Friday the 13th, or slasher movies in general

This weekend I was camping with my family. I wasn’t feeling too well, which meant I didn’t swim in the 55° lake. But I brought some movies along -- Creature from the Black Lagoon, Peter Jackson’s Bad Taste, and the original Friday the 13th. Which is a good camping movie, if you ask me.

I always liked it, but I can understand some of the criticism it gets. It doesn't have a lot of substance, at least for the first hour. The acting isn’t astounding, but in my opinion, it’s about as good as A Nightmare of Elm Street. The directing leaves something to be desired, but it gets down what it sets out to do: to show us a bunch of camp counselors getting hacked up in a cabin.

But a lot of people call it a ripoff, which I never really understood. It’s said that the screenwriter wrote Friday the 13th after being inspired by Halloween. But who doesn’t? It’s the whole reason people still write slasher movies today. If people didn’t want to shoot their own Texas Chain Saws, we’d end up with a really small amount of slasher films and a lot more Pierrot le Fous.

But I’m getting off track here. Maybe I’m missing something, but how is it at all similar to Halloween? It’s a slasher, obviously. They both are. But when you look past the killing, there aren’t many more similarities aside from the occasional POV shot (yeah, that was a ripoff, but that can mostly be blamed on the director. And Hitchcock was the one who made it famous, anyway.)

You also have all the backstory involving a kid, and two young lovers who get killed. But this is actually where Friday departs from the typical slasher formula, by making the kid’s mom the killer (that was a spoiler, but seriously, if you haven’t seen the movie/don’t know the plot yet, come on.) And this is a little off topic, but seeing as how slasher filmmakers have basically ripped off every single slasher movie trope before, why hasn’t anyone used the “mother was the killer” idea yet? It’s a great idea that really sets Friday the 13th apart from the countless other slashers of the eighties.

So there you have it: some POV shots (which ripoff Psycho, not Halloween), a tragic backstory involving a kid and murder, and the fact that both movies are slashers. As far as I can see, these movies are kind of similar due to the subgenre, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call Friday the 13th a ripoff. If I’m missing something and you have any other reasons Friday copies Halloween, let me know in the comments. I’m still trying to figure this out.

Haunts (1977) Review

Haunts opens to a run of the mill throwaway kill, just like any schlocky slasher flick would. After all, the supposed plot is “a woman is stalked by a mysterious killer wielding a pair of sewing scissors”. It’s predictable, straightforward, and yet, how could you go wrong with it?

But at about the five minute mark the film’s tone switches drastically. It becomes a slow drama told in a lot of flashbacks and shots of the protagonist staring out rainy windows. More kills are still thrown in about every ten or so minutes, but they only distract from the slow melodrama that takes center stage.

The plot is all over the place, but from what I gather, a woman's dealing with some trauma from her past. She goes to church every day to cope, but one night, on the walk home, she's attacked by a mysterious man who tries to stab her with a pair of large scissors. She gets away, and this raises some questions: why was he after her? Who was it? She becomes convinced it's her uncle, whom she's currently living with. But perhaps it's someone else.

This film is hard to judge because overall it's an inconsistent mess-- like I said, dull drama one minute, nasty slasher the next-- but at the same time, it has moments where it teeters on brilliance. For example, there's a totally bizarre goat milking scene near the beginning that, to me, bumps the film's score up a whole extra star. Same thing goes for a remarkably-shot death scene outside a bar, about halfway through.

But unfortunately, solid death scenes like this didn't seem to belong with the rest of the film. It's a psychological drama, first and foremost. The brutal killing doesn't ring true. It stands out, like it's not meant to be there. It’s almost like the exec at the production company told the filmmakers they needed to make it more marketable. Obviously this means adding some good ol’ hacking and slashing. It’s happened before.

Which, if this was true, would explain a lot. The film is for the most part a quiet drama, but every ten or so minutes an ugly, oftentimes unimaginative kill scene is thrown in. These scenes barely ever effect the plot, and stand out most of the time as things that were thrown in as an afterthought.

Overall it's a slow, kind of boring film with a lot of extra padding to fill its 90 minute runtime. But it does have some good ideas, and it wants to be better than it is. It's an ambitious film made by people who weren't exactly sure what they were doing. That's made clear by the ending, which attempts to pull a huge plot twist but fails and just gets plain confusing.

I think this proves that having a unique idea is one of the most important things about writing. A bad movie with a unique vision, and something to say is interesting, more so than an average by-the-books Hollywood movie that has no idea behind it. You can hit all the bases-- proper format, good dialogue, neat story structure-- but it doesn't matter unless your story has something to say.

Switchblade Sisters (1975) Review

AKA The Jezebels, but I like "Switchblade Sisters" better.

It's hard to review movies like this. When it comes to grindhouse cinema, almost every film is totally unique. You judge them like typical Hollywood films-- if you did, you probably wouldn't enjoy many "cult" movies.

To me, the biggest difference when it comes to these low budget gems is the writing. In Switchblade Sisters, almost every scene has something to like about it. There's always a quirky, odd thing going on, combined with over-the-top characters and great dialogue... all in all, it's something you haven't seen before. But in full, the film is pretty messy. There are a lot of little things to like, and it keeps your interest-- but the film as a whole is all over the place. It's like they were making it up as they went along.

That's what I'm saying about these films, and how different they are. There's no three act structure, no midpoint, no resolution. Screw that crap. You notice the same thing in Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! and even in Coffy. The stories are almost told in this free-form style you would never see in a Hollywood production. And sometimes it works for the film... but more often than not, it doesn't. Despite everything there is to like about Pussycat, the film as a whole feels messy and padded. But does this free-form style work for Switchblade?

The film follows a gang of women-- women with names like Lace, Patch, and Donut-- and their endeavors. They get thrown in jail, recruit new members, clash with rival gangs, and that's about all there is to say. There's really no plot to speak of-- it's just one event after the other until the film ends. Yet, to me, this actually works for the film. It's the hodgepodge of incidents and over the top characters  that adds to the feel of the film. It's something you have to see to really understand.

Switchblade is something else, a film some have tried to emulate over the years-- most notably Quentin Tarantino. I noticed a couple similarities to Reservoir Dogs here-- from the rhythm of the dialogue to the violent finale in the gang's warehouse. Makes sense, since this film was recently rereleased by Rolling Thunder Productions, Tarantino's own production company.

So overall, is it worth the watch? Yeah, sure. I feel like it's good for writers-- screenwriters especially-- to take a break from cookie-cutter Hollywood films and check out some of cinema's oddballs. It's a good way to learn for yourself why conventional story structure is a good thing-- and why you don't always need it.

Planet of Dinosaurs (1977) Review

Now here's a little gem. "Planet of the Dinosaurs" is probably one of the better b-movies I've seen so far.

Funny thing, it starts off almost exactly like Attack of the Beast Creatures (1985), except, of course, it's in space.

After their ship crash lands on a planet very similar to Earth, some unfortunate astronauts discover they're not alone...

You guessed it. Dinosaurs. And pretty good dinosaurs at that; for a low-budget 70s film, the stop motion effects were surprisingly good. If you've ever tried stop motion, you'll understand why it's impressive.

It's funny how similar Dinosaurs this is to the aforementioned film. The two films even share a berry picking scene (however, the berries are poisonous in The Dino Disco Movie.)

The rest of the plot is kind of obvious. They attempt to survive on the planet until they can be rescued, battling dinosaurs along the way. Sure, the pacing slows down near the middle, but eventually picks back up again. For a b-movie, it seemed relatively concise, with clever dialogue (at least compared to Beast Creatures) that kept it from becoming dull or tedious.

The acting was so-so. Sometimes it was better than others, but overall it was watchable. The same goes for the directing and editing.

One thing that helped this film is that, unlike many other b-movies, it actually contained a few subplots. The characters were even (somewhat) developed, making it easier to care and empathize with them.

Unfortunately it suffered a problem that many films like this face. I've been thinking about b-movies a lot lately, and have come to the conclusion that a big problem is that many of them don't have a clear protagonist.

Sure, we have our "main characters," but even in the group, it's hard to identify who's the main main character. There isn't one in this film. One minute the story leans towards one person, but then it seem like the other person is our lead, and eventually we have no idea who the protagonist is.

Still, it's an interesting film, and definitely worth a look if you can find it anywhere. As of now it's on youtube, but that's definitely subject to change due to those annoying copyright laws.

Is it a good film? Heck no. Fun? Yes, very. And that's all it tries to be.

Attack of the Beast Creatures (1985) Review

"We're just letting the forest get to us."
-Actual line spoken by a character after a man melts in a pool of acid and another man is devoured by beast creatures.

I never thought an 80 minute movie could last so long.

Attack of the Best Creatures is a film worse than its title. I’m almost proud of myself for having the willpower to sit through the whole thing.

This film begins with a title card— 1920, for some reason. Not only was this redundant (there was no reason for the time period), but the 80s soundtrack doesn’t fit in at all with the 20s vibe they must’ve been going for.

Anyway, it opens to some people in a lifeboat, just after their cruise sank. After a good ten or so minutes of nothing at all interesting, their lifeboat ends up on a heavily-wooded island, where they plan to make shelter. The long lifeboat scene would have been a great opportunity for character building, but unfortunately that isn't the case here.

They get out of the boat, and almost immediately notice that one of the men has been mysteriously wounded with a deep gash on his chest. After closer inspection, they find that he is still alive. No one knows who or what did this to him.

So they leave him alone on the beach while they set off to find food. And that's when the real fun begins. Or at least as close to “fun” as this film could possibly be.

Other than the brief acid pond scene (a nice touch, in my opinion) nothing very interesting happens here. We wait 20+ minutes for them to pick berries, argue, pick more berries, and then argue over who picks berries. Then, we have an excruciating 7+ minute campfire scene where none of the characters discuss anything we don’t already know (or care) about.

Here's actual line spoken by one of the characters during this scene: "I'm frightened! This place is starting to make my skin crawl." (Remember, this is after two people have been mysteriously killed off.)

That’s my main problem with b-movie horror. Your effects can be as bad as heck and I could care less. No, the thing that bothers me more than anything is the character development you see very often in films like this.

I’ve found that many decent horror films follow two different patterns. Some have a slow build up before any killing (The Shining, for instance) but the interesting characters and masterful foreshadowing make it an entertaining film.

Then you have group 2, which are films without much buildup or character development, but the gore (while not preferred) is usually entertaining enough on its own. You don't need much character development for Friday the 13th Part 30, for instance, though as long as Jason stabs a bunch of people the audience is happy.

The problem with many b-movies is that they usually suffer a long, slow build up with characters we could care less about. Not a good mix.

And that's the case with this. We have a 30+ minute build up (a large chunk of its slim 80 minute runtime) dedicated to nothing in particular. There are no subplots, and scarce character development.

The main tip off that this was going to be horrible is that the filmmakers didn't care enough to give their monsters a proper name, instead sticking with a very generic "beast creatures." Even something like "Attack of the Homicidal Demon Men" would have been better.

The monsters, by the way, are not very beast-like nor “creatures.” More like “critters.”  They're tiny red humanoid puppets with big glowing white eyes. Unfortunately, they have no real back story. One brief shot near the end shows about ten of them standing around a large beast creature idol of some sort, but no explanation for this is given.

Still, the creatures are pretty unique looking. I've never seen anything that looks like the beast creatures, so I give the filmmakers props for originality.

The remainder of the film is spent with the characters walking through the woods, hardly ever talking. They’re constantly being attacked by the beast creatures, but the attacks are so unconvincing and relentless that the film becomes repetitive and dull.

And pretty soon (about forty minutes, though it feels like hours) the film is over. There isn't really a payoff or anything— it just ends. Sure, the montage during the final chase scene was interesting. And yes, I can kind of see what the filmmakers were going for in this scene, but unfortunately it all fell flat for me.

It would have been nice to see some sort of subplot. Entertaining dialogue and likable characters would have at least made the long walks bearable.

Carnival of Souls (1962) Review

I watch a lot of old b-movies, and I've found that a most of the time it's either a hit or a miss when it comes to old horror; sometimes the film is just plain bad, and other times a movie is decent, more or less. Carnival of Souls is neither. In short, it's a brilliant film. It's relatively obscure, which is a shame since it deserves a wider audience.

After surviving a car accident, Mary Henry (Candace Hilligoss) moves away to a different town where she gets a job as a church organist. As she begins to adjust to the new town, she becomes uneasy due to her occasional hallucinations. That eerie abandoned carnival outside town isn't helping, either.

The only problem I found with this film is that a few scenes ran a bit long. I also noticed some dialogue that wasn't significant to the story and should have been cut.

The evening I watched this, I was thoroughly entertained, as well as impressed that the filmmakers could pull this off on such a small budget. It may not be perfect, but it's far better and more intelligent than almost all modern horror films. It shows that a great script can get you a long way.

Night of the Living Dead (1968) Review

George A. Romero's original masterpiece that set the standard for all zombie films since. An entertaining film, with many twists and a lot of gore for its time.

While visiting a rural cemetery, Barbara (Judith O'Dea) is attacked by a mysterious stranger. She hides in an abandoned farmhouse, where she meets Ben (Duane Jones), who boards up the house to keep out the bloodthirsty zombies that lurk outside.

The pacing of this film is slow, and sometimes that's not a bad thing, because it enables character growth. Sometimes the pacing is a problem, though, because it eventually becomes tiring to watch a man board up windows for minutes on end.

The acting is good in most parts, although there were a few brief moments when it wasn't so great. But this only happened a few times with minor characters, and the main actors were good enough to make up for it. The cinematography is excellent for a film considered by most to be a b-movie. This film has good directing, especially for a low-budget zombie movie.

Thanks to its well-written script, Night of the Living Dead has just enough twists to keep you guessing, but still retains a concise, easy-to-follow story. A must-see if you plan on writing a zombie film--or any other type of horror film, for that matter.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951) Review

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a classic sci-fi film that has good special effects for its time but is unfortunately plagued with its mediocre writing and sometimes almost cringe-worthy acting.

The first few minutes of the film is made up of scene after scene of people reacting to a mysterious flying saucer that lands in Washington D.C. Klaatu (Michael Rennie) emerges from the space craft and informs the spectators that he has come on a goodwill mission.

Soon we learn that Klaatu’s mission is to deliver an “urgent” message to all of the world leaders. Upon hearing this, I was intrigued, wondering what the message could be.  Unfortunately, the third act of this film just doesn’t deliver.

After a few narrow escapes, some sneaking around, and a car chase, Klaatu finally reveals his message, which is a lot less breathtaking than I had once hoped.

Sure, some scenes were decent. Some were even good. Sadly, the bad parts outweigh the decent, making this film much less than what I had anticipated. Not a personal favorite, but I can see why it's considered such a classic.