Temporary Diversion

I’m making good on my promise to review the “long awaitedâ€? (but not by me) sequel to the 1987 teen vampire cult classic The Lost Boys.  About half-way into the film, I found myself thinking, "This actually isn't so bad.  Not half as bad as I thought, and it's a step-up from Fright Night II."  And I'm serious too.  Yes, I know, no one wants to trust a direct-to-DVD release (thank God for netflix, or I would have never wasted my time, money, or energy getting this movie.)  But give this one a chance.  Yeah, it was pretty stupid, but really when compared to current horror movies being actually released in theaters, it was up to par or even better.  There were numerous and plentiful references scattered throughout the movie to make the fanboys happy, and since I consider myself a part of that group, I have to say I screamed when the shirtless saxophone player was shone still playing his sax 20 years and 50 pounds later.  Most of the opening shots were exact, some dialogue references were present, and they even had some Emo band redo Cry Little Sister, for some reason.  So I guess I appreciated the filmmakers throwbacks to an earlier era when the Coreys were thin and drug-free and Kiefer Sutherland hadn't yet gotten a DUI, but you can't base an entire movie on nostalgia.  I wish it were that easy, because then I would be a great filmmaker, but it's just not.

I was told that this would be the onscreen reunion of the Coreys, and I was very disappointed in this.  Corey Feldman had about 15 minutes of screentime, and no lie, Corey Haim had about 15 words, at the very end.  A word of warning: Watch through the credits or you'll miss him.  And Jamison Newlander, who plays Alan Frog (I am such a dork, I didn't even have to look that up) is credited but doesn't make an appearance, that I saw anyway.  I was pleasantly surprised to find out that "Shane," the lead vampire taking Kiefer "David" Sutherland's place was played by Kiefer's real-life little half-brother, Angus Sutherland.  (I almost just wrote Anus.  And then I laughed.)  Angus was good at first, but then he got kind of stale and old, speaking his lines like he was high on something other than blood.

Corey is again speaking in his patented Frog brother baritone, and he says some of the movies worst one-liners, which include but are not limited to:

"Who ordered the stake?"

"There are a lot of things you can learn from comic books."

And my personal favorite (Oh, God, it's so bad.):

"Pop goes the weasel."

I think that all of those lines would have been 100% better if he had said "bitch" afterwards.

But somewhere between the soft-core porn and huge fake boobs flying all over the place, I realized that this was not really a sequel, but a desperate attempt to rejuvenate not only the Lost Boys name, but vampire movies in general.  No one finds vampires all that interesting anymore.  (And don't give me that Twilight crap, I mean real bloodsuckers who aren't part-time models on the side.)  Vampires have been done to death (forgive me for the pun, seriously, I'm so sorry it had to be this way.)  No one cares about Dracula or Nosferatu or Tom Cruise (I do have a theory that he is a real vampire.  How else does Maverick do such a good job in an Anne Rice movie?  I'm telling you, it happened sometime between Rain Man and A Few Good Men.)

So I guess what I'm trying to say, is that good special effects, teen-based slang, and blood spewing sprinkler-style do not a good movie make.  Sure, I'd watch it again, but I wouldn't watch it as many times as I've seen the first one.  That's embarrassing enough.

One last note: I wrote in an earlier post that I thought it was funny that Corey Feldman said, “Your girlfriend’s a suck-monkey."  Apparently no one else has seen the commercial or the movie, because what he actually says is, "Your sister's a suck-monkey."  I'm kind of glad no one called me out on it.  I would have felt embarrassed and sad.  Either way it was a stupid line, but I would like to personally apologize to Corey Feldman for making fun of him.  I know I've apologized to you before, Feldman, but I'm being sincere this time.

Posted by Cassie at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This is a movie that is very close to my heart.  Not only is it widely known as the goriest movie of all time (at least it was in 1992), but the gore is so fake it’s funny, and it was one of Peter Jackson’s first films.  That always surprises people, that Peter Jackson used to do sick B movies.  In a way, I wish he would go back to the good old days when no one in the Northern Hemisphere knew who he was, just so he could make some other sick, twisted, tongue-in-cheek gore.  Say what you will about B movies, but damn it if they aren’t more fun.  It’s so easy to laugh at a movie like this, because you know that the filmmakers want you to enjoy it that way.  My sister and I still quote this movie, even though we haven’t actually watched it in years.  But it sticks in my memory more than a lot of more recent films do, because it knows how to make horror fun.  You sit there and kind of think to yourself, “This is depraved and disgusting, but it’s pretty hilarious watching a zombie walk around with a garden gnome in the place where his head used to be.â€?  I feel a little guilty sometimes that this movie sticks in my mind more than most Oscar winners or depressing period pieces.  But then I remember how funny it is to watch an old woman eat her own ear in a bowl of custard and spit out her earring almost as an afterthought.  And in the end, that’s what helps me sleep at night, knowing that I don’t take my favorite genre too seriously.

I know a lot of people don’t like excessive gore, but how can you not love a movie featuring a zombie woman with a lightbulb in her head or a priest who “kicks ass for the Lord?â€?  That’s just good filmmaking.  Basically it’s Psycho-meets-Night of the Living Dead.  With great New Zealand accents.  And an old woman who eats a cocker spaniel whole.  And the dog’s name is (was?) Fernando.  You can’t make this stuff up.  Sure, you can watch newer movies that focus on realistic blood and guts, but where’s the fun in that?  I hate watching horror movies where the whole thing is death and blood and despair and there’s no way out.  I like my bloody gore to be lighthearted and fun.

But the most iconic thing about this film for me is the Lawnmower Scene.  And yes, this warrants capitalization, it’s proper MLA format.  When the main character Lionel discovers his house is teeming with zombies, he does what any sensible son would do: he pulls out the hand-push lawnmower and starts effing some stuff up.  Peter Jackson makes this scene, and this whole movie really, with this cute sense of glee, like a ten year old boy who has just discovered how to melt G.I. Joe on a stovetop.  He plays his small cameo in much the same way, with a toothy grin and a hyperactive giggle.  I’ve seen this movie maybe 20 times, and it never gets old.  I recommend this one mostly for people who love comedy/horror or anyone who likes to see buckets of blood spurting through each screen.  (And I really do mean buckets, read the trivia page at imdb.  I can’t do all the research for you.)

Another great thing about this film is that after watching it, you start to notice references to it in other Peter Jackson films.  For example, on the boat in King Kong there’s a crate in the background that reads “DANGER: Sumatran Rat Monkey,â€? which as any Dead Alive fan can tell you, is the cause of the zombie outbreak.  There are also several references in the Lord of the Rings series, certain angles and face shots are very reminiscent of Dead Alive.

So if you like B movie foreign zombie horror (and I know that’s such a large fanbase), this is the movie for you.  Just look for the box featuring the scared woman’s face with a skull coming out of her mouth.  You’ll know what I mean.

P.S. It’s recently come to my attention that it’s a lot more fun for me (and maybe for the hypothetical reader?) to write reviews of bad horror.  I know I tend to gush when it comes to movies I love, so I try to mix it up, good and bad, and not only say the good things.  But I won’t say anything bad about Dead Alive, because this movie is too close to my own personal taste.  Or lack of taste.

Posted by Cassie at 7:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So I know I already reviewed the first two and a half books, and I’m still not done with the third book, but I felt I needed to review the next one-fourth of the book because it’s even more ridiculous than I previously could have even dreamed of.

I just got done reading a painful, poorly-written scene in which the main character/resident drama queen Bella Swan blames herself for Jacob’s misery, Edward’s jealousy, her own effed-up life, poverty, world hunger, the Holocaust, and every other tragedy and non-tragedy ever to happen on this earth.  She continually cries and bitches about how she’s ruining everyone’s life, she’s so selfish for falling in love, and she’s the spawn of Satan and Hitler apparently.  I have no idea how anyone can read this series and actually put up with her.  I find that the more I read, the more I hate her more than any other character I can think of in a novel.  I thought that the point of a main character was to have someone that the reading audience can love, feel empathy for, and see as an everyman (or woman.)  But I honestly don’t think that Bella has any redeeming qualities.  Everything she says pisses me off, from her should-I-or-shouldn’t-I decision making, her prick-teasing in regards to both Jake and Edward, her “I love you more than anything, Edward, and I want to become a vampire and live out all of eternity with you, but how dare you ask me to marry you?  That’s too much commitment!"  I hate this girl.  She sees Edward once on her first day of school and has an instant boner and apparently wants to devote her entire existence to him.  Yet the second he talks about marriage she’s like, “Oh no, I can’t handle the pressure!  I can’t make this decision!"

She then proceeds to carry on with both Ed and Jake, because apparently she’s so hot and sexy that every man that sees her can’t help instantly falling in love with her.  This is the kind of writing that any English teacher will tell you to stay away from.  You can’t write a story about a perfect character who is probably a thinly-veiled reflection of some vicarious wish Stephenie Meyer had as a teenager to be popular and beautiful, who has stupid non-flaws and every guy loves her even though she’s so darn clumsy and cute.  Golly, I wish my life was like that.  Gee whiz.

Not to mention the way Meyer skirts around the subject of sex/intimacy/physicality/etc.  I don’t know any guy who would turn down a girl taking her shirt off and saying, “Let’s do it."  Yet somehow, yes, Edward truly is just that perfect.  What a gentleman.  Gosh, I wish I had such a nifty boyfriend with no personality who’s just so wholesome and wonderful.  He barely even kisses her before he decides it’s just too darn dangerous.  And I suppose, yes, this is a kids’ book and Meyer is fairly religious, as I’ve read, but can’t you at least do some nice cut-away scenes, like in movies?  Even J.K. Rowling had Harry and Ginny expressing their snog-fests in private.

And I bring up this comparison because it comes up a lot.  “Meyer is the new Rowling."  No.  Absolutely not.  I would say that the Twilight books are more like a terribly watered down Anne Rice or some other vampire writer.  I haven’t read Anne Rice yet (saw the movies), but they’re on my list.  When I get around to reading them, I’ll come back to the subject and write some more about why this series makes me angry.

Posted by Cassie at 5:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I watched this movie last night.  And by “watchedâ€? I mean I saw the first half hour and then I fell asleep.  It was okay at first, kind of frightening, and Carol Kane always has a weird charm to her that makes me like her in all her movies.  But I had to ask myself, if someone called me 10+ times asking me, “Have you checked the children?â€? wouldn’t I actually go check on them?  I mean, that would freak me out and make me immediately go upstairs and check on them.  And even as a babysitter, with or without those damn phone calls, aren’t you supposed to check on the kids anyway?  What a terrible babysitter.  The kids not only were horribly murdered, but what if they got paper cuts or wanted a glass of water?  What if they were crying for their parents or fighting with each other?  That’s just bad babysitting.

The other problem this movie has above all is that everyone has heard this story.  I wasn’t around in 1979, so I couldn’t tell you if this was a popular urban legend even back then, but watching it now, it just doesn’t work.  Everyone knows what happens.  It works better as a story to tell around the campfire than as a horror film.  It’s too simplistic.

So that’s my review of the first half, the half I watched.  Now here’s my sort-of review of the rest.  I saw a bit of the events that occurred after the killer was caught.  So I guess he escaped, went after a very deep-voiced woman, and hid in her closet.  Then I fell asleep and it was a pretty good sleep.  Well, anyway, I kind of felt like it was two separate movies that someone pasted together because they didn’t have enough money to make them both.  It just didn’t make any sense to put the two together.  It made me even sleepier trying to think about it.  So then I fell asleep again.  I’m usually pretty good about not falling asleep during a movie.  I don’t think it’s right to watch the majority of a movie and then puss out about it and turn it off or fall asleep.  But I just really couldn’t watch it.  It was impossible.  It was like watching paint dry or grass grow or some other overused phrases.

So I think I learned a lot from this movie, overall.

1. Don’t leave children alone, because they will probably be murdered by a crazy British man who looks very sheepish and shy but is apparently a demented madman.

2. Well, really I guess all I learned was not to leave kids alone.  I mean really, even if there’s no madman, use some common sense, you dumb bitch.

I vaguely remember seeing the remake which came out in 2006 and they wisely stayed away from the second act that made no sense.  It still was ridiculous and stupid, but at least it made some amount of sense.  Although I suppose in both instances, the killers had no real reason to kill anyone, which as I’ve said before, bothers me.  Yes, I know that real-life killers often have no reason behind their violence, but that’s not interesting in a film.  I want answers, otherwise I would feel tricked and taken advantage of for maybe starting to care about the story or the characters.  What kind of a movie doesn't even have an explanation at the end?

Also, I think I’ll try to rent and review this ridiculous new Lost Boys remake that I didn’t even know was out on DVD on Tuesday.  You gotta love the straight-to-video releases, I suppose.  But it does make me sad.  Lost Boys: The Tribe.  You can’t get a stupider title than that.  Also, Corey Feldman actually says, “Your girlfriend’s a suck-monkey" in the trailer.  I'm sure many men would love a suck-monkey for a girlfriend, so why does Mr. Feldman have to be such a killjoy?

Posted by Cassie at 7:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I decided to write a post about why I don't have a blog devoted to another type of movie, like romance, comedy, drama, musicals, etc. Why do I love horror above all else? Why do I consistently choose old school horror movies every time I go rent movies? And why on earth are all my friends pissed off at me because I'm "like a broken record of movie taste?" Well I'll tell you why I don't prefer, for example, romance movies/novels/etc. (Unless it's in real life, I like that kind of romance.) Because in horror, things are supposed to be phony, they're supposed to look silly (sometimes on purpose). But I can't stand watching something intentionally mushy that is trying to illicit a certain emotional response, a specific "Aw, how sweet" from its audience. Yes, horror is trying to get you to scream, but I don't see that quite as an emotion like I do love, lust, or whatever those movies and books are trying to get from us. And by us I mean women. It's such a cliche, women are supposed to love hearing about love and marriage and storybook romances. Sure, I enjoy this stuff in real life, but I hate the manipulation involved in romantic comedies. One romance movie I hate, which also suffers from Love Story syndrome: A Walk to Remember. No word can adequately describe the loathing I feel when I contemplate how horrendous this movie is. And what makes me even angrier (I have a lot of anger. I'm like the Alanis Morrisette of movie reviews.) is how many of my female friends love this movie. I mean they are enamored with the "true love" aspect of it. Yet I can't help but think they have been mass-hypnotized by Nicholas Sparks and Nora Roberts. And how does that make them feel when they get into real relationships and real romances? Let down. Tricked. Disappointed. This doesn't happen in horror films, unless I suppose you are disappointed by how a murderer kills you, maybe because it isn't violent enough or something. I learned a long time ago that relationships are nothing like they are in romantic comedies. You don't go from detesting a person one day and then falling in love the next day (Cheers would count as one of those), you don't have a fake relationship with someone only to realize you truly love them (How to Lose a Guy in 10 days...and really, Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson are probably the worst offenders in the Romantic Comedy genre), and you definitely don't see each other across a crowded room and instantly fall in love (Stephenie Meyer, take some of these tips to heart.) I hate being manipulated, especially by Meg Ryan or some other throwaway romance star. So I guess what I'm trying to say here is that unless someone turns into a zombie or there's an axe murderer on the loose, I don't want to watch middle-aged stars fall in love with each other.

Posted by Cassie at 2:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Terrible, just awful. But I knew it would be. Yet again I watched a movie I knew was going to suck and yet again I feel stupider for having watched it. It was a waste of time and film, but not money because I watched it for free.
Americans have some sick fetish with remaking Japanese horror films, and I for one am so sick of it. The Ring did very well and was a decent summer horror flick, but after that it was just this huge onslaught of more and more terrible faux-Japanese horror centered on creepy little kids, bathrooms, hospitals, and technology. Doesn't anyone else find it ridiculous to base a horror film on a ghost calling people through cell phones with messages of their own deaths? It seems like such a waste of time. And the ghost in the damn movie had absolutely no real reason to kill any of the vaguely scared co-ed hotties running around with wide-eyed far-away terror in their eyes. When I say "far-away terror," I guess what I mean is that these characters mean absolutely nothing to me. It's like watching goldfish in a bowl, floating around and blowing bubbles. Sure, it's interesting for a few minutes, but after awhile you just want them to do something so you might have some slight feeling of empathy or affection. But it never comes, because goldfish are stupid and lifeless, which is more than I can say for the actors in this movie.
Basically this movie was a lazy way to tie in Boost Mobile (the highest bidder?), the Japanese home-grown fear of new technology, and a stupid "creepy" ringtone, which I'm sure sold well after the film's release. (My cousin sadistically set another cousin's ringtone to that damn song while they watched the movie in the theater, and then texted her immediately after the movie ended. What a jerk.) And why would you want such an awful product placement anyway? "Buy our products, they kill you!"
What is with this recent fear of technology? The Ring: video tapes. One Missed Call: cell phones. Poltergeist: TVs. Cell: cell phones. I can't be bothered to think of anymore right now, but you get the idea.
Think of some new ideas! Stop stealing everything from J-Horror! Here's a novel idea: how about we think of some new, interesting, original horror! I realize that certain things always scare people and what works can be used again and again, but that doesn't mean you should do it. Whatever happened to thinking up your own ideas? Instead it's always a "reimagining," "remake," or "sequel." (Not sure why that needed quotation marks...) I challenge you, Hollywood, who will never ever read this, to think up something new, something that hasn't been done before. And don't just repackage something the Japanese already made. If you want to give me a Japanese movie, give me the original. I don't want to watch a bunch of super-white, fake-attractive bitches running around in low-cut tank tops until they get brutally murdered for no real reason besides our weird and disturbing pleasure. I can just imagine a bunch of businessmen circle jerking and thinking of new ways to make money, hissing phrases like, "Yesss, let's make a scary cell phone that plays tittering music and kills that girl from A Knight's Tale..." and "How many fake endings do you think we can fit in before people get pissed off?" and "We need more money, let's butcher a good movie and milk it like a starving cow, until its teet dries up and produces only sand."
Well you suck, Hollywood.
...
I honestly can't even write anymore about this movie tonight. I'm too angry and upset about the downfall of Western Civilization.
I didn't write for awhile because my boyfriend was visiting me for a week. He wouldn't let me go near a computer. He's so needy, he needs attention all the time. Plus he's the only one who reads this damn thing, so it's not like he missed anything.

Posted by Cassie at 10:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

To start off, this movie sucked. I knew this movie would suck. I felt within the very fiber of my being that this movie was going to suck. And yet, like some morbid magnet of death and despair, it drew me into its ridiculous logic and waste of good talent and I couldn't look away. Like a horrible car accident, I had to watch. Also, my sister got it from Netflix because she likes Wes Bentley and I am a loser who has nothing better to do on a Friday night, so I said, well why not.
That was my first mistake.
My second mistake was to continue watching.
Not only was the logic ridiculous (not one person stayed a little later and happened to come down into the parking garage? Whose cars were down there? They only have one security guard for that huge building? No one went to check on the main girl even after she made that weird weepy phone call about how she was "sick?") I could go on and on. And I will. Why is Wes Bentley even in this movie? He is much better than this, he deserves much better than this. Even my sister agreed that he didn't deserve to be in this trash. Is he that desperate? I honestly just felt bad for him the whole time. Every line sounded awkward coming from his mouth. You could actually see his thought process of just wait until you get the check... This movie for me was a tragedy, above all.
It honestly felt like it was written like this:
Writer: I have a great idea, what if that creepy kid from American Beauty kidnapped a girl in a parking garage and did crazy stuff to her for some reason? People love that kind of stuff, blood and torture and boobies! We could combine all of the best stuff from the worst genres and it will be a blockbuster!
And then when they had the basic idea, the other people involved asked:
What about the details? How does this come to happen? Can you give us some more realistic information?
And the writer said:
Oh, don't worry about that, it'll come with time. I took a screen-writing class and this is just how my process works. True genius can't just happen overnight. Believe me, this movie will be a hit! It'll be the next Saw! The next Hostel!
Then the "writer" forgot to write any details and probably thought no one would notice, because the audience would be too busy watching the main character's jugs bounce up and down in fear. In fact, the script includes instructions for the amount of bouncing in each scene, depending on how ridiculous the logic really is.

And woe unto us, the viewer, this horrendous excuse for a horror movie was spawned.

Posted by Cassie at 5:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This is the first in a series of reviews of various Stephen King movies and books. I know a lot of people who don't like Mr. King, and I do understand the reasons behind this dislike. But I guess I enjoy his books and (some of) the movies based on them because he uses such weird ideas and makes them believable. Plus he follows the horror-with-heart method that I love so much.
I also know a lot of people who don't like Carrie because it's "too old" and "that bitch is ugly." Not only do I hate people who dislike a movie just because it's old, I think that older movies are better because they don't rely solely on special-effects and handsome, well-groomed actors. Carrie is a great film because it shows a horror that has some basis for being. I think that Carrie as a character is very easy to relate to. We see in her not only the horror of her powers but also the horror of being a high school student in a world where popularity is the most important quality. It's almost funny in a horrible, I'm-going-to-Hell kind of way, to cheer Carrie on during her rampage, because I honestly don't know one single person who wasn't teased badly in high school. But maybe I just hang out with a bunch of nerds.
I first saw this movie in seventh grade, and I never forgot certain scenes, they always stuck out in my head whenever I thought of true horror. The water hose killing the annoying pseudo-lesbian with the baseball cap. The blood falling and the bucket killing Carrie's prom date. The face of the statue that Carrie prays to. The scissors going into her mother's hand. And of course the little jump at the end. (I won't ruin it for those of you who aren't yet allowed to watch rated R movies. Because I honestly can't think of any other reason to have not seen this movie. Shame on you.)
The scariest things in films are not the horrible, unbeatable, masked serial killers or the beasts and demons that stalk the night. The most horrifying ideas for me are those that are almost understandable in reasoning. I can't watch Carrie without feeling sorry for her, or empathizing a little bit. The audience puts itself in her shoes, they cheer her on because in some sick way, they wish they could do what she does. Not realistically, but in their minds, without acknowledging it, they give in to the darker emotions of human society. But then they remember she just murdered all those people, without batting an eye. That to me is terrifying, because she's just done something so morally insane, yet you can almost see her point-of-view. I sometimes even feel like the bad guys deserved it.
And that's why Carrie is so effective as a horror movie. It makes us face our own aggression and baser human instincts. And we don't always like what we see.

Posted by Cassie at 5:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well I had a whole long post about werewolf movies but it got erased so now I'm pissed and I don't want to write about werewolves anymore. So I'll write about what I'm reading right now. My little sister suggested this teen romance vampire series to me because apparently she and every other girl in her (high school) class loves it. I was already weary when I heard all this information, but I decided I'd give it a try, since I do love vampires. So here's a little analysis of the first two books and half of the third book.
First off, I don't really enjoy a lot of vampire romance. It just seems like fangirl/Mary-Sue territory to me, a lot of wishful thinking on the part of lonely teenage girls who want a sexy vampire lover to sweep them off their feet. Cue Edward Cullen, the impishly handsome young vampire/model who has stolen the hearts of fangirls nationwide, who want to give him their blood, their hearts, and probably their virginities. Edward is the undead boyfriend of the main character/narrator/annoying little girl, Bella Swan, who is so over-the-top clumsy, that she actually said, "I don't like to run. I fall down a lot." That makes me angry. I happen to be a very clumsy person, and even I'm not stupid enough to fall down when I run. It's like she has the coordination of a toddler or someone with a recent head trauma. And that's not even what irks me the most about Bella. First she discovers she loves Edward in a matter of (literally) seconds, then in book three she can't decide whether or not she should marry him. So she knows he's her destiny but she can't put a wedding dress on? Just do it already, Bella, because you piss me off, and it's only a matter of time before Edward realizes how completely inept and inane you really are. Bella is boring. I'm sorry, but I see no reason for Edward to stay with her, other than the fact that apparently her blood smells really good to him. That's pretty perverted. How does he feel when she gets her period? So many awkward questions.
I have no sympathy for any of the characters, since they are just cardboard cutouts from previous vampire movies, books, graphic novels, and cereal boxes. There is no real danger. The bad guy is easily defeated every time, with relatively no consequences. In fact, in the second book, New Moon, the bad guy doesn't even really show up until there's only about 100 pages left, and the danger and conflict is resolved with just a few words and a ridiculous promise.
Yet, oddly enough, I will still finish the third book and will probably immediately finish the fourth book after my sister gets through with it. No, it is not my favorite series, far from it in fact. But as a guilty pleasure, I suppose it works as a trashy bathroom read.
Oh, and Edward is kind of a jerk. After first leaving Bella to a long and awfully boring stretch of emo "feelings," he comes back and she immediately forgives him. He then proceeds to ban her from seeing her best friend Jacob (who I personally would have chosen, he's much kinder) and honestly keeps her hostage for awhile. Again she forgives him. Now, I may be overreacting, since I do consider myself a feminist, but this bitch has got to take a stand for herself. She acts like as a woman, she should have no say in the relationship and Edward gets to make all the big decisions. She must take everything he says as law and his voice is more important than anything else in her world. Little girls read this crap! They may think that the only thing they can expect from life is an overbearing love affair with some guy who isn't even appreciative of women. Why can't there be a strong woman character in a romance novel, one who doesn't need a man or at least holds her own in a relationship? I suppose that's my main qualm with this book. Shame on you, Stephenie Meyer, women deserve better. A lead female character needs to be strong in order to show young girls that they can be strong too.
Is that so much to ask?

Posted by Cassie at 8:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

You know how I said before that I love cheesy 80's vampire movies? Yeah, I meant it.
The Lost Boys holds the crown for the greatest teen vampire flick around, and that's not an opinion, it's a fact. Look it up. I highly recommend this movie, and I've introduced all my friends to it in the hopes that someone else will love horror movies like me. Even though I miserably failed, most of the people I've watched this movie with have at least enjoyed it. Of course we all know the 80's wasn't the best time for fashion, (Exhibit A: Kiefer Sutherland's stringy bleach-blond mullet, Alex Winter's mullet, Corey Haim's "Born to Shop" shirt...), but even in a film with such notable decade-indicators, it's just a great movie. Yes, the dialogue is stupid. Yes, the acting is sometimes questionable. Yes, it was directed by Joel Schumacher. Yes, there is a terrible remake of "People are Strange," and a poster of Jim Morrison with virtually no explanation or mention. But even through all those obstacles, the film has some weird vibe that draws me to it. It has such good intentions, I guess, and as I've said too many times before, it blends comedy, horror, and heart.
What I love most about this movie is that it takes an over-used concept (vampires), and makes it new. Not necessarily plotwise or anything too deep like that. In fact, the more I write about this film, the more I wonder why I like it so much. Is it because I've been told it's a great teen vampire movie? Is this my real opinion or has my upbringing, reading selection, and internet browsing planted a suggestion of greatness about this movie into my unknowing mind? No, that's some stupid 1984 craziness. I like this movie.
I guess what I like most is the pure innocence of this film. For example (and you'll find a similar scene in Fright Night and most other vampire films), when Corey Haim goes to the Frog brothers to ask them about vampires and they give him vampire comics/murder guides to answer all his questions. This always gets me in vampire movies. Who the hell has been living under a rock long enough that they don't know vampires don't like sunlight? That they need to be invited into the house by the rightful owner in order to enter (Is Michael the rightful owner?) That they hate holy water, garlic, mirrors, dogs, etc? Why would anyone need to ask these questions, surely most people have at least seen some version of Dracula? I figure, if you don't know that you should stake a vampire to death, you pretty much deserve to die.
Most laughable 80's moment: the concert that Star and Michael meet at, where a shirtless man wearing leather shorts with a mullet plays a saxophone solo and everyone cheers and rocks out. I'm so glad I wasn't able to form memories yet in the 80's. (Not that the 90's were any better.)
Best Corey moment: When Corey Feldman asks the non-famous Frog brother, "How much do you think we should charge 'em?" after the vampires are all dead. That faux-deep voice gets me every time. He really must have thought he was hot.
Best line: As I previously mentioned, the last line of the movie and the look on Dianne Wiest's, Jason Patric's, and Corey Haim's faces are hilarious. I won't ruin the ending, so watch it yourself to find out. Actually, after talking about it so much, you'll probably watch it and think I hyped it up too much and it wasn't really that funny. Well tough luck, buddy, because I liked it and this is my blog.
Fun Fact: Jason Patric, who plays Michael Emerson, is the son of another great horror and stage actor by the name of Jason Miller. Jason Miller played father Damien Karras in The Exorcist, which I will cover later with much affection. Oh, and Jason Patric's maternal grandfather was Jackie Gleason. Small world, huh?
Possible sequel on the way, according to The Two Coreys. This makes me sad, but I'll probably see it anyway. Let's all hope that in 20 years it will seem just as cheesy and outdated as its predecessor.
Another fun fact I just realized: Jason Patric's character's name is Michael Emerson. This is the real name of the actor who plays Benjamin Linus in Lost, who happens to be my favorite character. I'll cover Michael Emerson later, in my discussion of the Saw series.

Posted by Cassie at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I really wanted to put down my thoughts about one of very favorite authors, Ray Bradbury. I've so far read Something Wicked This Way Comes, Fahrenheit 451, and I'm currently almost finished with Dandelion Wine. I also bought The Martian Chronicles, Farewell Summer, and From the Dust Returned. I love the way Bradbury describes things, the way he writes is so descriptive while at the same time leaving enough for the reader to use his or her own imagination. I read Something Wicked This Way Comes in 11th grade, and I was so stunned by how good it was that I read it again the next year and bought it online. I guess I share with Bradbury a weird fascination with old-time carnivals and Halloween. Bradbury loves the concept of the Autumn People, those who thrive on the misery of others. I know I obviously wasn't alive during the times he describes, but the way he writes really brings it alive. I almost wish I could have seen the freak shows and creepy carnival attractions back when those things were still allowed and everything cost less than a dime. I know that's kind of horrible, since the "freaks" were treated so poorly, there weren't safety checks, and the Great Depression was pretty sad I guess, but still, the weird nostalgia Bradbury describes really draws you in. Bradbury knows how to mix fear and humanity, which as I've said before, is essential for real horror. Taking a beloved childhood holiday like Halloween (albeit a macabre and slightly evil one on its own) and turning children's games into adult fear is something Bradbury has mastered. He uses his own memories and his own nostalgia to fuel these stories and in each one you can see the influence of real life. It's easy to see Bradbury's influence on Stephen King and numerous other horror authors, and I think some really good movies could be made of many of his stories.
And here is where we get to the movie adaptation of Something Wicked This Way Comes.
First off, going with Disney was a big mistake. Surprisingly, the movie is much darker than you would think from the people who turned Pocahontas into a love story. Jonathan Pryce was actually perfect as the demented ringmaster and Illustrated Man Mr. Dark, but I expected that. Pam Grier as the Dust Witch was a big mistake. I was really looking forward to seeing the whole "darning needle dragonfly" trick, but they didn't even include it. I saw this movie last summer, and honestly I don't even remember a lot of the details because I was just very disappointed. Of course, yes, it was made in 1983, so the effects were terrible, but that doesn't usually bother me. I think my main problem is that I knew how good the book was, so I knew how good the movie could have been. Not that I'm a huge purist, I understand that some things work in books that don't work on film. Which is one thing that I think hinders any potential Bradbury movies. The childlike fears and nostalgic horror of his novels would be very hard to adapt to the screen, but in my opinion, I think Something Wicked This Way Comes would make a great sort of dark, graphic-novel-esque animated movie. Because honestly, first, with a cartoon, they wouldn't have to have child actors, they could have voice actors. (The child actors in the film were awful. Not that all kids suck at acting, but, well a lot of them do.) The story itself is extremely dark and I think the colors they could use would really reflect that. Anyway, I'm rambling. So, I guess what I mean is: Bradbury: good, adaptations of his books: so-so, and Disney: evil.

Posted by Cassie at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm just making a small post for my own reference, so I don't forget my ideas. You don't have to read it unless you are super excited about this blog. In which case, I feel bad for you.
5. I wish Sam Raimi would go back to his roots in low-budget B-horror movies. Is that so much to ask?
7. Zombies through the ages: The Evil Dead trilogy, Night of the Living Dead, I am Legend, 28 Days Later
9. Japanese horror: Takashi Miike, Battle Royale, Ringu and The Ring
10. French Horror: Cache, Ils
11. Hostel
12. Dracula, 1931; Nosferatu, 1922
13. The Descent
14. Shaun of the Dead, hilarious horror references
15. The League of Gentlemen, blending horror into a sitcom
16. Stephen King-Cujo, Salem's Lot, The Shining, IT
18. Interview with the Vampire: Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt
19. Cabin Fever
20. The Hills Have Eyes original and remake
21. The Wicker Man original and remake
22. Werewolves: An American Werewolf in London
23. Guillermo Del Toro, Latin horror
27. Blair Witch Project
28. Things that scare you when you're a kid (Goosebumps)
29. Korean horror: The Tale of Two Sisters, Old Boy
30. Old School horror: Dracula, Frankenstein, Phantom of the Opera
31. High tech vampires: Blade and Underworld
32. Bloodz vs. Wolvez: Who makes this shit?
33. Donnie Darko
34. Fear of Strangers: Vacancy, The Hitcher
35. Buffy, movie to series
36. Fear of self: Secret Window, Shrooms, Session 9
Anyway, that's enough for now. I just thought I'd write this stuff down as a reference before I forget what I want to say.
Special thanks to my sister, Ali, for her ideas and input.

Posted by Cassie at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)