SUBJECT: Some cool movies from 2001-2002.                                                      January 2003

As I mentioned in a previous column, I don't often use this space to recommend and review movies. However, when I was thinking about what to write for this TFTM column, it occurred to me that it might be fun to make a list of my choices for favorite movies of the year. As I began compiling the list of movies that I liked, and began using the Internet Movie Database to check spellings of titles and actors names etc., I saw that some of these movies are actually listed with the date 2001 next to them. Therefore, I will also put (2001) next to any of these picks. These are movies that stuck in my head more than a few minutes after I left the theater or turned off the VCR or DVD player. I'm not going to give a ranking, because I believe all of these pictures have their own merits and are too dissimilar to one another (whether because of budget, genre, or whatever) to be ranked in numerical order. I've always found alphabetical order to be a simple enough method for many things. I will also divide the list into two groups: Horror and Non-horror. So here it goes. Enjoy.

HORROR:

Forests Of The Dead (2001) - The story in this independent production follows two groups of friends who head to an isolated camp for some summer fun. However after a young girl appears at the camp looking not quite right, we know that trouble is looming ahead. It turns out that their campground is the home of great evil. What precisely this evil is or where it comes from is never really explained, but soon the first group begins to disappear, and with the arrival of the second group, the bloodshed begins. Campers are slaughtered by other campers who have turned into cannibalistic creatures. Victims are stalked, killed and eaten. As the box cover states, the movie has gut munching, beheadings, dismemberments, pitchforks and scalpings. Gore hounds

will definitely appreciate the graphic mayhem on display here. It's always refreshing to see a horror picture that goes all out and doesn't hold anything back. Also, another plus is the fact that the movie smartly takes the time necessary to introduce us to the main characters so we are involved with their plight when the action begins. And while there really are a few too many teens to keep track of after the second group arrives on the scene, this is just a minor complaint that is made up for by the quick pacing of the action right up until the end of the movie. My personal favorite moment is a rather intimate and bloody scene between two lovely young ladies

in a tent. Hard core horror fans should definitely check this movie out.

For information on purchasing Forests Of The Dead visit onedayinapasture.com

Halloween Resurrection - While I didn't think this was the best Halloween sequel ever made (H20 was a

bit better overall), the movie was entertaining and proved to be a solid entry in this classic franchise. If one can accept the explanation of how Michael survived his apparent demise at the end of Halloween H20, the rest of the movie is smooth sailing. The high point of this picture is definitely the opening segment with Jamie Lee Curtis reprising her role of Laurie Strode for (supposedly) the last time. Her final moments with Michael are engaging to say the least. After this opening we move to the main story where a group of teenagers go into the old Meyers house with video cameras for a live web cast. While this is supposed to be just entertainment, we all know who shows up to ruin the fun. Even though I wouldn't call much of what happens in this situation scary, the whole reality television setup with the teens is engaging enough to maintain interest. Rapper Busta Rhymes is good here as the head of the company putting on the show, and many of the kills are done well. I also liked Michael's demise at the end of this movie because it was the type of scene that reminded me somewhat of classic eighties slasher films. The only question left now is how long it will be before they begin working on Halloween 9.

Jason X (2001) - Unfairly overlooked in theaters (probably because everybody was waiting for Spider-Man), this tenth installment in the Friday the 13th movie series is definitely worth checking out on video or DVD.

Put simply, the movie is fast-paced, clever and fun, with a lot of good death scenes. It also puts Jason into new surroundings, which I found to be a refreshing change from the usual Crystal Lake setting. (There is however a very cool Crystal Lake scene in the movie). A lot of people may have a hard time getting past the whole idea

of Jason in space, which means this is probably the type of movie where you will either love it or hate it.

I personally think it's a worth entry in the franchise. The DVD includes some great extras - the best being a documentary on the history of the Friday the 13th film series.

The Others (2001) - Nicole Kidman gives a fantastic performance in this moody and atmospheric ghost story. She stars as a strict, religious woman named Grace who lives in a huge, isolated mansion with her two light sensitive children. Because direct sunlight can hurt the kids, all the windows and doors are covered or closed, meaning their house is always kept dark. After some strange occurrences, she becomes convinced that her house is haunted. Giving any more details about the story might spoil it, but suffice it to say that this is a classic style horror/suspense picture. It is definitely not a loud and fast picture like many of today's crop of horror films. Because of the slow pace, this is the type of film that some horror fans will love and others will probably yawn at. If you missed it in theaters, I highly recommend catching it on video.

Queen Of The Damned - I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I really thought this was a pretty good vampire picture. It was the second movie based on a book (or in this case a couple of books) by author Anne Rice. This movie - just like Interview With The Vampire - features a bloodsucker named Lestat. Here he wakes up from a long sleep to discover that the world has changed dramatically. Lestat likes what he sees and hears, and decides to become a rock star. He winds up awakening a powerful vampire queen named Akasha (played by the late pop singer Aaliyah), who is bent on destroying all of humanity. The reason I liked Queen Of The Damned was simply because it was a lot of fun. Although Interview With The Vampire

was generally highly regarded, I always found it to be a bit dull and subdued. To me, Queen is just more entertaining overall.

The Ring - This movie was a remake of a Japanese horror film simply called Ring. Naomi Watts stars as a journalist investigating the origins of a mysterious videotape that apparently causes people to die seven days after they watch it. The Ring has a lot of great imagery and is an extremely moody and tense picture. It is also the type of movie that is not always clear cut. My friends and I were discussing the story for about an hour after we got out of the theater. This fact alone - that it gives you a lot to think about - makes it worth seeing. I was also surprised at the little bits of graphic imagery the filmmakers were able to sneak in under the PG-13 rating.

Slashers (2001) - This independent production from director Maurice Devereaux is an outrageous horror spoof of reality television. To read why I liked it so much, please see my November 2002 TFTM column.

NON-HORROR:

Ghost World (2001) - Despite the title, this is not a ghost story. This movie follows two young girls through

the summer after their high school graduation. Enid and Rebecca are outsiders trying to find their way in an increasingly complex world. While Rebecca gets a job, Enid inadvertently finds a soul mate after the girls play

a cruel joke on an older man. The leads in this movie - Thora Birch, Scarlett Johansson and Steve Buscemi -

all give wonderful performances in this complex and moving story. Like the advertising tagline goes - "Accentuate the Negative" - and don't miss seeing this fantastic movie.

Moulin Rouge! (2001) - This musical is compelling and visually mesmerizing. Nicole Kidman gives another great performance (see the above summary of The Others) as a beautiful courtesan, and Ewan McGregor plays a young poet who falls in love with her in this tragic tale. The movie uses many contemporary songs to great effect. For example, who would have thought that Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" would ever be

sung in such an operatic style as part of a modern musical? Not to be missed.

SUBJECT: Darkness Falls: The movie that could've been.                                February 2003

In this TFTM column I'd like to talk about the movie Darkness Falls, as I believe that the film warrants an

in-depth discussion. The plot deals with the malevolent spirit of a woman named Matilda Dixon, who has come back to terrorize residents of a town where she was wrongfully hung 150 years earlier. Formerly a good-hearted "tooth fairy" who was kind to all the children and would reward them when they lost a tooth, she is now their worst nightmare. This thriller* is what I would call a throwback to earlier times. While I did enjoy the film, I couldn't help thinking while I was watching it how much it reminded me of other movies

I had seen. Although I often make such comparisons after viewing films, Darkness Falls really felt like a combination of pieces of previous horror movies. The first movies that came most strongly to mind were

A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors and Wes Craven's New Nightmare. The reason for this is that in Darkness Falls a young boy is staying at a psychiatric institution because he's having terrible nightmares and fears that a monster (in this case a witch) is going to kill him. A man who was terrorized by the witch as a child comes to the facility to try to help him, which is similar to the scenario in Nightmare 3 where Nancy Thompson from the first Elm Street film arrives at a sleep disorder clinic to

help some traumatized teens. In Wes Craven's New Nightmare actress Heather Langenkamp's son is staying at a similar psychiatric facility for the same reasons. Other movies that come to mind when viewing this film are John Carpenter's The Fog, and The Blair Witch Project. Most of the reviews I've read have made comparisons to these types of films and have also said that the movie is filled with horror clichés such as someone returning to their childhood town to face a monster from the past. While I believe this is all true, I also can't help thinking what an entertaining movie this was. The combination of narration and old photographs that start the movie and give us the story of Matilda Dixon (known as the "Tooth Fairy") is interesting and creepy. The opening scene of Matilda's vengeful spirit terrorizing a young boy has some genuinely scary moments. The best part about the movie however, is how Matilda is only seen in fleeting glimpses until the finale. She is a truly terrifying presence throughout, and when she is finally revealed, it is not a disappointment. And while her back-story about being the tooth fairy did seem to become just an afterthought once the movie got rolling, it still wasn't a big enough flaw to sink the picture. The thought that really stuck in my mind after viewing Darkness Falls however, is that this is a picture that came out about 20 years too late. Had this movie been released in the early eighties, I believe it would be considered a horror classic today. (Of course it's hard to say if they would have been able to generate the top-notch special effects back then). As it is, Darkness Falls is still an entertaining (but derivative) little romp with

a few interesting ideas and creepy moments.

SUBJECT: Fangoria magazine - still going strong after over 200 issues.              March 2003

This month I'd like to take the time to pay tribute to one of the best genre magazines around today: FANGORIA. For those not familiar with Fango (as it's often called for short), the magazine is a monthly publication covering all aspects of the horror genre. From its inception in the late seventies right up to the current issue, Fango has devotedly covered everything from American mainstream horror cinema to obscure Euro-horror pictures. Besides focusing on individual movies, the magazine regularly profiles actors, directors, and other behind-the-scenes people involved in the production and distribution of horror movies. They also look at such topics as horror literature, horror film festivals, and the horror theme park industry. However, the heart and soul of the magazine revolves around horror cinema.

There are many reasons why I have always liked this publication and continue to read it to this day. The prime reason is that the magazine has always had a level of quality which I rarely see elsewhere. Every issue is full of interesting and informative information with very little filler or wasted space. When I say wasted space, I refer to pages covered with advertisements, and also stories or articles that consist mainly of hype or superficial, "fluff" information. Too many movie magazines nowadays - whether they focus on the horror genre or, more often, general/mainstream entertainment - concentrate on either worshipping mega-budget productions and their

stars, or on "dishing the dirt" on celebrities.* I for one have very little interest in reading gossip about who's sleeping with whom in Hollywood. Call me a movie purist, but when I read about cinema or anything related to it, I'm generally interested in actually acquiring some real knowledge or insight into the subject, rather than reading eye-catching, superficial celebrity quotes. The pages of Fangoria never disappoint in this respect.

Now I'd like to talk in more detail about just some of what is covered each month in Fangoria. Hopefully for the uninitiated horror fan this will give a good overview of the magazine. As I mentioned above, Fango covers many different areas of the horror genre. Their articles on movies consist of breaking news, set visits, reviews and retrospectives. The breaking news articles, highlighted in a section called Monster Invasion, are usually one-page pieces that give an advance look at movies in production. These articles talk about the project and its origins, and feature short conversations with people involved in the production. Monster Invasion is a nice, detailed, first-look column that often sparks my interest in things to come.

Many of the movies from Monster Invasion are highlighted in future issues when the writers make a set visit to the production. These longer articles give readers a more comprehensive look at a movie and its key players. The interviews are primarily done during production, and the writers usually do such a great job in describing the people and places, that it feels like you are actually on set.

Fangoria has two main sections for reviews. The first is called The Video Eye of Dr. Cyclops, which focuses on video releases, and the second is DVD Dungeon, which focuses on DVD releases. The video review section is especially entertaining because their reviewer (the Doc) has a very humorous (and sometimes cynical) way of putting things. I often laugh at even the worst reviews. In relation to this, I should mention that I feel many mainstream movie magazines still, to this day, seem to have an underlying disdain for the horror genre. I won't name anybody, but so many reviews I've read in these publications are just merciless towards all but the biggest budget horror films. Their writers just don't seem to see the genre as anything worth serious consideration. To these publications, B-movies are treated like a joke. (I've even read some very offensive reviews where these hack writers spent most of the column making personal insults to the actors and barely mentioned the movie's plot). Luckily many of us out there don't see it that way. Fangoria may give a bad review, but there is always a good amount of respect and objectivity involved in everything they write.

The final type of Fangoria movie article is the Retrospective. This is an overwhelmingly exhaustive look at a movie from the past. Writers try to interview as many of the key people involved with the production as possible. As with the article types mentioned above, the interviewees generally have something of substance to say and are usually very happy to speak in detail about their involvement with a particular movie. Directors may talk

about their inspirations; actors may talk about their character motivations and experiences on the set; makeup artists talk about their contributions to scenes in the movie, etc. These articles provide some of the most thorough coverage I have ever read. I should also note that the retrospectives sometimes serve to complete a cycle of coverage for the really great movies. Movies that go on to stand the test of time - for example Friday

the 13th - are often first mentioned in Monster Invasion, then covered more extensively with set visits, later reviewed, and finally, years later, covered in a giant retrospective. Fangoria goes the distance in their coverage of horror classics.

As I mentioned earlier, another great thing about Fango is the wide range of their coverage. This is especially apparent in a section called Notes from the Underground. Unlike other articles, which cover bigger budget productions and the people involved with them, Notes from the Underground is written by low/no-budget filmmakers. Being that I fall into this category of artist, these articles are of great interest to me. These filmmakers generally tell a story about their movie experiences. They talk about exactly the kinds of trials and tribulations I've experienced in making these types of pictures. I often smile knowingly when these filmmakers speak about lack of budgets, problems with scheduling, crazy experiences on the set, etc. For anyone

interested in getting a feel for what a no-budget production can be like, I would suggest reading one of these articles. Mainstream movie magazines almost never give any space to people making movies on this level. 

In summary, Fangoria magazine (which, I should mention, is always nicely presented with its lavish, often blood-red photos and artwork) is one of the most entertaining, informative, and comprehensive genre publications out there today. It is an extremely professional publication that manages to have a truly personal feel. Reading each issue is like reading a newsletter written by and for people who truly love and appreciate the horror genre.

Here's to the next 200 issues!

To connect to Fangoria on the web, please visit my Links page.

* I should note that Fangoria now has one very small column called Skeletons in the Closet, which talks about appearances by famous actors in low-budget/bad horror movies. Usually these are things actors did early in their careers before they became famous. This column is something I actually enjoy reading because it is very lighthearted and humorous and is not there to trash anyone. If nothing else it gives some good trivia information.

SUBJECT: Actor profile: Crispin Glover - A genre comeback.                                    April 2003

In the new movie Willard - a remake of a 70's cult film - which was released last month, it's all Crispin Glover. The actor appears in just about every shot of this quirky, dark little picture. Willard is a social misfit with a domineering mother. He is ostracized and tormented at work by a cruel boss. His life takes a strange turn

when he gains command of an army of rats, which he uses to exact revenge on those who have wronged him. People who have seen the movie will probably agree that while it's not what you would call "straight horror"

(it's only rated PG-13), it's nonetheless twisted and disturbing mainly due to Glover's performance. He makes Willard a twitchy, nervous, angst-ridden, and highly unstable fellow, in a deliciously over-the-top performance which is further intensified by many tight close-ups on his face. Many scenes - especially those between

Willard and his overbearing mother* - are quite creepy and unsettling to say the least. This movie highlights what is so interesting about Crispin Glover: mainly, that he is just that - interesting to watch. Willard also

serves as Glover's welcome return to the fright genre.

The first horror film I remember seeing Crispin Glover in was 1984's Friday the 13th The Final Chapter, which was the forth installment in the never-ending slasher saga. According to his credit list on the Internet Movie Database, this was in fact his first genre film. In the movie he played Jimmy - a teen who goes partying with some other teens up at (where else) Camp Crystal Lake. Now while characterization in these movies is never really a top priority, Glover's conversations with a pal named Ted (played by Lawrence Monoson from

the 80's teen movie The Last American Virgin) are hysterical to watch. Jimmy is a nerdy type who moans

and whines to his friend about having been dumped by some girl who he insists he "treated right". His friend Ted (supposedly a ladies man) keeps making fun of him by pretending to tap all the available facts about the situation into his invisible "computer". His results say that Jimmy is a "dead f*ck." Glover's Jimmy has some hilarious reactions to this, trying not to be bothered and angrily insisting that there is no computer. However it's obvious his friend is getting to him. (As anyone familiar with these films can probably guess, his friend's banter should be the least of his worries.) The fact that I remember Glover's character in a Friday the 13th** movie just goes to show how he can draw a viewer's attention. Glover has a presence and unusual delivery style that can make all but the most rigid and straight-laced roles unpredictable and interesting to watch. It's obvious however those geeky or nerdy characters are his particular specialty. He reminds me in many ways of Christopher Walken - another actor that seems to excel in strangeness in most of his roles.

SUBJECT: The Chiller Theatre Toy, Model & Film Expo: An overview.                   May 2003

For those who aren't familiar with it, the Chiller Theatre Toy, Model & Film Expo is quite simply one of the most elaborate horror, film and memorabilia conventions on the East Coast. The show, held twice a year in New Jersey, is an entertaining three day gathering of fans, collectors and talent. For the movie fan the convention is a place to meet people in the business. The guests are situated in different rooms throughout the convention. Each room usually has more than a few guests sitting at tables greeting and talking to fans and selling their photos and autographs. Chiller guests include widely known actors, cult film stars, independent actresses, and of course the ever-enduring "scream queens". I won't take up space listing the many guests at this past April show, but suffice it to say this is a convention where you can meet talent ranging in diversity from horror star Kane Hodder (Jason Voorhees himself), to professional wrestler and film star Rowdy Roddy Piper, to makeup FX artist Tom Savini, to Misty Mundae & the Women of E.I. Cinema. Many of the guests are people whose name you might not know offhand, but who you immediately recognize upon seeing their face or seeing their movie photos. For example, when I first saw actor Glenn Shadix sitting at the table, I didn't recognize the name, but I knew I had seen him somewhere before. I then smiled upon seeing his photos from Beetlejuice -

a favorite movie of mine. It's always fun to go around to the tables and strike up a conversation with somebody you feel you know already because you've watched them so many times in movies or on television. Generally the guests are very sociable and accommodating to most questions and idle chatter. If you're a collector of autographed pictures, be prepared to bring a few bucks along, because most guests charge between twenty and thirty dollars for a signed photo. This can become costly; however I'd be the first to admit there are some people I'm willing to pay the price for and wouldn't miss the chance to meet for anything. I look forward to visiting the guests rooms at Chiller every year.

SUBJECT: Rob Zombie's House of 1000 Corpses - An artistic misfire?                June 2003

Rocker Rob Zombie's new horror flick House of 1000 Corpses was one that I had been looking forward to seeing for awhile. The word was that this film would be one of the most raw and shocking horror movies to

hit theaters in a long time. It was reported that the movie was originally going to be distributed by Universal Pictures until they actually saw what Rob had created. Apparently they found the film to be too intense and dropped it. To me this meant there was a very good chance the movie was going to be something special. After Universal let it go a lot of time went by and rumors flew about different distribution deals, until Lions Gate Films picked it up and it was finally released to theaters. Now that I've seen the movie I can understand why everybody was talking about it. However I can also honestly say that I was very disappointed with it.

In House of 1000 Corpses, two young couples are driving through the back roads of America and wind up stopping at a tourist trap of sorts run by a showman named Captain Howdy. When the Captain tells them

about a local legend called Dr. Satan, they go traveling to the spot where the legend supposedly originated. After their car breaks down the youngsters find themselves stranded for the night in an old dark house inhabited by a family of psychos. Murder, cannibalism, satanic rituals and other forms of graphic mayhem ensue as the kids are set upon by these maniacs. Before I go into why I didn't like this movie, let me discuss what I admired about it. First, as everyone was saying, this was a very graphic and disturbing picture. I won't

go into specifics so as not to spoil it for people, but this movie contains quite a bit of intense mayhem and bloodshed. There were several scenes of torture that especially bothered me, which is saying a lot considering I'm a fairly hardened horror film fan. The fact that Zombie was able to get a movie like this into theaters is surprising. I read an interview with Rob where he said he just wanted to make a really scary horror flick, and House of 1000 Corpses definitely delivers in terms of it being "shocking and disturbing". I admired the uncompromising nature of the movie (and Mr. Zombie's vision). It's great that Rob was able to make the movie he wanted and get it wide theatrical distribution. Horror fans who like extreme product like this shouldn't just be relegated to choices on home video.

This movie also had lots of style and artistic merit. For example, the opening scene involves two punks trying

to rob an establishment run by the aforementioned Captain Howdy. (The Captain takes guests through a

house of horrors of sorts - a carnival-type haunted house attraction.) This scene is so over the top in style that

it reminded me of something out of a Quentin Tarantino action flick. It's exciting and entertaining and starts the movie off with a bang. This stylistic excess continues on throughout the movie not only in terms of the crazy characters presented, but through many shots of wild and imaginative imagery. Many bizarre images are quick-cut throughout the film. Most involve the family of psychos, and most are shown with some kind of negative art tinting. Seeing these shots one gets the feeling that Mr. Zombie really dreamed up all this stuff on his own and knew exactly the look he wanted for the film. Again, he should be congratulated for getting a very unique vision up on the big screen. 

Keeping the above observations in mind, I'll now discuss why this film didn't work for me. First and foremost,

I found this movie to be too similar to the cult classic The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. In both movies a

group of youngsters fall victim to a family of psychos living out in the middle of nowhere. In both movies victims are skinned and their faces worn by the psychos. *In both movies there is a similar ending involving one female character. I could go on listing other similarities involving specific scenes, but I think I've made my point. Some people might say that every movie is like some other movie in some ways, and this shouldn't be a criticism. (This goes with the idea that there are only nine original storylines out there and everything is just a variation

on one of them). Although this is a valid point, for me this was something (try as I might) I just couldn't get past. (Although he gave a good performance, having Bill Moseley - from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2 - in the cast didn't help matters any.) In fact, not only did this movie remind me of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it really seemed like a sketchy imitation of it. As crazy and over the top as the psychos in this

movie were, these characters didn't really have much substance. It seemed to me that the actors were

chewing the scenery in a series of elaborately designed set pieces that didn't make up any cohesive whole.

An example of this would be a scene where the character of Baby (Sheri Moon) was giving a sort of Marilyn Monroe-type striptease performance for the young victims. This act seemed to be just a pointless, showy set piece which served no real purpose. If it was supposed to give some insight into the mindset of the crazies,

I didn't understand it. There were several other scenes as well that just didn't make sense to me. However I could have simply looked at it the wrong way. It's possible the point is that these people don't operate with any rhyme or reason whatsoever.

A second criticism I have (which is very much tied in with the first one) is that many of Rob Zombie's stylistic touches just didn't add anything to the movie. As mentioned earlier, the director used many quick-cut shots consisting of weird imagery and negative art tinting. I believe most of these shots were supposed to illustrate the mental psychosis of the family. This is only a guess however; when most of these admittedly interesting images flashed by, I found myself wondering what I was looking at. Again, this is an example of inspired

artistry that just didn't strengthen the movie.

Another example of what I would call artistic miscalculation involves a scene where three people are shot and killed. This scene ends with a shot of one of the psychos holding a gun to someone's head. Instead of just finishing it quickly, the camera holds (panning just ever so slightly as I recall) what seems like forever on a wide overhead shot of the scenario, until finally the trigger is pulled. The audience I was with started getting antsy and making noise when the shot froze. Today's audiences aren't used to seeing such a thing in Hollywood movies. (I believe audiences today are used to seeing MTV-style pacing.) When the shot didn't cut and the scene didn't end, people reacted to it. The director obviously used this extreme tactic in an attempt to build tension and suspense and add a memorable moment to the movie. I can't be sure, but I don't think people in the audience I was with reacted that way. It seemed that viewers were thinking something was wrong, as if a mistake had been made with the editing. Rob Zombie should be commended for adding such a risky shot,

but I don't believe it worked.

SUBJECT: New Projects, New Beginnings - some random thoughts.                     July 2003

In this column I want to reflect on what it has been like to begin shooting a new movie after not having done any *filming for close to a year. This essay will be different from most of my previous TFTM columns in that I'm not going to offer an in-depth analysis of a particular topic, but rather just write down some random thoughts about my experiences to date on my most recent production. I would ask regular readers of the column to indulge this attempt at "off-the cuff" writing.

I just began work on a new short comedy titled Of Theatre & Bikinis (see the Upcoming Movies page for descriptions of new productions). Having worked on it for a couple weekends now, what strikes me the

most is how different each production can be from the previous one. My last picture - the horror feature

The Temptress (see "The Temptress" Page for information on that movie) - was filmed mostly on weekend nights over a period of about two years. This movie is also being shot on weekends, but there are no night scenes involved. Instead of beginning at 8 or 9 P.M. and going into the early morning hours, we're now

shooting scenes on bright sunny afternoons. Our shooting schedule is also more compressed, as we're planning on wrapping this movie by the end of the summer, which means long shooting days. With The Temptress there were many big scenes, or what might be called set pieces, often involving a lot of action and makeup FX. This comedy is mainly comprised of smaller scenes involving quite a bit of dialog. While framing MCU's (medium close-ups) on actors for a back and forth conversation is technically easier than doing fancy camera moves for an elaborate fight scene, straightforward dialog scenes pose their own unique challenges.

In a comedy, interactions between characters at certain moments can really make or break a scene, because many lines and moments exist solely to get a laugh out of the audience. If the lines or character interactions aren't funny, the scene can fall flat, having nothing else to support it. This is a unique challenge of comedic material. While this isn't to say scenes can't fall flat in other types of material, it just seems more noticeable when comedic elements don't work. This is quite a contrast to many of the challenges posed in making a

horror picture, such as (in my case) choreographing a fight scene between two elaborately-dressed and

made-up vampires taking swings at each other and trying to tear out each others throats with their teeth. 

Another thing that makes each production unique is working with different people. Since I began making movies I've been lucky enough to work with several of the same talented and dedicated people over different projects, but I've also usually managed to add at least a new face or two to each picture. In Of Theatre & Bikinis I'm working with several new people. Each new actor brings a unique presence to the screen, and adds to the moviemaking experience. Each new person brings a new dynamic to the shooting situation and helps to keep the production fresh. I always look for people who are enthusiastic and committed to their endeavors. I have several new actors in this production that fit that description.

Finally, I'd like to make a quick note about the technical side of this production. One big advantage of this picture over the last one is how much easier the shooting is from a technical standpoint. Most of this movie

is set outdoors in the daytime, which means there is no lighting involved (except natural light), and no cables involved (the camera is powered by a battery.) I wrote the new script with these conveniences in mind.

Working within the confines of an artificially-lit area in the middle of the night is much different than shooting cable-free in a sunlit park. I'm glad to have the opportunity to be involved in a different type of shooting experience. Time will determine what happens with this movie, but one thing I've learned is that each picture takes on a life of its own at some point during shooting. This is something I've often heard filmmakers say,

and I totally concur with it. Ideas are added during the shoot and script pages are sometimes altered. **Unexpected events and challenges can develop on any shoot no matter how much it is planned out in advance. Each movie truly is a unique entity.

* The term filming is widely used today to describe making movies on both film and video. Technically (as one of my former college professors would often remind us during video production class) the term that should be used for producing material on video is taping. This is because film involves a chemical process, whereas video is really electronic moviemaking.

** Although unexpected events and challenges can alter well-made plans, I recommend outlining every shoot ahead of time on paper whenever possible. My practice is to write a detailed shot list for every scene, spelling out such specifics as who will be acting in the scene, what wardrobe and props are needed, and my chosen angles for each shot. The process of doing this helps to keep me focused on what is involved in a particular scene, because it forces me to reread the script pages. This way it is less likely some important detail will be forgotten, and even if nothing goes exactly as planned when we actually shoot the scene(s), at least I'm well-prepared and I don't feel as if I'm just "winging it".

SUBJECT: Q & A Time                                                                                                  August 2003

Not too long ago I was asked to answer some questions for an article on independent filmmakers that was

to appear in a new print publication about B-movies. Unfortunately (to my knowledge) the article was never published. So I decided to post the questions and answers in this column. Hope you find it interesting.

Q: There are lots of technology advances (DV cameras, DVD, the increasing affordability of computer-generated graphics) that have affected the budget film industry, but what Internet-specific services have

most affected your own work? List some sites and/or services that help you do your job better or faster,

and comment on each.

A: As you say, there have been many technological advances that have affected the budget film industry in recent years. The proliferation of new production gear such as inexpensive digital video cameras (DV) and non-linear based editing programs have made it possible for many aspiring filmmakers to attempt projects they wouldn't have been able to years ago because of cost and technology limitations. The internet has also been a major factor in what many are calling the digital revolution. In my own work as a digital filmmaker I often rely heavily on internet sites for technological support and to keep on top of the ever-evolving world of the new digital technology. For example, as a user of Adobe Premiere editing software, I visit the Adobe website (www.adobe.com) whenever I need to look up information regarding the product. They have an extensive database of information, including a large FAQ section that is very helpful. Other sites that deal with video production have also been helpful in terms of staying up to date with the technology. One site that I find useful

is the Videomaker magazine site (www.videomaker.com). They provide articles that deal will all facets of

video production from basic to more advanced topics. In addition, places like the Adobe site also have pages of downloads that can offer solutions to problems, and enhancements for programs like Adobe Premiere.

The ability to download information and programs at any time from different web sites is an internet-specific service that can help people get work done faster. As I said, with digital video this often applies to support for computer-related products like editing programs, video cards and cameras that interact with a computer

setup.

Q: How much does e-mail (and the Internet in general) come into play during the production of a film?

Are cast and crew ever contacted by online means, or is it still primarily a phone-and-fax business?

During which stages of production do you consider the Internet to be essential, and during which would

you never consider using online communication?

A: I recently completed post-production on an independent horror feature called "THE TEMPTRESS".

From the time production began in early 2000, to the end of editing in late 2002, e-mail didn't come into play very much at all. In my case telephone was the main means of communication with actors and crew during the production phase of the movie. This was mainly due to the fact that everybody who worked on the production was from the same area (Upstate New York), and that is where the movie was lensed. Because of all the intricate details and planning involved in making a movie, I have always found verbal communication on the telephone to be essential. It's possible this may not always be the case on bigger productions shot in more varied locations, but for my own locally-produced movies it's mainly what I use.

Q: In what forms of Internet promotion do you and/or your company engage? Which do you consider the most (and least) effective? Has there ever been a promotional campaign by another company that you wished you'd thought of first?

A: The internet can be a great means of promotion for an independent movie during all phases of production. In mid 2002 - while I was editing my aforementioned feature "THE TEMPTRESS" - I started my own website called Very Scary Productions (www.veryscaryproductions.com), which was the production company title I had used on some of my previous short films. Since the site went up I've been using it to promote the feature, as well as my past work, to independent and underground movie fans. The site offers descriptions and pictures from many of the movies I've done, and gives up to date information on upcoming projects. It's always best to get people interested in a project sooner rather than later. If you can build interest in a project before

production even begins, that's great. The goal is to have an audience eagerly awaiting your movie upon release. Of course the internet can then be used to sell the completed movie as well.

If there is any promotional campaign I wish I'd thought of first, it would have to be the one for the independent movie "THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT". The people behind this movie created interest in their project well before it was released. By the time it finally came out everyone was eagerly awaiting it. Their campaign involved heavy use of their website. This is a striking example of how the internet was used for the promotion

of an independent production.

Q: The World Wide Web has provided everyone with an opinion and the desire to share it the opportunity to do so. The web sites of amateur film critics have proliferated. How carefully do you read the online reviews of your work? At what point, in your opinion, does an Internet film critic become more than just another fanboy with a web site? Do you feel that such web sites do more good than harm?

A: Movie review websites have indeed become widespread on the internet. I've only recently become

involved with this trend. My feature mentioned above received a positive review from a movie site shortly after the film's area premiere. (The reviewer was somebody who came to the screening.) This review has given me some exposure I wouldn't have had otherwise, which I'm very grateful for. I've used quotes from this review to promote the movie on my website. Although I'm obviously happy that the review was good rather than bad, my feeling on the matter is that any exposure is better than no exposure. I myself have never been one to take reviews too seriously when picking movies to see, and I believe a lot of people feel this way. If I've been waiting for months to see the latest horror blockbuster, I'm going to see it on opening night regardless of what even the most well known critics say. In regards to fans with movie review sites, it's hard to determine the line between serious movie criticism and a fanboy with a web site. I found the review I received to be thoughtful and insightful. Reviews are, after all, just opinion no matter who writes them. The bottom line is that movie reviews on these websites are exposure. How much exposure these sites provide is unclear however, as it's hard to determine how popular many of them are and how heavily people weigh the opinions of these internet writers.

SUBJECT: "Freddy vs. Jason" - Why it worked.                                                      September 2003

As I write this, the long-anticipated horror extravaganza Freddy vs. Jason has opened in theaters across the country and brought in big revenues. The movie came in #1 at the box office in the first two weekends of its release. Being a big Nightmare on Elm Street fan, and also someone who enjoys the Friday the 13th films, I'm very happy about this. What I'm most excited about however, is not just that the movie did well, but that it was very, very good.

First and foremost, the writers of this film should be commended for coming up with an ingenious plot which seamlessly mixes the back stories of each franchise. A big concern for me - and for many others I imagine - was how Freddy and Jason would exist together in the same universe. Those familiar with the two franchises know that Freddy exists in a surrealistic dream world, while Jason inhabits the back woods of the Crystal Lake campgrounds. (For more discussion of differences between these franchises see my December 2002 TFTM column - "Freddy vs. Jason - Will it work?") Well let me just say that this worry was alleviated right from the get-go.

In this movie we learn that the adults in Springwood finally stopped Freddy through the use of an experimental dream suppression drug called Hypnocil (a plot element originally used in the sequel A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors), and by pretending like he never existed. Put simply, those who knew about him were quarantined and medicated, and all records of him and his murders were eliminated. Thus none of the current youth population in Springwood know about him, and therefore can't dream about him. Freddy has become powerless. This is where Jason comes into the story. Pretending to be his mother,* Freddy wakes Jason from a long slumber and sends him to Elm Street to begin the carnage again. Freddy is blamed for the murders, and as the fear spreads he regains his power. But when Jason keeps on killing, Freddy then has to get rid of him. Mr. Krueger can't have any competition for his "children". The two eventually collide with Freddy determined to dispose of the hockey-masked killer and be top dog once again.  

The first great thing about this movie is that both series and their trademark elements are represented well.

For example, early in the film we see Freddy in the boiler room with his trademark blades in a scene reminiscent of the first Nightmare movie. We see scenes in Springwood at 1428 Elm Street (Nancy Thompson's old house/Freddy's home) and dream sequences with many familiar Nightmare elements.

There are also less obvious examples that hardcore Nightmare fans will notice. None of these scenes are exact copies of the originals, but they are close enough to give a fan like myself fond memories of the earlier films.** This also holds true for the Friday the 13th - style scenes. This franchise has always combined the

two key elements of nudity/sex and gory death scenes. Early in the movie we see a young lady skinny-dipping and then fleeing from Jason. This is followed later on by some other scenes involving sex, skin and carnage.

I'll have to admit I grinned at these sequences because they were such blatant exploitation that they were funny. (The crowd I saw the movie with on my first viewing started laughing and clapping during the aforementioned skinny-dipping scene - it was just that much fun.) For Friday the 13th fans and exploitation fans, these parts

of the movie shouldn't disappoint. I should also note that the exploitation scenes were definitely welcome considering the fact that most studio horror movies today usually hold back on such elements.

Besides this movie being fun on an exploitation level, another important aspect of the film is the fact that

it really gives us an insight into the motivations of each franchise character, while offering a complex, intriguing, and exciting story. Freddy is seen to be someone who has always been evil and kills because he enjoys it. Jason on the other hand is portrayed as a figure that kills because that's all he knows how to do. Some flashbacks give us a glimpse of how he was mistreated before he drowned, and in this light, we feel some sympathy for him. This character depth only strengthens and compliments the fast-paced action in the movie.

I won't go into many specifics so as not to ruin it for people, but suffice it to say once Jason heads to

Elm Street and Freddy starts to make his comeback, things really heat up. There are many standout scenes

of carnage before the main fight in the last half of the film. The best one is probably when Jason shows up at

a rave that is taking place in the middle of a cornfield. This is just an incredible scene. Gore fans will not be disappointed.

Another plus with this movie is that the performances are generally very good. The teen characters are developed well enough so that we can identify with them, which helps make the proceedings compelling.

(I felt especially sad at the death of one of these youngsters.) Our lead heroine (like many Nightmare heroines before her) turns out to be courageous and resourceful. Robert Englund gives a great performance (as usual) as Freddy, keeping him nasty and sadistic throughout, while still managing to spout a few lines that had people rolling in the aisles. (Trust me, the humor works in this movie). And finally, Ken Kirzinger does a good job playing Jason here. ***

All these elements put together make Freddy vs. Jason a great movie. This is a film where you catch new things with each viewing. (I've seen it several times.) And also, anyone just wanting to see these two fight will not be disappointed.  When Freddy and Jason finally do tangle, it can only be described as spectacular. Freddy vs. Jason is a horror film not to be missed.

SUBJECT: Movie Recommendation  - "Underworld"                                                                           

The Summer 2003 horror movie season ends on a high note.                            October 2003

After the spectacular "Freddy vs. Jason", I felt quite happy and satisfied. This was the movie I had been waiting for forever, and luckily it didn't disappoint (see last month's TFTM column to read my praise of the film). I really didn't care all that much what other horror releases arrived in theatres. However, since the success of Freddy vs. Jason, much to my surprise horror has continued to be red hot in the remaining weeks of summer 2003. After the battle of the horror titans came a cool little independent sort-of zombie film called "Cabin Fever", followed by the even cooler studio picture "Underworld", which tells the story of an ancient battle between vampires and lycans (werewolves).

Underworld centers around a character named Selene (Kate Beckinsale), who is one of a group of warriors assigned to hunt down and exterminate the last remnants of the lycan race. She discovers that a human named Michael is the key to a plot by the lycans to combine vampire and werewolf blood. Selene becomes torn between her attraction for him and her allegiance to her race. Other characters involved in this ancient battle include Kraven (Shane Brolly), who is the leader of the vampire house after the former leader Viktor (Bill Nighy) goes into hibernation, and Lucian (Michael Sheen), the Lycan overlord. As the battle rages in both modern and gothic-looking locations, secrets are revealed and alliances tested.

There are several reasons why I liked this film. First and foremost the movie had an interesting story and equally interesting characters. Selene is compelling because of the way she thinks and the situation she is in. This femme fatale is someone who has always lived to kill lycans, driven purely by her desire for retribution.*

At the same time, since the lycans are on the verge of extinction, her purpose (her entire existence) will soon be gone. Add to this the fact that it's obvious she really doesn't fit into, or doesn't want to fit in with, the more aristocratic lifestyle of her coven. She is lorded over by Kraven, the unlikable aristocrat who wants Selene by his side and is mostly concerned with rising to prominence in the vampire coven. However, besides his quest for power in the coven, it is revealed that he knows many secrets regarding Selene's past which he has guarded dutifully for a long time. He is definitely more than he first appears to be. These very secrets are the key to understanding the battle between the vampires and the werewolves - who are lead by Lucian, a third character I found fascinating because of his back-story and the situation he finds himself in. Lucian is both a fierce, vicious warrior and leader, and a tormented, sympathetic soul who is also motivated by a desire for retribution as fierce as that of Selene.** He is a victim of his past just as she is. 

Besides good characterizations and back-stories, I also like the mixture of genres present in the picture. Underworld is part Matrix-style action, part horror film. The influences of "The Matrix" can be seen immediately by looking at Selene's black leather outfit and watching the numerous scenes of highly stylized high-tech gunplay.*** Surprisingly enough the horror elements are not lost either, as many characters are dispatched brutally, with blood splattering just heavily enough to satisfy this horror fan. (Indeed, despite the stylish trailer, this is not really a mainstream picture.) The vampires look fine, and the while the werewolf transformations may not be entirely groundbreaking, they also don't look like a lot of the silly CGI sequences we've all seen in the past. The movie moves at a brisk pace, providing lots of action and gruesome images, while never getting too bogged down in heavy-handed dialog. The dramatic elements nicely blend with all the carnage and gunplay to provide a moving narrative that never bores.

While I thoroughly enjoyed Underworld, this movie is also definitely not without its faults. The first criticism I as a horror fan can level against this movie is that just about every time there is a confrontation between the two species, gun play and high-tech weaponry is involved. In other words, the vampires and werewolves don't

really get physical with one another until after all the bullets are exhausted. (The way they are presented would suggest that - with the exception of Victor and presumably the other Vampire lords - the lycans could eat the vampires for breakfast in physical combat). However this does make sense in that both species are presented as having evolved intellectually enough to make strategic use of such weaponry - especially the aristocratic vampires. Luckily, as I mentioned above, the action keeps moving and the aristocratic lifestyle of the vampires is not dwelled upon too much, saving this movie from becoming another slow Interview With The Vampire -type picture. (For the record I tend to prefer my vampires to be fierce, vicious creatures like in

"John Carpenters Vampires".)

A second criticism I have is that the relationship between Selene and her human attraction Michael never really goes far enough. In a movie like this it would have been nice to see some real steam develop between the two of them. Instead all we get is an incredibly restrained Selene and an always bewildered and confused Michael. This isn't to say this behavior doesn't fit these characters and the story, but it just would have been nice if the filmmakers could have gotten a little heat and chemistry in there between the two leads. This also applies more generally to the entire picture as well, in that the trailer - with its emphasis on shots of Selene in her tight black latex outfit - would suggest that we were in for a lot of kinky sex appeal ala "The Matrix". Alas, they were only teasing us. Most shots of Selene are tight close-ups on her face, which usually appears stone cold or contemplative. Put simply, the sexual elements in this movie are kept to a minimum.

A final (and lesser) criticism I have is that the ending of the movie borders on being silly, and feels too brief for what has transpired before it. However I will be the first to admit that it is still somewhat funny and entertaining, providing what could be described as a lighter moment in a dark and heavy end sequence. This finale will definitely get mixed reactions from moviegoers.

Despite these complaints, when all is said and done Underworld is a highly engaging (if not entirely original) action/horror picture. Given that so many vampire movies have been made over the years, it's always a daunting task to do something new and fresh with the fanged creatures. Werewolf movies are also difficult

to get right, not so much because a lot of them have been made, but rather because it's hard to top the groundbreaking transformation effects seen in a movie like "An American Werewolf in London". I can't

think of another movie in recent memory that has pitted werewolves against vampires (although I'm sure there are some), and for this reason alone Underworld has at least some originality to it. While many horror fans

will no doubt see this film as an action picture with a few horror elements tossed in for good measure, I see it as an entertaining ride well worth taking.