horror movie should have any joy attached to it, but there has to be an element of fun, excitement. While there was some, it just seemed like it was going through the motions somewhat. I didn't get nearly as excited about this one. It seemed like this one got away from the filmmakers. It had an extremely satisfying conclusion to the trilogy that probably pleased most of the fans, but everything (or at least most everything) before it seemed pat. It's hard to describe exactly, but something was definitely off.

So, a trilogy that went from excellent, to really good, to mildly disappointing was finally over. I would watch the third "Scream" quite a bit, but would re-watch the first two more often. In the decade that followed, there was talks of a fourth, but even I was a little wary being that the third was disappointing as it was.

Around 2009, the rumors of a fourth script were coming to light. This time it being written by Kevin Williamson, writer of the first two. Now I was starting to get really excited again. Stupid excited. I was telling people at work about it, most of whom did not care. By the next year, there was talk of the shoot for the fourth coming out. Then there was the rumor that this wasn't just a fourth, but the beginning of another trilogy. And that the original (remaining) cast, the original writer and Wes Craven were all attached for all three. Now I was really damn excited.

In the decade that came between the third and the fourth a lot of new types of horror movies had come out, most notoriously what they called "torture porn". I'm not exactly sure what made this so popular, but it got a little stupid after a while. While I was a fan of both "Hostel" movies, it's not like I was jumping into the air with a picket and telling people they had to see them, I understood they weren't for all tastes.

As for the "Saw" movies, I didn't really understand the allure of them to begin with. The first one was an okay but overshot "Seven" rip off with the usually reliable Cary Elwes overacting all over the place and not knowing what accent to use. The second one didn't impress me, but the third was decent from a story point. I thought it was over. As many of you probably know, there were four other sequels after that, the seventh of which was told to be the "final chapter". As I'm sure most of you know, there was a final chapter in the Friday the 13ths, a Last Crusade for the Indiana Jones movies and four movies with the words Final Destination in them. Final doesn't mean shit in the horror genre. I'm sure there will be more. Unfortunately...

With all these bullshit movies coming out and Williamson's talent to skewer pop culture tropes, I couldn't wait for the new one. It even was coming out on April 15th, tax day. I told my mother one night that I wanted to write into Wes Craven and Dimension Films and tell them that I had a good tagline for them:

On April 15th, there are only two constants in life. Taxes...and DEATH!!!

I thought it was funny. Whatever. You should be laughing right now. If not, you're not my friend.

So, once I knew the actual date of the movie coming out, I took it off from work, along with the corresponding weekend. I was expecting to see this movie at least three times opening weekend. As the day quickly approached, I tried watching the first three again, seeing if I had missed anything in any of the previous viewings. I didn't get the chance I wanted to to watch them, mainly because my sister fell asleep right around the end of the first when we were supposed to watch all three in a row.

I told (not asked, mind you) my brother that we were going to the midnight showing. Because there was not a midnight showing at the Oswego Theater, we had to go to Carousel to see it. We left fairly early Thursday night in order to get some dinner beforehand. Over dinner, we discussed many things. Stuff about the "Scream" movies, stuff about my own movie. We ate sushi, talked to the waiters and the staff at the bar and got a drink. It felt like 15 years ago when we saw the first one. It was both strange and comforting at the same time. My brother and I had bonded again when we were normally at each other's throats.

Throughout the night, my brother kept mentioning how he was too old and he didn't know why he was staying out so late to see another "Scream" movie. While I bitch a lot more than my brother, he's a lot more cynical believe it or not. We left Koto and went to the mall, parked and walked in. I was a good five or six paces ahead of my brother, mostly because of my excitement to see the movie.

We got inside and sat, a seat between us as was standard when we went to the movies. The previews started, but I didn't give a shit about them. The movie just had to start. As it did, I got a smile on my face. This smile lasted the entire movie.

Anyone that was a fan of the first three should have been a fan of the fourth. Even the third one, with it's problems and weird plots and absent main characters was good for what it was. The fourth surpassed the third with flying colors. It had what a lot of horror movies had been lacking at that point: fun. People got killed, blood was shed, but all in all, it was funny and extremely entertaining.

The reason, I think, the movie didn't do as well at the box office as many hoped it would have was because the audience and fan base from the first three is now older. The filmmakers probably hoped that they would gain more fans from this fourth one and make as much money as the first three. Instead, it made less.

My theory for this is because audiences are generally stupid nowadays. No one really wants to see a well-made movie. They'd rather just see another 3-D piece of shit with a lot of colors and Johnny Depp being goofy. The funny thing is "Scream 4" made fun of this mentality, the whole rebooting craze. Let's take a good series and then make another and instead of calling it a remake or a sequel, we call it a reboot. Worked with the Bond series and the Batman series, let's just try it with every fucking series around. It's gotten really annoying.

Let me tell you, there's no fucking way that any of these reboots are going to be better than the actual original. "Batman Begins", while being really really good, will never be as good as the Keaton/Nicholson "Batman". The original "Batman" had originality on it's side. It was the first. Just like the first "Star Wars", "Dr. No", "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and so on. I think the reason get such a hard on for these reboots is because the movie that immediately preceded them sucked. One of my good friends is a big fan of the Christopher Nolan "Batman" movies. I am too, but I realize that they have flaws just like any other movie. Just like the Nicholson one. In order to fully appreciate these new movies, you have to realize they came from somewhere. This is what "Scream 4" understands.

While trying to be a reboot, it's also a sequel. It makes the comment, pretty clearly too, that reboots are just pale shadows of the original. As a matter of fact, one of the characters in "Scream 4" says, "You forgot the first rule to sequels. Don't fuck with the original." And it's true. James Bond wasn't blonde, The Joker was older than Batman and a smart chemist, not a crazy, "agent of chaos". And the remake of "True Grit", while having it's merits (namely Matt Damon), was just the original movie in a different package. The Coen Brothers tried saying that they didn't watch the original during production. Well, if they didn't, they must have some sort of freaky memory because the movies almost look identical.

The point is, reboots will never be as good as the original. What made "Scream 4" so interesting and smart is that it didn't try saying that it was. All these reboots try doing is saying that they're better than the original ones. People have no fucking memory at all. They're all just looking for the next bigger and better thing when the better thing is probably already on their DVD shelf.

Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven knew there was no way they'd be able to catch lightning in a bottle a second time in a row. What they were trying to do is shine a mirror on modern audiences and their expectations. When they did this 15 years ago, people had a better sense of humor. They had humility. In our society today, more people are indignant about bullshit. They don't like being told they're wrong, everyone has gone through some weird transition where we expect less of our entertainment (with the resurgence of reality shows) and these self-righteous terrible people.

It's no surprise that people didn't go to see this. They didn't like being told they were stupid for liking this bullshit. They shied away from it, like most people do therapy. Too proud to admit their mistakes.

Because of this, people are now just allowing movies and ideas that are generally mediocre take over the multiplexes. And while "Inception" was lauded as being one of the most groundbreaking action movies of the past 10 years, it didn't have the same impact that "The Matrix" or "Minority Report" did because it was missing something: respect. "Inception" was too busy telling you how smart it was to sit down and explain itself to you. It would have rather just seemed really heady with really good action sequences and make the smart people feel smarter for liking it. As it stands, it was a solid three star movie.

And while "Inception" and "Scream 4" have little in common other than the letters "e" and "c", it stands to reason. "Inception" developed one character and went from there. It took an hour to explain half the stuff going on in the movie and the other half, dazzling the audience with special effects. Before the audience had a chance to ask a question, they were bombarded with loud action sequences. Anyone that says the movie left loose ends open deliberately gives it way too much credit. It was lazy screenwriting.

Anyway, the point is "Scream 4" restored my faith in movies. While it may not have been the best of the bunch (although it is tied for second with the second), it showed me that filmmakers aren't always crass, uppity people. They are equally aware of the travesties that are being put on film as some audience members are. Because of the low box office numbers, I doubt we'll see a "Scream 5", which is really a shame because I was looking forward to it.

The fact remains that audiences are extremely stupid. They'd rather see "The Hangover Part II" than something that's different and wild. Something easy over something hard.

I'll end this with a small story.

Back when I was in college, during my senior year, I took a World Cinema class with Bennett Schaber. Those of you who do not know him are missing out because, not only is he a great guy, he also knows a hell of a lot about movies. More than I could probably ever gain in my lifetime. This was the second class I had taken with him. The first one I didn't exactly excel at because I was never very good at critical theory. While in that first class with him, he probably got wind that I knew more than I lead on about film as I answered a question about an obscure Bogart film in front of the classroom.

Now it came to World Cinema. At this point, SUNY Oswego didn't have a film major. All their film classes were under an English heading. I took it because I never have allowed myself to expand my horizons as far as world cinema had gone. I was hoping this would help with it.

The first day of class, Bennett was standing at the lectern. He had three separate papers; one blue, one red and one green. He explained that the blue paper was the most difficult of the syllabi, that whoever chose that paper would have the most work and it would be the most challenging. The difficulty decreased with the other two syllabi.

He would go to each of us in the class and hand us the one we asked for. I kept debating as he was handing them out, not knowing exactly which I was going to take. When he got to me, I pussed out.

"I'll take the red one."

Bennett looked at me a little strange. He started to hand me the red one and as soon as I closed my hand on it, he retracted it, giggling slightly.

"No, no. You're not getting off that easy."

He then handed me the blue one. I laughed. He nodded slightly and went to the next kid who took the green one. He did not take it back from the kid, but went quickly to the next. Bennett believed that I could do the heftier work, that I would be successful in this venture. A lot of professors wouldn't do that, demand more from their students. He did.

I just hope to one day be able to do the same for someone else when it comes to film. Demand something of my audience, challenge them. Maybe they'll come out the other end better people as I believe I have.

Note: I understand the irony of this happy-go-lucky ending to this post when I've been bitching throughout about movies tastes and stuff like that, especially since the wallpaper on my computer screen is the poster to "Cheerleader Camp".

The Best Films of the 1990s

Last year around this time, I started to do a list of the best movies of the 2000s. I got about halfway through and realized that after writing small reviews of each of these movies, I felt like taking my life as violently as possible. So instead of going through each and every one of these movies (which there are 111), I am just going to list them with the directors and years. That way I don't kill myself.

That being said, here goes nothing...

120. The Ghost and the Darkness (1996), Directed by Stephen Hopkins

119. Bad Boys (1995), Directed by Michael Bay

118. The People Under the Stairs (1991), Directed by Wes Craven

117. Short Cuts (1993), Directed by Robert Altman

116. GoodFellas (1990), Directed by Martin Scorcese

115. Mars Attacks! (1996), Directed by Tim Burton

114. Scream 2 (1997), Directed by Wes Craven

113. The Frighteners (1996), Directed by Peter Jackson

112. The American President (1995), Directed by Rob Reiner

111. Grosse Pointe Blank (1997), Directed by George Armitage

110. Glengarry Glen Ross (1992), Directed by James Foley

109. Hoffa (1992), Directed by Danny DeVito

108. Red Rock West (1993), Directed by John Dahl

107. 8MM (1999), Directed by Joel Schumacher

106. The Blair Witch Project (1999), Directed by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez

105. Fried Green Tomatoes (1991), Directed by Jon Avnet

104. Dogma (1999), Directed by Kevin Smith

103. Donnie Brasco (1997), Directed by Mike Newell

102. Courage Under Fire (1996), Directed by Edward Zwick

101. Small Soldiers (1998), Directed by Joe Dante

100. Kingpin (1996), Directed by The Farrelly Brothers

99. In the Mouth of Madness (1995), Directed by John Carpenter

98. Jackie Brown (1997), Directed by Quentin Tarantino

97. Shallow Grave (1994), Directed by Danny Boyle

96. The Exorcist III (1990), Directed by William Peter Blatty

95. Crimson Tide (1995), Directed by Tony Scott

94. Cape Fear (1991), Directed by Martin Scorcese

93. The Birdcage (1996), Directed by Mike Nichols

92. Arachnophobia (1990), Directed by Frank Marshall

91. The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993), Directed by Henry Selick

90. GoldenEye (1995), Directed by Martin Campbell

89. Bringing Out the Dead (1999), Directed by Martin Scorcese

88. The Game (1997), Directed by David Fincher

87. Mimic (1997), Directed by Guillermo del Toro

86. Jerry Maguire (1996), Directed by Cameron Crowe

85. Dances with Wolves (1990), Directed by Kevin Costner

84. Fargo (1996), Directed by Joel Coen

83. Beauty and the Beast (1991), Directed by Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise

82. One False Move (1992), Directed by Carl Franklin

81. Naked Lunch (1991), Directed by David Cronenberg

80. Soapdish (1991), Directed by Michael Hoffman

79. Outbreak (1995), Directed by Wolfgang Petersen

78. Dick Tracy (1990), Directed by Warren Beatty

77. In the Company of Men (1997), Directed by Neil LaBute

76. The Usual Suspects (1995), Directed by Bryan Singer

75. The Lion King (1994), Directed by Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff

74. Rounders (1998), Directed by John Dahl

73. A Civil Action (1998), Directed by Steven Zaillian

72. Copycat (1995), Directed by Jon Amiel

71. The Insider (1999), Directed by Michael Mann

70. The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999), Directed by Anthony Minghella

69. The Spanish Prisoner (1997), Directed by David Mamet

68. The Nutty Professor (1996), Directed by Tom Shadyac

67. The Last of the Mohicans (1992), Directed by Michael Mann

66. Jurassic Park (1993), Directed by Steven Spielberg

65. The Fugitive (1993), Directed by Andrew Davis

64. Clueless (1995), Directed by Amy Heckerling

63. The Iron Giant (1999), Directed by Brad Bird

62. Tin Cup (1996), Directed by Ron Shelton

61. Election (1999), Directed by Alexander Payne

60. Little Dieter Needs to Fly (1997), Directed by Werner Herzog

59. Toy Story (1995), Directed by John Lasseter

58. Miller's Crossing (1990), Directed by Joel Coen

57. Fearless (1993), Directed by Peter Weir

56. Darkman (1990), Directed by Sam Raimi

55. Crash (1996), Directed by David Cronenberg

54. As Good As It Gets (1997), Directed by James L. Brooks

53. Dead Alive (1992), Directed by Peter Jackson

52. Pleasantville (1998), Directed by Gary Ross

51. In the Line of Fire (1993), Directed by Wolfgang Petersen

50. The Sixth Sense (1999), Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

49. The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Directed by Frank Darabont

48. Rushmore (1998), Directed by Wes Anderson

47. Matinee (1993), Directed by Joe Dante

46. Heavenly Creatures (1994), Directed by Peter Jackson

45. Candyman (1992), Directed by Bernard Rose

44. Dark City (1998), Directed by Alex Proyas

43. Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Directed by Stanley Kubrick

42. Heat (1995), Directed by Michael Mann

41. The Thin Red Line (1998), Directed by Terrence Malick

40. Babe (1995), Directed by Chris Noonan

39. Gremlins 2 : The New Batch (1990), Directed by Joe Dante

38. Groundhog Day (1993), Directed by Harold Ramis

37. Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994), Directed by Wes Craven

36. Lost Highway (1997), Directed by David Lynch

35. A Few Good Men (1992), Directed by Rob Reiner

34. Sleepy Hollow (1999), Directed by Tim Burton

33. Quiz Show (1994), Directed by Robert Redford

32. Hoop Dreams (1994), Directed by Steve James

31. Saving Private Ryan (1998), Directed by Steven Spielberg

30. The Matrix (1999), Directed by The Wachowski Brothers

29. The Player (1992), Directed by Robert Altman

28. Casino (1995), Directed by Martin Scorcese

27. Man Bites Dog (1992), Directed by Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel and Benoît Poelvoorde

26. Three Kings (1999), Directed by David O. Russell

25. The Rock (1996), Directed by Michael Bay

24. Lone Star (1996), Directed by John Sayles

23. South Park : Bigger, Longer and Uncut (1999), Directed by Trey Parker

22. Good Will Hunting (1997), Directed by Gus Van Sant

21. The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Directed by Jonathan Demme

20. Dogfight (1991), Directed by Nancy Savoca

19. Magnolia (1999), Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

18. Leaving Las Vegas (1995), Directed by Mike Figgis

17. Chasing Amy (1997), Directed by Kevin Smith

16. The Limey (1999), Directed by Steven Soderbergh

15. Natural Born Killers (1994), Directed by Oliver Stone

14. Bulworth (1998), Directed by Warren Beatty

13. The Green Mile (1999), Directed by Frank Darabont

12. The Truman Show (1998), Directed by Peter Weir

11. Total Recall (1990), Directed by Paul Verhoeven

10. Blood and Wine (1996), Directed by Bob Rafelson

9. L.A. Confidential (1997), Directed by Curtis Hanson

8. Bowfinger (1999), Directed by Frank Oz

7. Seven (1995), Directed by David Fincher

6. Unforgiven (1992), Directed by Clint Eastwood

5. Scream (1996), Directed by Wes Craven

4. Ed Wood (1994), Directed by Tim Burton

3. A Simple Plan (1998), Directed by Sam Raimi

2. Homicide (1991), Directed by David Mamet

1. JFK (1991), Directed by Oliver Stone

Well, that's it. As the three that went with me to the Baldwinsville that fateful night under a week ago, you'll notice some revisions. If anyone has any questions or comments, you can comment here and we'll discuss.