Spooky Special - Trick ‘r Treat (2007)

 

Rent it on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play, and YouTube. 

Trick ‘r Treat is to Halloween what Miracle on 34th Street is to Christmas; a fine-tuned showcase of everything that makes its affiliated holiday so appealing to us all. It is a labor of love spawned from a passionate appreciation for the best night of the year. While it may not be for all Halloween lovers, it’s praises as a modern Halloween classic are well deserved. If for no other reason than it is responsible for creating Halloween’s official little mascot, but we’ll get to him in a minute. 

Trick ‘r Treat comes to us courtesy of writer & director Michael Dougherty, whose body of work includes Krampus, Godzilla: King of the Monsters, and X-Men 2. His inspiration for the film came from two main sources: his hand-drawn animated short film he made in college titled Season’s Greetings, and his desire to create a film that would showcase his love for the near-forgotten nature of Halloween. Produced on a tight budget, Trick ‘r Treat was initially slated for a wide theatrical release in 2007. However, due to a number of potential reasons still not yet confirmed, the movie was shelved for a good two years, until it was unceremoniously released on DVD. The most popular of potential reasons for this was due to the poor financial and critical reception of Superman Returns, which Michael Dougherty co-wrote. Also, much like The Princess Bride, the studio had no idea how to market the film. Most likely due to its particular nature.

Best described as an amalgamation of Pulp Fiction and Tales from the Crypt, the film is an anthology of four spooky stories, presented in a nonlinear fashion, interlinked to one another by a few shared characters, but mostly by the little orange-clad demon; Sam. 

Played by child actor Quinn Lord, Sam is named after an ancient Gaelic festival known as Samhain; a holiday commemorating the end of Fall and the beginning of Winter. Incidentally, this is the original name for Halloween. Due to the nature of the original festival, it was often common for children to go wild and pull pranks on people, earning another nickname for the holiday, The Devil’s Night. Then, in the 1950’s, trick-or-treating was invented to keep kids more or less under control. Sam is meant to be the embodiment of the ancient origins of Halloween; acting as the enforcer of classic traditions all true Halloween lovers must abide. 

According to the film, the rules are as follows: 

1. Always hand out candy to trick-or-treaters. 

2. Always wear a costume. 

3. Never blow out a Jack O’Lantern before midnight. 

4. Always respect the dead. 

5. Always check your candy. 

6. Never take down your decorations before November 1st. 

7. Never hurt the innocent. 

Trick ‘r Treat also features a plethora of references to other famous horror movies and traditions. For example, one character named Laurie (Anna Paquin) is named after Laurie Strode from John Carpenter’s Halloween. Another piece of trivia is Sam’s weapon of choice, a candy bar with a razor blade inside, as a reminder of why it’s important for parents to check the candy before enjoying. 

As I said in the beginning of this review, Trick ‘r Treat may not be for all fans of Halloween. My reason for saying so is due to the occasional bits of graphic violence depicted in the film. While I am not entirely opposed to graphic violence, especially when it is appropriate for the story (which it is here), I tend to prefer it when the violence is kept to a minimum. Trick ‘r Treat, on the other hand, does not go completely overboard with its bits of violence and gore, but it does kiss the edge of my preferred amount. 

Trick ‘r Treat is essential watching for Halloween. It’s love for the best holiday of the year makes watching it a tradition in its own right. Even with my graphic violence warning, I encourage you to check this one out this year for your scary movie list. Just be sure to follow the traditions of Halloween, or little Sam might come knocking on your door for real, and he’ll have a special treat for you that you will not want. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

I’m begging you, VOTE!!!

I have tried my best to avoid political discussions on this blog. TheNorm’s Movie Talk has always been about escapism; a means of getting away from the awful and dreary horrors of the real world.  

However, with the election less that one week away, and the cowardice act of the GOP confirming Trumps’s choice for the Supreme Court (against the final wishes of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg I might add), I can no longer afford to remain silent of the situation on this blog. 

I make this plea to all of my wonderful readers. If you have not yet voted, please do so as soon as you are able. If you intend to vote in person, let nothing prevent you from doing so. The quickest way to lose our civil liberties is to not use them. 

Our voice must be heard! Our democracy must be preserved! Our vote must be counted! 

Fright Night - Remake Showdowon

 

Vampires are a proud staple of Halloween traditions and horror fiction. From the great classics like Dracula to modern iterations such as Blade from Marvel Comics. In the 1980s, while many cinephiles had nightmares of a burnt psycho in a Christmas sweater with knives for fingers, a little film called Fright Night renewed our fear for the creatures of the night. It is regarded as a memorable bit of cheesy fun for its story, special effects, and memorable cast. Then, a little over twenty years later, a remake of the cult-classic hit the silver screen. Does it hold up to the original at all? Well, the answer might surprise you. Join me as we sink our teeth into both versions of Fright Night

Theme 

In both versions of the film, the story follows a teenaged boy named Charley, who discovers that his recently-moved-in neighbor happens to be a Vampire. Despite witnessing clear indications, and many attempts to prove it to others, no one believes in Charley. Thereby forcing him to take on the demonic creature himself. 

What separates the two versions of the story is there thematic elements. While the original film was primarily about the value of old-fashioned practices and ideas in the modern age, the remake is more about identity and self-image. In the remake, Charley is a former nerd, who, after a growth spurt and a relationship with one of the popular girls, abandons his nerdy friends and geeky self to become one of the “cool” kids. however, when his former best-friend warns him of the dangerous threat living next door to him, Charley ignores him and refuses to believe. It is only when his friend ends up missing does Charley decide to take some initiative. After realizing his friend was telling the truth, Charley must now reconnect with his inner-nerd to take down the Vampire and save the day. 

This new idea of embracing ones genuine self, no matter how “uncool” others may perceive it to be, is more than proficient to earn the remake lots of points. Any story that promotes the importance of self-acceptance and the value of individuality is always welcome in my book. 

Supporting Characters 

Both films respectively feature a few memorable and lovable supporting characters. The most essential for both iterations of the story is Charley’s girlfriend, Amy, and the charismatic yet cowardly superstar, Peter Vincent. 

Amy, in both the original and the remake, is an attractive young girl who is in love with Charley. At some point in the story, she gets captured by the villainous Vampire, causing Charley to come to her rescue. However, there is a surprisingly superior difference between the two iterations of Amy’s character. 

In the original, Amy is, for want of a better term, a bit of an airhead. She’s attracted to Charley, and is confident she want’s to loose her virginity to him, but as things become too scary and uncertain, while Charley’s Vampire neighbor closes in on them, Amy seems to find herself, well, more attracted to the Vampire. While you could argue that she is falling victim to the Vampire’s supernatural charm, in the original film, it’s kind of ambiguous just how much of her getting captured is against her will. It almost seems to imply that Amy starts to believe that Charley is no longer worthy of her affection, and is more attracted to the Vampire’s assertiveness. Which, if you ask me, is a terrible way to treat women characters in any setting. 

However, in the remake, Amy is better fleshed out as a character. She is more proactive in the story, shows herself to be genuinely attracted to Charley for who he is, and is incredibly obviously not attracted to the predatory nature of the villain. While she still falls into the damsel-in-distress cliche, at the very least, it does not feel contrived or lazy in this presentation. 

Another fantastic supporting character from both versions of the film is Peter Vincent. In the original, he is the host and star of a television show where he proclaims himself as an accomplished Vampire killer, and official expert on all things pertaining to the blood-sucking monsters. However, when Charley approaches him for advice and assistance in taking down his neighbor, it turns out that Peter Vincent is nothing more than a down-on-his-luck actor who has milked his Vampire kick for as long as he can. Even though he is an expert, he never believed that Vampires were real, until he learns the truth about Charley’s neighbor, and gains the courage to take him down. 

In the remake, Peter Vincent is still an expert on all things Vampire, but now, he’s a Vampire-themed illusionist performing regularly in Las Vegas. Also, much like Amy, the remake succeeds in adding texture and extra depth to his character. In addition to being an expert, he gets a backstory to explain why he is so obsessed with Vampires. Also, he provides the story with a greater sense of urgency, because the villainous Vampire happens to be of a particular sect that specializes in hostile takeovers of entire populations. Meaning they will eventually wipe out the entire community unless Charley can stop them. 

Also, David Tennant, who portrays Peter Vincent in the remake, is absolutely astonishing to watch. 

Conclusion

While the original will always have a proud place in cult-classic history, this is a rare occasion where I find the remake to be a superior film. It builds upon the elements that make the original so memorable, while retaining its own identity as a more in-depth story. Not to mention the pitch-point casting and witty writing often not found in remakes at all. While I recommend both films for a good Halloween movie marathon, if you have to choose one, my money is on the remake, and I do not make that endorsement lightly. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Spooky Special - 1408 (2007)

 

Rent it on Apple TV and Amazon. 

The works of Stephen King tend to go one of two ways: deeply profound in its exploration of the human condition, or silly over-the-top horror schlock. Part of that can be attributed to the many cliches he tends to repeat on a regular basis, while other times it can be a case of poor media translation. Sometimes what works in a book does not hold up on the silver screen. However, every once in while, there is a Stephen King story with the right kind of balance that is given to a director who knows how to handle it. When that happens, you get priceless gems like The Shawshank Redemption and The Shining. When it’s presented to the wrong director, you get unintentionally funny bombs like The Langoliers and Children of the Corn. Today’s subject, 1408, is a little challenging to place. It plays out as a well-structured character study exploring emotionally resonating aspects such as loss, guilt, and death. While simultaneously featuring the same kind of over-the-top goofiness often associated with King’s more eclectic work. And yet, somehow, it all manages to work together, creating a rare and surprisingly profound film. 

Based on the short story by Stephen King, our protagonist is an alcoholic writer named Mike (John Cusack), who maintains a steady living as a debunker of haunted spaces. He has built a career writing books about supposedly haunted and possessed places and exposing them as frauds or coincidental natural phenomenon. One day, he learns of a legendary room in the luxurious Dolphin Hotel in New York, room number 1408. Throughout the Hotels history, that one room has proven itself to be a dangerous place. Fatal accidents, staff experiencing psychological breakdowns, and disappearances. Mike is eager to check out the room for himself, but the Hotel’s manager, Gerald (Samuel L Jackson), is hesitant to let Mike inside the room, let alone write about it. However, after much persuasion, Gerald grants Mike permission to enter and study room 1408. The moment he sets foot inside, everything goes off the rails. Mike finds himself in a roller coaster of nightmares, deadly pranks, and maniacal displays of power. Now, he must survive whatever strange and random things the room may throw at him. Even worse, the room seems to know an awful lot about Mike, and doesn’t hesitate to play with his mind, emotions, and sanity. 

Let’s get this out of the way right now. This is yet another Stephen King story about a guy dealing with his alcoholism, which has become a staple of King’s work. This is not to say it’s a bad thing, and given Stephen King’s personal life, it’s understandable that he would continue to battle is issues through his writing. It’s just to say that it’s become cliche at this point. Even so, it is acceptable for this story in particular, because the character struggle is not limited to his drinking, but his need to drink in the first place. Without spoiling anything for those who have not yet seen the film, Mike confronts a few inner demons which have haunted him for a long time. This is not a story about sobriety entirely; it’s about closure and forgiveness. 

As an actor, John Cusack tends to be hit or miss. He’s always been best utilized as a character actor for quirky supporting roles. A shining example would be his role as the saddle-wearing federal marshal in Con-Air. However, when he’s tasked with the role of a leading man, his performance style tends to poorly mesh with the demands that come with such a task. Fortunately, 1408 happens to be the right kind of film for John Cusack’s acting style, and he delivers high-quality in spades. The film allows Mr. Cusack to utilize his talent as a character actor without coming off as forceful or out of place. It’s a rare case of landing the right man at the right time for the right story. 

1408 is a rare bird of a movie. It’s just silly enough to provide incredible entertainment value, and it’s just scary enough to remind us why we all fell in love with Stephen King’s stories. While it may not be high on my list of films to watch for Halloween, it is a worthy option all the same. Much like the Hotel California, you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.  

Spooky Special - Oculus (2014)

Stream it on Hulu 

Rent it on RedBox, Amazon, Apple TV, Google Play, and YouTube 

Regular readers of my blog may recall a previous article I published titled Something Scary . Where I discussed the difference between genuine horror stories and the excessive jump-scare riddled gory schlock that pretends to be scary. To showcase the difference, I directly compared todays subject, Oculus, to one of its blood-bathed contemporaries, Saw. Also, in my most recent review for Hellraiser, I commented that, of the many sub-genres of horror, I tend to prefer ghost stories and psychological thrillers. Therefore, it should come as no surprise to my wonderful readers when I say that Oculus is one my favorite horror films of all time. Because not only is it a perfect ghost story with lots of psychological thrills, it’s simply a beautifully crafted piece of cinema in its own right. One that anyone, regardless of their taste in horror, or lack thereof, can appreciate. 

The story follows a young man named Tim (Brenton Thwaites), who has just been released from the psychiatric ward. Apparently, when he was a boy, he murdered his father in self defense, and was sentenced to counseling until such time as he was ready to return to society. His sister, Kaylie (Karen Gillan), awaits her brother with open arms. After they celebrate their reunion, Kaylie informs her brother of her plans to exonerate him of his alleged crimes, by proving once and for all who the real culprit was. According to Kaylie, the factual murderer of their parents was...a haunted mirror. 

It turns out that prior to the inciting incident, their father had purchased an antique mirror, which according to Kaylie’s research, has a long history of previous owners. All of whom exhibited unusual psychological breakdowns, resulting in multiple murders and suicides. Having witnessed the potential effects of the haunted mirror, Kaylie has set up a highly detailed plan to prove the mirror’s evil & supernatural abilities, and hopefully destroy it in the process. Thereby preventing any further tragedies and clearing her brothers good name. 

However, conflict arises when Tim reveals he does not believe in his sisters claims. For every supernatural theory Kaylie suggests, Tim has a perfectly logical and realistic counterpoint. As such, there is never any clear answer to the supernatural theories pertaining to the mirror. As far as Tim is concerned, it’s just an old mirror his father bought that just happened to arrive shortly before things went horribly bad for them all. So, is the mirror haunted, or was it something the kids made up to survive their shared trauma? 

Ambiguity plays a significant part in this well-crafted story. Having no clear answers to the situation creates a sense of unease. In most modern horror films, when they’re not hurting your ears with loud blaring jump-scares, they’re also overly-explaining the mythology. For some reason, they tend to think that audiences are either too stupid to follow along, or they think we are incapable of suspending our disbelief. Because of this, many modern horror films will have large sections dedicated to explaining what the threat is, where it came from, and what it wants. Thereby eliminating an essential element of horror; mystery. When telling a horror story, the threat is more menacing and frightening when we, the audience, don’t completely understand it. In other words, less is more. 

What sells the story is the cast. Brenton Thwaites and Karen Gillan have remarkable chemistry and put tremendous amounts of conviction into their performances. They carry the movie on their shoulders for every second of screen time. While they are the MVPs of the film, it should not detract from the rest of the talented cast. Annalise Basso and Garrett Ryan, who play the main characters as children, are especially fascinating to watch. It’s a tour-de-force of talent that should not go unnoticed. 

Director & editor Mike Flanagan, whom some of you may remember from last years Doctor Sleep and the Netflix series The Haunting of Hill House, showcases his genuine understanding of proper horror storytelling. Through calculated camera language, carefully crafted lighting, and meticulous sound design, Mr. Flanagan puts many modern horror films to shame. Hollywood would do right to bring on Mr. Flanagan as a consultant on all future horror films. 

Oculus is the real deal. It’s a scary thriller that knows how to play with your mind and make you question everything you see. It is the perfect companion for any Halloween Movie Marathon. If you haven’t seen this one yet, I encourage you to get on that soon. Oh, and pay no attention to that dark figure you see in the mirror. It’s not really there. At least, I’m pretty sure it’s not. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Antebellum - Best Picture Contender

Rent it on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play, and YouTube. 

Upon first glance of the trailer for this film, one might easily suspect the nature of the story. However, once you see the movie proper, it becomes clear that the trailer was a misdirection. Under most circumstances, this would likely bother me, because when a trailer is not forthright about the movie it’s advertising, the result can be devastating and aggravating. Case in point; the trailers for Passengers or Collateral Beauty. However, in the case of Antebellum, not only was the misdirection genuinely necessary, it was required for the sake of proper narrative impact. Without spoiling anything, what you may think this movie is about is likely wrong, but I assure you, once you discover the real twist of the story, you will be more shocked than you ever could have thought.  

As you likely have gleaned from the trailer, the story appears to take place in two different time periods: modern day and sometime in the 1860’s, as evidenced by the confederate soldiers. The main character appears to be a young woman named Veronica (Janelle Monáe), who mysteriously appears in both timelines. 

And that is pretty much all I can say about the story without spoilers, intentional or otherwise. 

If there is one word that can best describe Antebellum, it would be “relevant”. The movie carries a tremendous amount of symbolism, commentary, and in-your-face criticism on modern society, and aspects of American culture that have plagued our nation as a whole, and continues to do so. Antebellum is a rally call to all people that we must not only fight for a better nation, but we must also demand serious reformation from the powers that be. Make no mistake; Antebellum is a significantly powerful and timely story that must be seen. I cannot encourage you enough to please rent this movie immediately. I promise you, it will be well worth it. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

A Nightmare on Elm Street - Remake Showdown (Spoilers)

The horror scene of the 1980’s was a highlight for the genre. Many of the most iconic and memorable scary movies spawned from that glorious decade. One of them was the Wes Craven masterpiece, A Nightmare on Elm Street; the story of a terrifying slasher named Freddy Kruger who hunts you down in your dreams. Instantly recognized by his trademark red & green striped-sweater, his brown fedora, and his bladed-finger glove. It is a film that jump started many wonderful and fascinating things, including the creation of the production company New Line Cinema, and the debut of then-newcomer, Johnny Depp. Naturally, with Hollywood’s fear of originality (or lack of brand recognition), it was only a matter of time before they got around to producing a remake of the cult-classic. Does it hold up when compared to the original? Let’s find out. 

SPOILER WARNING from here on out. 

First, let’s take a look at the one thing that both films did right. 

Freddy Kruger

In both films, the central conflict revolves around Freddy. For those of you who don’t know, here’s a quick backstory. In the movie, Freddy Kruger was a child serial killer who was eventually caught and arrested. However, due to a filing error of the warrant, he was released and no charges could be pressed. When the system failed, the parents of Freddy’s victims decided to take justice into their own hands. They banded together, tracked Freddy down to his old boiler room where he committed his crimes, and they barricaded him inside setting the place ablaze. Burning Freddy as punishment for his atrocities. However, that was not the end for Freddy Kruger. Years later, he would return as an evil spirit with the power to invade peoples dreams, taking his revenge on the next generation of children. Now, the teenagers of Elm Street must find a way to confront and destroy Freddy once and for all, before they never wake up again. 

In the original, and in all six sequels (plus a TV show), Freddy Kruger was portrayed by renowned character-actor, Robert Englund. He single-handily brought the iconic horror villain to life in every performance. It Is said that actors enjoy playing the villain, not because they’re evil, but because it allows them the chance to have fun with the role. Villains offer actors a means to stretch their abilities and play with their craft. Not only has Robert Englund taken full advantage of this notion, he has become synonymous with Freddy. 

The remake was tasked with the challenge of finding an actor who possessed the same level of talent and finesse required to play such an iconic character, and they found one in Jackie Earle Haley. At the time, Mr. Haley was in the middle of a rare career comeback. After spending his early years as a successful child actor, he vanished for a little over a decade, only to resurface with an Academy Award nominated performance for the film Little Children, followed up by his show-stealing portrayal of Rorschach in the feature-film adaptation of Watchmen. As Freddy Kruger in the 2010 remake, Mr. Haley succeeds in making the character his own, while paying homage to the evil revelry made famous by Robert Englund. It is an incredible performance, which, in all honesty, deserved to be in a better movie. 

Which brings me to where the two films differ, and why the remake ultimately failed. 

The Story 

As I mentioned earlier, the story follows a group of teenagers trying to survive Freddy’s rampage in their dreams. However, a significant part of that story relied on the mystery of Freddy and his origin, as the main characters are initially ignorant of his motivations. For the remake, the filmmakers realized that, given Freddy’s status as a horror icon, they could not simply rehash the same mystery. So, they devised a solution. Now, Freddy starts out as a friendly gardener at the children’s kindergarten, and is eventually accused of molesting children rather than killing them. Also, all of the victims have conveniently repressed their memories of the events. Meaning they cannot recall if they were genuinely abused or not. So, the new mystery is that Freddy may have been innocent, which is why he has returned for revenge. 

The problem with this new twist is twofold: First, while establishing a more tangible connection between Freddy and the main characters sounds like a good idea on paper, it robs Freddy of his essence, because the audience is now expected to sympathize with him. The most significant reason Freddy is so terrifying is because he is pure evil with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Trying to make him more sympathetic deflates any tension the story might otherwise have. Second, removing Freddy’s origin as a serial killer means there is no narrative justification for his bladed-finger glove. As far as the remake is concerned, Freddy only has it because that’s what he’s known for, except now, there’s no narratively-sound explanation for it. 

In an attempt to make the story more mysterious, they’ve instead made it nonsensical! 

The Dream Sequences 

In the original film, dream logic is king! Literally anything can happen, making Freddy’s power all the more horrifying and visceral. He can come up with manifestations of your worse fears and have them chase you down with no chance of escape. Eventually, you find yourself in Freddy’s boiler room; a claustrophobic maze of steaming pipes and dark red walls with no way out. A true image of Hell if ever there was one. 

While the boiler room is a constant dream location in the remake, it fails to come up with creative visuals for proper dream sequences. Instead, the remake opts to utilize a plot device called “micro naps”, which are explained as infrequent bite-sized dreams caused by a sleep-deprived brain. This gimmick does lead to a few creative transitions between dream and reality, but it only serves to have Freddy show up whenever they want. This was likely an attempt to make him more menacing, but it quickly drains any tension from over-exposure. 

Monsters are scarier when you don’t seem them too often. 

Conclusion 

Aside from the spot-on conviction of Jackie Earle Haley’s performance, and one or two creative bits of visual-effects, the remake of Nightmare on Elm Street cannot hold a candle to the original. It fails to provide an intriguing mystery, it has no idea how to utilize its iconic character, and it robs a talented actor of an outstanding feat. If you have still not yet seen the original film, I encourage you to check it out this Halloween. It will, unquestionably, haunt your dreams. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Spooky Special - Hellraiser (1987)

Stream it on Hulu. 

Rent it on Amazon, Google Play, YouTube, and Apple TV. 

This Halloween, I have such sights to show you! 

Clive Barker is a household name in horror, both in literature and cinema. Renowned horror novelist Stephen King once said, “I have seen the future of horror fiction, and his name is Clive Barker.” Although Mr. Barker is not my preferred style of the genre (that distinction remains with ghost stories and psychological thrillers), I do appreciate aspects of his creations. His feature-film directorial debut, Hellraiser, while incredibly graphic, is a profound story about the line that separates pain from pleasure, and how easily it can be crossed. 

Based on Clive Barker’s novel The Hellbound Heart, the story follows a woman named Julia (Clare Higgins) and her husband as they move into a new house together. One day, while moving a mattress, Julia’s husband accidentally cuts himself, profusely bleeding all over the attic floor. Shortly after they retreat downstairs to treat his wound, the blood triggers a disturbing event. A humanoid figure emerges from the floor, and slowly takes on the physical form of a person with no skin. When Julia returns to the attic, she is greeted by the horrific sight of a skinless man claiming to be her old lover, Frank (Oliver Smith). He says that he needs more blood for a complete resurrection. Strangely, Julia complies, and proceeds to lure a handful of men to the attic for Frank to feast upon. Later on, Frank explains his situation. 

It turns out that Frank discovered a strange puzzle box called a Lament Configuration; a key that can open doorways to Heaven or Hell. Out of curiosity, Frank tries to solve the puzzle box, and finds himself in the clutches of Hell demons known as Cenobites; manifestations of the human pursuit for physical gratification. However, the Cenobites are so removed from their former humanity, they have lost the distinction between pleasure and pain, and often confuse one for the other. Before Julia accidentally revived Frank, he thought his soul was forever lost in Hell. But now that he has been revived, will he escape and have a chance to start anew, or will the Cenobites hunt him down once more? 

While the special-effects and make-up design is grotesque and difficult to observe, their overall quality is incredible. Make-up designer Bob Keen, who previously worked on other cult-classic films such as Highlander, Lifeforce, and Candyman (also a Clive Barker story), creates effects that are as believable as they are unnatural. His designs for the Cenobites are especially noteworthy. The most famous of them, unofficially known as Pinhead (Doug Bradley), has become the mascot of the franchise and an icon of horror characters in his own right. 

The main reason I don’t rank this film any higher than I have is because of personal preferences. While I do enjoy some aspects of Hellraiser, I have never been a fan of graphic torture-porn or excessive gore. I grant you, it is not as self-indulgent as any of the SAW sequels, but it’s still not my cup of tea. At the very least, Hellraiser has a narrative justification for being as graphic as it is, as opposed to being gross for grossness sake. Even so, it’s not the first film that comes to my mind when I think of essential Halloween watching. 

Hellraiser is like watching a nightmare; it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but it’s so visceral and strange that you can’t help but look on with uncertain curiosity. Despite the films graphic nature, there is something alluring about it that makes it worth seeing at least once. Should you be the least bit curious about it, please heed my warning of its graphic nature. Once you’ve seen it, you can never unsee it. Watch with caution. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.  

Horror Requests Open

My Wonderful Readers, 

The Spooky Season is upon us! It is time to prepare for costumes, candy, and all things deemed strange and unusual. Even though we may not be able to enjoy all of the wonderful traditions often associated with this most incredible holiday, let us not despair. 

In honor of my favorite time of the year, I will be taking requests for horror films to review. There are no rules or guidelines to follow. If there’s a scary movie out there that you would like to hear my thoughts about, please share it with me. You can make your requests by leaving a comment on this blog, on my Facebook page, or via email at normanlucecinema@gmail.com directly. 

I look forward to the chills and thrills you have in store for me. Please stay safe, and whatever you decide to do this year, have a Happy Halloween! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.