Catching Up On The Classics: Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

A few years after Frankenstein's monstrous abomination graced American movie screens, director James Whale brought him back to find a mate. Though more comedic than its predecessor, Bride of Frankenstein (which to me, should really be something like "Bride of Frankenstein's Monster, but whatever) is still a beautiful film and was able to become just as iconic and popular as the original Frankenstein. My personal taste leads me more toward the original, though, just in case you were curious.

The opening credits start things off interesting for our movie. Boris Karloff of course headlines the piece, with only his last name on the first screenshot in all capitals - "KARLOFF." There is a short introduction scene at the beginning of the movie with Mary Shelley, Lord Byron, and Percy, with Elsa Lanchester playing Shelley. Happily, Lanchester's character is actually credited with her full name - Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley - whereas in the previous film it was said that the author of the original work was "Mrs. Percy B. Shelley." Bleh. The Monster's Mate is unbilled, and appears only as a question mark. 

Okay so, I like the movie, but it does bother me a little bit. The first few scenes are promising, despite the fact that they feature way too much of the most annoying woman in the world - whoever the hell that is that plays Minnie. She's really pretty wretched. Anyway, Bride starts right where Frankenstein left off at the burning mill where it was believed that both Dr. Frankenstein and the Monster perished. Turns out they didn't. Most amazing to me about this scene is something that nobody ever seems to talk about with this movie. The parents of the murdered girl Maria from the first movie are at the mill, with the father Hans being killed by the Monster by drowning (same as his daughter), and the mother being thrown into the wreckage, hitting one of those water wheel things. 

Why does no one else see how horrible this is?! The Monster didn't know what he was doing when he killed Maria, but had learned all about killing by the time he got to her parents, and now this whole little family has been systematically wiped out and nobody cares. This act reflects the seriousness and horror of the original Frankenstein, but this tone is quickly dropped for something more campy, especially as the Monster explores his world a little bit more. After escaping capture and being injured in the woods, the Monster is drawn to the hut of a blind man after hearing him play the violin. The Monster is welcomed inside and treated like a real guest, which seems to both confuse and excite him. The blind man does not fear the Monster right away, obviously because he cannot see him, and this seems to teach the Monster something about trust and friendship. 

The Monster is actually able to speak and communicate in this movie, although it's a little unclear about just how he learned so fast! No matter though. Supposedly he learned it from both Pretorious and the blind man, though his scenes with the latter are far more entertaining. Never has a murderous monster looked so adorable while saying the word "Bread!" or enjoying a delightful smoke. I almost wrote right here that the comedy was a bad idea because it made the Monster more lovable and made us forget how dangerous he is. But in the middle of the sentence, I suddenly realized that it is not the Monster we are supposed to think is evil in this story - duh. Pretorious, and what he represents as the arrogant scientist, is who and what we should fear. Mary Shelley's moral lesson about those that try to act as God stands true in Bride of Frankenstein - you may be able to accomplish the task of bringing life to a bunch of dead parts, but you will not be able to make those parts truly human, and therefore it will not be accepted by other humans.

Reprising his role as Dr. Henry Frankenstein, Colin Clive takes more of a back seat here, sadly. The Monster's lonely journey and Dr. Pretorious's quest to make a female monster are in the forefront. Clive is still beautiful in his role, reverting once again to his messy haired, crazed rambling that I loved so much when he starts to work on bringing the Bride to life. Pretorious, who has some pretty awesome hair that rivals the Bride's, is just as if not more crazy than Frankenstein in his determination to complete his wicked experiment. One thing I completely don't understand is the little people Pretorious has in the jars. Apparently they are called "homunculi," so at least now I know that. I only have to mention this because creating several human beings that are only two inches tall seems to be a much bigger feat to me than bringing the dead back to life. Frankenstein says that this is more like black magic, though, and not really science, so it obviously doesn't interest or impress him as much. I shall move on.

Elsa Lanchester's brief but highly memorable performance as the Bride is actually probably only about 10% because of her performance and 90% because of her looks. That hair... OMG, that hair. Whoever came up with the design for the Bride's hair is a damn genius because once you get that hair on Lanchester's head, have her turn her head just the right way, and get Whale to perfectly frame the shot like he does, you have pure cinematic gold. The way she twitches her head, the unnatural way she holds her arm out straight - Lanchester is equally as brilliant as Karloff in her portrayal of a monster made out of spare parts by doing the simplest things.

Sequels don't always suck, my friends. The Godfather II, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade... The Bride of Frankenstein. All the best stars were brought back (including Dwight Frye - still love him), the director was brought back, and they were able to create a sequel that gives the original a run for its money, as some people seem to prefer the sequel more. My fondness for the original Frankenstein will never change, but now the Bride has crept her way into my heart, I believe.

Catching Up On The Classics: Diabolique (1955)

Diabolique is one of those movies that reminds me why I love movies in the first place. It's a brilliant movie that doesn't really need to do a lot to be as brilliant as it is. Diabolique is so many things all rolled into one - a classic noir film, a suspenseful mystery, a twisted drama - and it all leads up to one well-known and stunning climax.

At a boarding school in France, the wife of the cruel principal and his mistress secretly plot the man's death to finally be free of his abuse. After drowning him in a bathtub and dumping his body in the school's murky pool, they think they are safe and their plan has worked. But when the pool is drained, they find that his body has disappeared. People start claiming that they've seen him around and physical clues also lead them - and an inquisitive private detective - to believe that something very mysterious has happened.

The movie's French title, Les Diaboliques, translates to "The Devils" and I guess that refers to the two women. There's Christina, a teacher and the principal's frail wife who suffers from a heart condition. She's married to Michel (not me), a guy who is a total dick, and physically and emotionally abuses his wife and his mistress, Nicole. She's also a teacher at the boarding school, and is this hot little blonde femme fatale who I thought was pretty awesome. Nicole and Christina have apparently known about each other for a while and have actually developed somewhat of a bond. Their relationship seems a bit scandalous seeing as how they don't hide the fact that they are "friends" from anybody at the school, including Michel. His attitude toward their relationship is interesting, too. He doesn't care. He's that much of an asshole that he doesn't think these girls can do anything against him.

This movie plays out very much like a stage play. There's not a lot of action and the film mostly consists of talky-talky between the characters. Of course that's not a bad thing because the audience gets to know the main characters and is able to feel all their same feelings of confusion and fear when the plan goes awry. There is also not a lick of music to be heard during the film, except during the opening and closing credits. This increases the suspense as the mystery goes on and makes the audience feel like they are in on these women's dirty little secret, but are just as lost as they are as to what has happened to Michel. Diabolique is a movie I like to refer to as being quietly brilliant, as the story is strong enough to keep you enthralled and doesn't need a lot of frills or fuss to make it intriguing.

Vera Clouzot is breathtaking as Christina and expertly plays her as both meek and sickly, but also as woman who has had enough and will do what needs to be done for herself and others. Under the control of Nicole, Christina finds her strength, even if her morals haunt her throughout the ordeal. Simone Signoret craftily portrays Nicole, the brains behind the operation, as strong and confident but not one to take any crap from anybody. As the audience finds out later on, she's the kind to hug you with a knife in her hand, if you know what I mean. Paul Meurisse is slimy and mean as Michel, and some of his scenes of him mistreating the women were quite risque for the time and were wonderfully played. The shot of him dead in the bathtub is classically creepy and made me gasp just because of how freaky he looked. All they needed to do was give him scary, dead eyes and place his wet hair just so and they had one fantastic image that will be in my memory forever.

So, thanks to Bravo and its "100 Scariest Movie Moments" list, I already knew the ending to Diabolique before I saw it. The awesome thing was that I didn't remember that I already knew the ending. And holy crap was I ever thankful for my bad memory because I would have missed out on almost peeing on myself when Michel got out of the bathtub.

What made this twist so great was that throughout the whole movie, you're thinking of all these possible scenarios for why his body went missing and who else could be involved. Literally, almost every idea went through my head - except for the most obvious one. So subtle, so genius. Granted, it was all set up so perfectly that you (hopefully) would have never thought that Michel was still alive. We saw Nicole drown him in the bathtub; we saw his dead body in the bathtub; we saw his dead body in the wicker trunk. Christina's worsening heart condition is also set up wonderfully. It's not that cool that she had to die, but she seriously has one of the best deaths in movie history. Ever. To be literally scared to death and do it so beautifully, and in a way that scares the shit out of the audience as well, is an awesome way to go, in my book.

(I do strangely feel the need to mention the similar, but more funny and less scary, death from Child's Play 3. Not nearly done as well, but it makes me laugh to think of it.)

My goodness, I am in love with Diabolique. It is just such a tight, successful mystery and noir that had me completely entranced. A new favorite has been born!

Catching Up On The Classics: Freaks (1932)

Freaks is a very rare kind of movie. In the special message prologue preceding the movie, it is said that "never again will such a story be filmed" and I think for the time being that that is probably true. Though based on a much darker short story called "Spurs," director Tod Browning still wanted to be able to tale a truly horrific story with Freaks - something he very much succeeded in because the film was widely controversial upon its release. Over time, audiences have come to more appreciate this tale of deception, prejudice and revenge; though it no doubt also still has the power to unsettle and disturb those who see it.

As a sort of "circus soap opera" (as one interviewee on the DVD feature put it), Freaks follows the behind-the-scenes lives of performers in a traveling sideshow circus. When dwarf Hans becomes infatuated with Cleopatra, the "normal"-sized beautiful trapeze artist, she plays along with him to get him to buy her things and laugh at him with her real beau, strongman Hercules. Cleopatra then finds out that Hans is actually due a large inheritance, and she schemes to marry him and then slowly murder him with poison to collect the money. Hans and the other freaks at the circus discover this and soon concoct their own plan for revenge.

(Simply for the purposes of brevity and avoiding confusion, let me just say that I will refer to any of the actors with real deformities here as "freaks." I'm not trying to be disrespectful or mean, obviously. Hopefully you get it.)

I loved this movie, but it's almost hard for me admit to that without feeling a little bad. My conflict is this: while I think the movie is well played out and expresses great empathy for the freaks, something in me niggles a bit at Browning's choice to cast people with real physical deformities. Freaks is often described as an exploitation film probably because of this choice. If (goodness help us) Freaks were ever remade today, there is no absolutely no chance that they would ever get away with using people with real deformities. I don't think Freaks is an exploitation film in the sense that it uses the real freaks to shock us. I think it is that the audience only feels like they are the ones exploiting these people simply by watching the movie, and perhaps trying to see as much as it can of their lives and what they can do. I felt like a peeping tom looking in on their private lives and guilty for wanting to see more.

Browning seems to even play on this a few times. There are several seemingly unimportant scenes with a few of the different freaks and Browning's intentions are either confusing or misinterpreted, depending on who you ask. He has short bits with the Living Torso lighting a cigarette with his mouth, one of the Armless Girls eating dinner with her feet, and a sideplot with the Siamese Twins and their respective fiances. Because these scenes have nothing to do with the central plot, I can see how some might think Browning included them just to "show off" the freaks and their freaky skills. It seems to me though that Browning actually had a lot of respect and love for them, though, and these scenes were included to show that the freaks were very normal people and it was only what was on the outside that was different about them.

All this confusion is made all the more difficult to deal with while watching the movie because the freaks are all awesome people. Aside from Venus the animal trainer and Phroso the clown (who is actually very annoying at times), it is the so-called normal people - Cleopatra and Hercules - who are the ones we hate the most for their prejudice of the freaks; their self-centeredness; their manipulation of Hans and Frieda; and their greed. The freaks are sweet, fun people who obviously feel very comfortable and at home in their community, despite the fact that their jobs are to show off their deformities for gawkers. Even when the freaks take their revenge at the end, a part of you is definitely rooting for them. I also have to point out here that while I hated her character Cleopatra, I absolutely loved Olga Baclanova's portrayal of her. The way she speaks and all her little gestures really sell that this woman is completely full of herself and just a really bad human being. Olga at the wedding feast is fantastic - every annoying drunk person you ever knew, right there.

That wedding feast scene and the final scene are probably the two most famous from the film. The former because of all the freaks chanting "We accept her, we accept her! One of us, one of us!" and the latter because of its very creepy and scary imagery. The whole sequence is really just stunning as the freaks go after Hercules and Cleopatra during a rainstorm. The shots of the freaks crawling in the mud under the wagons, weapons in hand, or running in the woods toward Cleopatra are all so incredibly beautiful and well composed and very disturbing all at the same time. It's what everybody remembers most about the movie, except maybe for the reveal of Cleopatra as the human duck thing in the next scene. In the version of the movie I watched, there was this whole denouement scene with Hans, Frieda, Venus, and Phroso, but I really didn't like that or think it was necessary. I think it would have been much more effective to end the movie on Cleopatra the duck.

So I've finally seen Freaks and I'm so glad that I did. Like I said before, it is a very, very rare movie in that we will never see anything like it ever again. A truly unique and fascinating tale, Tod Browning's Freaks was saved from obscurity to be enjoyed and appreciated for future generations and I think we all need to do our part to keep that going.

Catching Up On The Classics: Carnival of Souls (1962)

Carnival of Souls is one of those movies that I've been looking forward to seeing for a long time. It is constantly being regarded as one of the best movies you've never seen, and a classic among black-and-white horror, despite its low budget and limited release. Already knowing the famous shock or twist ending to the movie, though, I wondered if this would hurt my first-viewing experience. And sadly, it kind of did.

After Mary is the lone survivor of a car accident that killed all her friends, she goes on with her life and moves to Utah where she has taken a job as a church organist. But strange happenings follow Mary wherever she goes, like seeing a ghostly man around corners and in mirrors. Mary also seems to be inexplicably drawn to an old pavilion in her new town: Does this place hold the answers to what's been going on with her?

Candace Hilligoss is surprisingly quite perfect in the lead role of Mary Henry. That still frame of her up there is one that I've been seeing around for years, and I have always just loved it - even though I hadn't seen the movie at the time. The look on her face and her body positioning almost looks like a painting to me, like an artist that captured a perfect moment in time, of confusion and fear. And now that I've seen the movie, I love that image even more. 

Anyway. Hilligoss does wonderful through the whole movie with a role that is never clearly defined. Sure, Mary seems somewhat confident and clear in her ideals and what she wants, but she's also very much a mystery. She doesn't much like the company of other people, and though she plays the organ for a living, she is not a church-goer herself and instead seems to see religion as a little silly and unimportant. But has she always been like this or is the result of her experience in the car crash? Mary is indeed a mystery and remains so until the end, and Hilligoss's mannerisms and facial expressions clearly convey all the conflicting personality traits of the character.

The only thing that bothered me about Hilligoss, and which in turn hurt some of the more possibly effective scenes, was that she did the "old movie scream." I hate the old movie scream. Do you know what that is? It's the really, really annoying way that women used to scream in old movies - hands flying up to the face or into the hair, screaming in a way that is far too dramatic for the situation. Hilligoss does this a couple of times here and it definitely annoyed the heck out of me. 

Sound becomes a important element in this film at times, or rather the lack of it in certain scenes. These are perhaps the best parts of the movie - the two scenes where Mary realizes that she has become invisible to those around her and that she cannot hear any noises in her environment. The sound of the pipe organ that Mary plays, a monstrous instrument that sounds incredibly creepy, is also important as it adds to overall eerie feeling of the movie. 

But the movie goes a little off from this feeling in the scenes with Mary's pervy neighbor, John Linden, which I frankly did not get the importance of. I get that she doesn't want to be alone because she fears that the ghoulish man she has been seeing will come after her if she is, but what of the rest of the scenes with this guy? Subtlety is not Linden's forte. In so many words, he quite boldly lets her know that he wants to get into her pants even though he doesn't know her at all, and that is the only purpose that this character serves - to be pervy and annoying. He is not needed and all his disgusting innuendoes take away from the main point of the story and Mary's character.

Some of the editing choices in Carnival of Souls were a bit hackneyed for my taste, as well. In the scenes with all the ghosts that Mary sees, whether real or when she goes into those weird trances, the editing and camera made things confusing at times. I hated the part where Mary jumps onto a bus and sees it full of the ghosts. There's an outside shot of her getting on the bus, then a POV of her seeing all the ghosts in the seats, and then a shot of her running away from the bus again. The lack of a reaction shot from Mary or something that established that she was on the bus with the ghosts made this part look very amateur, as if they forgot to get a shot during production but didn't really care during the editing process how it looked. 

At the same time, many of these scenes have wonderful individual shots that were very creepy and effective. Loved the scene of the ghosts dancing around all fast, and the shots of the various ghosts coming up one by one out of the water. Very cool looking. There's also a great overhead shot at the beginning where Mary is sitting at the pipe organ and you just see how incredibly massive this thing is and how small and insignificant she looks next to it. The scene where the ghost turns around in the doctor's chair could have been a lot scarier if Hilligoss didn't do that stupid old movie scream. And of course, my favorite shot of all is when Mary is emerging from the water after the car crash onto the muddy bank. I still don't know what it is about that shot, but I love it, and it's iconic, so you should love it too.

Now, I said before that knowing the ending to Carnival of Souls - that Mary actually died in the opening car crash - almost ruined the experience of watching it. I was very confused and frustrated throughout because, knowing she was dead, I was expecting a movie of her wandering around trying to figure out what happened to her or something. Instead, Mary almost immediately goes about her normal life, remembering the crash but just not how she survived it. If, as the title suggests, the ghostly man and the people at the carnival were other souls trying to take hers, and it was just her soul that went on living, how is she able to interact with other people and touch things? Wouldn't she be more like a ghost than a corporeal being if her body was still in the car?

So while this cult classic didn't completely live up to my expectations, I can't deny that I still love the story, the main character, and some of the really great standout sequences that make Carnival of Souls a movie worth a look for anyone who studies or just loves film. Some kind of variation on the twist ending has been done to death by now but this is one of the originals, and you should definitely watch it. 

Catching Up On The Classics: Who Can Kill a Child? (1976)

I once heard in an interview with Eli Roth that one of his top five favorite movies was this Spanish shocker from 1976, Who Can Kill a Child?. I may not care much for the man, but I do like his movies and now it seems his taste in movies is something to be admired, as well. 

Is there a word for the killing of a child?: Tom and Evelyn are an English couple vacationing in Spain, and  they soon head for an isolated and less crowded island off the coast called Almanzora. When they arrive, the island is strangely deserted - except the children. Something has made the kids murder all the adults and Tom and Evelyn are next.

The credit sequence is a series of news footage clips showing the devastation of various wars around the world, highlighting the effects on innocent children. This puts the viewer in the frame of mind to possibly side with the children. Yes, they are innocent and it's the evil adults who are responsible for their misery, so why shouldn't they give a little back and teach them a lesson? 

The morality tale of film is, obviously, in the title. And the question pops up in a few different parts in the movie, asking the same question under different circumstances. First, during the credits. Even in a time of war, how can someone commit such atrocities that would hurt so many children? The second instance of this question is when Tom and Evey are talking in their room and she mentions something about how he had wanted to get rid of the child she's carrying. Lastly, they ask themselves the question in their present situation of having to defend themselves from murderous rugrats on Almanzora.

I read that in the book the film was based on, the murderous tendencies of the children is explained by some sort of weird yellow dust over the town, but we get no such explanation in the movie. The kids just wake up one night and go from house to house, brutally killing all the adults they meet. There is one scene where the kids have followed the couple to the other side of the island where it appears the children have not been affected (the adults there are still alive). One of the bad kids just stares into the eyes of one of the good kids for a while and the evilness is magically transferred or something.

I know. It doesn't make any sense, but in all fairness, it is not really important why the children are suddenly killer fiends. They just are. And most of the time they don't even act all that evil really. They are often seen as happy and smiling as if they are playing - just playing a very deadly game. There's a fantastic scene after Tom and Evey witness a girl bludgeon an old man with his own cane, and Tom later sees a group of kids playing pinata with the man's body and a sickle. They still act all innocent and stuff but can turn on a dime and pick up a rifle and shoot a police officer. And we never see the kids actually talk to each other until the end, which I think is interesting. Before that, they can be seen as a unified group, working under one mind.

When Tom must finally take real action against the kids, it's a horrible scene. The couple is trapped in a room surrounded by the kids, when one of them crawls to a window and points a gun at Evey's head. And it's a little, little kid, too. Like six years old. But Tom's wife and their unborn child are in danger and he reacts by shooting the kid. So are you still able to justify his actions, or at least empathize with him?

This is also the part where we see the best example of red paint blood I've ever seen. It's seriously awesome, folks, the way the paint - I mean, blood... yeah, it's blood, right? - drips down the wall. It took me out of the moment of shock for a minute, but I really couldn't help myself. It's a sign of the times and you have to appreciate that.

I love the cinematography and location(s) of the film. There is almost no color, or at least what we do see is all muted earth tones. All the buildings are  stark white, blending with the dusty ground. The red paint from the bloody corpses of the adults is the only splash of real color you'll see here. The island seems like a nice place to live if you can survive - clear water, beautiful weather - and it's all perfectly shot for the movie. It's a stark contrast between the pretty location and the horrible events going on there, especially when most of the events happen during the day.

A very interesting under-appreciated film with some fine acting and one of the creepiest groups of creepy kids I've seen. A few of the kids have some real shining moments and give wonderful performances. Great movie!

Sidenote: I can't believe they left those two women alone with the kids after they realized the evil had been transferred. Didn't even try to help them. Then again, I guess it would have been hard to convince them.

Catching Up On The Classics: Black Christmas (1974)

December, y'all! 'Tis the season and all that jazz. I found the original Black Christmas on Netflix Instant Streaming (whoever invented Netflix, I will have your baby), and wanted to see if it was better than the horrible yet hilariously cheesy remake from 2006.

Probably the shortest synopsis I've written: During the holiday break, girls in a sorority house are terrorized by a series of menacing phone calls and the disappearance of one of their sorority sisters. Starring Margot Kidder, John Saxon, Olivia Hussey, and some other people that I don't care about.

Sadly, I wasn't as scared by the film overall as most reviewers said I would be. It's a good movie and all, but for me the scare-factor is grossly overrated. Perhaps it's because I've seen the whole girl-alone-in-house-receives-creepy-phone-calls scenario one too many times and I'm seriously over it. Perverted phone calls themselves are just not scary. I'm sorry. I mean, we know from movies like this and When a Stranger Calls and Scream that the person on the other end of the line really actually might be a psychotic serial killer, but if you can get upset from somebody saying gross things to you on the phone, you're just kind of a wuss. And there's a simple solution - hang up. Better yet, don't answer the phone again. Problem solved. If you call me and don't state your business right after I say hello, I'm hanging up on your ass, that's all there is to it.

If the film were paced differently, this plot might have worked out, but after the first girl's murder near the beginning, the movie drags on for more than an hour before anything really gets going again. We have too many side stories of Jess's bun in the oven and the other girl who was murdered in the park earlier that day, plus an overlong attempt at tapping the phone in the sorority house. We all knew from the beginning that the killer, Billy, was living in the attic, and later on John Saxon says something about there being two phone lines. Survey says: Phone calls were coming from inside the house, duh! But it takes the characters a hell of a lot longer to figure out what any audience member paying attention would already have known for the last hour. It was much too drawn out and led to a conclusion that was far from satisfying.

I might have been more creeped out by the nature of the phone calls themselves IF I could have actually fucking heard what was being said. Of course I heard the first call - the Penthouse Forum edition, if you will. I had to go back and watch all the phone call scenes again and turn the volume up before I caught all the stuff about Billy and Agnes.

See now, this is why people shouldn't make fun of me for watching almost all my movies with subtitles. I always like to put the English subtitles on a film that I'm seeing for the first time so I don't miss anything. Clearly, I could have used them here. Get on that shit, Netflix.

Anyway. The mystery of Billy the Killer is one of the film's strong suits. The remake gives him a full backstory as I vaguely recall, but in this original there is no explanation for who Billy is or what exactly he has done or been through to make him go all schizo and kill those girls. The sorority house looks like a regular house. Did Billy grow up here and never leave? Or did he come back and having all those girls around set him off? We never even really get to see Billy besides an eyeball and a shadowed outline. His motivations are unknown and hopefully you never bought Peter as the red herring, because the movie is mos def not over when Jess kills Peter in the basement. The ringing phone that can be heard as the camera zooms away from the house suggests that Billy has killed Jess as well (and why was she not taken to the hospital???).

I did kind of lose all respect for Jess when she still goes upstairs after the officer specifically told her not to. The calls were coming from inside the house, and from what the caller said, he is probably psychotic and the only other people in the house are not answering your repeated yells - you're in college, girlfriend. This is a no-brainer. LEAVE. But no, the dumb bitch is right at the front door and she still decides to go upstairs. At the same time, thank you for following steadfastly to the rules of surviving a horror film. There's comfort in that kind of consistency. Will we ever have a truly smart Final Girl who never makes any stupid decisions?

Also, and I'm sure this has been mentioned countless times before about this movie, but it is a leeeeeetle bit strange that Billy could have been going all crazy with his Norman Bates impersonation and screaming shit into the phone without Jess ever realizing that the dude is right fucking upstairs. And not in the attic, either, he had to make the calls from the house mother's room.

Sidenote: Thank goodness "house mothers" are not a part of normal sorority life anymore. I was in a sorority in college and that would have just been weird. What the hell would a house mother do all day, every day anyway? 'Tis unnecessary.

Olivia Hussey and her most beautiful face and voice make a wonderful leading lady and final girl in the character of Jess, and she is a nice character for us to follow. I hope Ms. Hussey knows that pretty much every woman in the world probably hates her guts and she should lock her doors at all times. It's the accent. And the hair. And the eyes. Mostly the accent. Margot Kidder is quite good as the sorority drunk with a sharp tongue - although I thought for a second that she was the house mother because she looks far older than the other girls. John Saxon seems to always be a cop in his movies and he seems to have got the role down pretty good.

All in all, this impressive cast makes up for the fact that the movie is - dare I say it - boring at times. There is tension throughout, but not enough action at the conclusion to relieve that tension. The final scene does leave me feeling very creeped as to what Billy is going to keep doing in the attic of that sorority house. You read in books about people "shuddering." I think I actually did that at the end of the movie.

Catching Up On The Classics: The Monster Squad (1987)

GUYS. Why don't you tell me about these things sooner??? The Monster Squad is like my new favorite thing. It was flipping fantastic. In fact, I liked it so much that after only seeing it once, I bought it when I found it at my local video store for only $7.99. Killer.

Monsterific plot: Count Dracula is on the hunt for a mystical amulet that will throw off the balance between good and evil and let evil win. He enlists the help of several classic friends including Frankenstein's monster, the Wolfman, the Mummy, and the monster from Creature from the Black Lagoon that I did not know was called Gill-Man. The amulet is hidden in a tiny American town that also happens to be the home of a group of kids called the Monster Squad, and their love and knowledge of these classic creatures will help save humanity from evil!

Movies with groups of young kids as the main stars are always hella fun - I believe someone described The Monster Squad to me as "The Goonies but with monsters." The Goonies, Stand By Me, The Sandlot... Even when you're way past the kid stage, these movies will always retain their charm and lovability. They keep it simple and sweet with the story, always have fantastic child actors throwing out hilarious one-liners, and continue to teach us that we should never lose our childhood imagination and quest for adventure.

The group of kids is amazing - although admittedly a tad reminiscent of every other child character from every other kid movie like this. They make funny wisecracks with 80's words like "bogus" and it's all cute and stuff when they cuss and say stuff like "If we get through this, I'm gonna shit!" This movie is the almost-perfect combination of comedy and horror. The comedy is spot-on most of the time, and while the horror is faithful to the legends, the film overall is geared toward a younger audience which basically makes it mostly a comedy film. But I don't care. Dracula and Frankenstein's monster are in it; I can talk about it on my horror blog. Making this same movie today without the comedy element, however, would just be a disaster. Making it more directed at horror would mean it completely loses everything that makes it special. I don't think it ever gets "too scary" for kids and it's funny enough that adults (like me) seeing it for the first time absolutely fall in love with it. So the movie works. It works REALLY well.

One part of the film that I was attracted to was the fact that Sean's parents seem totally supportive of his monster movie love - Mom buys him the Van Helsing diary and Dad enjoys watching the movies with Sean. Nobody makes fun of him or asks him why he likes the movies, they just go with it and make an effort to know about the thing he loves. Why can't my parents and friends be more like the people in this movie? While I think they've accepted my obsession, they constantly make comments about "that weird shit" that I watch whenever I try to talk about a new movie I saw or something. It's wearing a little thin.

(Sidenote: As I was watching this, one of my first thoughts was why Count Dracula was recruiting all these other movie monsters in the first place, and more so, just what his connection to all of them was. Then I remembered that I have not seen ANY of those Son of Frankenstein, Bride of Dracula, Mummy vs. Wolfman or whatever movies from that era of filmmaking. I don't know that I will, either. That seems like one genre that I'm really not that interested in. Sorry!)

In that regard, the movie ended much different than I thought it would. After witnessing the mayhem caused by the monsters, the grownups actually suspend their disbelief and get involved in the fight against Dracula, instead of the kids having to do everything for themselves. I expected Scary German Guy to be in on it, but not for the climax to take place in full view of so many adults. With these kinds of movies, there's usually an absence of adults until after everything is resolved, so this movie broke the mold in that aspect.

I love, love, love the guy playing Count Dracula. He is so perfect in that role and embodies it in the way that we always think about the infamous Count. Frankenstein's monster was scary at first, especially when I saw that scene where he comes up on Sean's little sister playing by the water - I don't need to tell you all what I thought was going to happen at first! But I love how the filmmakers flipped that on its head with the next scene and had Frankie become the kids' ally. Wolfman is a little weird looking without the protruding snout, and Gill-Man and the Mummy actually don't really get that much screen time. I guess they're the low ones on the monster totem. The little girl playing Phoebe is absolutely cute as a button, especially when she's telling the boys not to be chicken shit. Seriously, can I adopt her?

This movie also slightly pushes the boundaries in some areas. I wasn't actually expecting anyone to die and was surprised when Dracula blows up Sean's father's partner (who was also very funny) in the police cruiser. I was also a little taken aback at one scene with Scary German Guy. After his discussion with the kids about Van Helsing's diary, one of the kids says to him that he must know a lot about monsters. He says that he supposes he does, and as he's closing the door, we see the numbered tattoo that Nazis gave concentration camp prisoners in World War II. Out of place for a horror-comedy directed at kids or just an apropos plot point for his character? Not sure, but it freaked me out for a second there.

The movie's pacing is quick (almost too quick at only 80 minutes long) and fun with something unexpected and hilarious around every corner. From the kid trying to ask his sister whether or not she's a virgin to "Wolfman's got nards," I couldn't get over how much I enjoyed this movie and everything it had to offer. It's from the 80's and it shows but that's probably why I loved it so much. I'm still catching up on all those great little kid movies that came out between the years I was -5 and 5 years old. Two mega-thumbs up on The Monster Squad. I think this is one my little nephew needs to see, too - I already got him into the Ghostbusters. :)

Catchy taglines aside, The Monster Squad is a cute, uproarious good time for people of all ages.

Also: Sean's "Stephen King Rules" t-shirt is so bitchin'. And now that I'm seeing reproductions of it for sale on the Internet, I want it REALLY BAD. If you all can't think of a Christmas present for me, I've given you a huge clue right there.