Freaky Friday - Evil Dead

I don't think I've ever reviewed a movie on here the day it came out partly because it's a rare occasion anymore when I see a movie on day one and I also like to ruminate for a few days before I come to a definite conclusion. Not so today.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods. The evil presence possesses them until only one is left to fight for survival." 

Evil Dead (2013)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1288558/?ref_=sr_1

Technical (4.5) - After you see the first 10 minutes of this "remake" you'll realize this isn't "The Evil Dead" you remember, but that's a good thing. This one falls somewhere in between the "Psycho" and "Fright Night" remakes as far as what comes along from the source material. It isn't a shot for shot remake and it doesn't throw the whole thing in the garbage and begin again with just character names. In fact, none of the character names are the same, just there will be some similarities that are slightly skewed for a modern audience, but more on that in a minute. Let's talk about the visuals instead. As one of the friends I went to see this pointed out, when special effects are done in-camera and done well they have a much more visceral effect. Horror movies should only use cgi as a last resort because you can always tell and it removes you from the movie. I'm happy to report that this movie uses it so sparingly you might swear it has none at all (we argued a bit over one scene, I still say it was cgi), These actors must have gone through some hell and for a first time director, Fede Alvarez did a wonderful job drawing you in and ratcheting up the tension slowly but surely through the whole film. You can definitely see traces of the original and I even saw several elements of
"The Exorcist" which actually added greatly to the movie. I had to deduct a half point for editing out one scene they're using a bunch in the promos (that I really thought was eerie) and a few continuity errors I noticed. Nothing as glaring as in the original, but still.

Script/Dialogue (4.5) - Anyone heading into this expecting the dark comedy of "Evil Dead II" might be sorely disappointed (two people in front of us left during the movie, guys no less), but I wanted a flat out horror movie and got one. It wasn't necessarily scary per se, so the tag line in the poster above isn't quite accurate, but it was an enjoyable ride none-the-less. They started by changing the main plot device of why they are there from a fun weekend in the woods to helping a friend detox which adds more reality to the proceedings and instead of casting someone as Ash, they kind of chopped his character up and distributed him between a few of the characters. The Necronomicon plays a bigger part too as it not only begins the whole fiasco, it helps drive the whole movie along with several references back to it. The dialogue isn't particularly groundbreaking and a couple of the characters might as well have "deadite fodder" tattooed on their heads from the start since we get no real character development from them, but this is a damn horror movie, not "Gone With the Wind". I don't expect a whole lot there. It serves its purpose: to get us from one dead person to another. There's an odd plot point involving the dog (which always irritates me when they use a pet like that) that actually ends up tying in at the endgame which was a nice touch. There are also just a couple of kinda cheesy lines towards the end that I rolled my eyes at, hence the half point.

Acting (4) - Again, this is a horror movie, so I'm not expecting "King Lear" here. Jane Levy shines as Mia who they've brought to the cabin to kick her heroin habit. She's really good here. I didn't quite think she had it in her from watching "Subugatory" (which I love for being live action "Daria"), but this girl can scream with the best of them and has this wide-eyed look of fear that will give you chills. Easily the best of the bunch. Everyone else is passable. Lou Taylor Pucci is Eric who has the look of the "stoner", but ends up having the "geek" trait too from these types of movies. He stands out to me as the most wooden of the performances. Shiloh Fernandez plays Mia's brother David and to be honest stands out just as too much of a pretty boy for this kind of movie. He's not bad in the role, he just doesn't connect to you emotionally as he should for a couple of the scenes. Would have been a 3 except for how good Levy is. Elevates the whole movie.

Tilt (5) - I loved it. Didn't have much expectations going in and ended up blown away. It was derivative of the original while at the same time being very imaginative and pushing all sorts of buttons where you will squirm and suck in breath. I actually said "OUCH!" out loud several times. Like I said, not really scary in an "Exorcist" kind of way, but not the torture porn that "Saw" movies became either. Don't be surprised if  Alvarez (and maybe Levy too) gets asked to direct an "Exorcist" remake. I hope that never happens, though, it's an untouchable movie for me. Just be sure to stay past the credits if you're an original "Evil Dead" fan. I promise you'll love it. Otherwise, you'll probably be confused.

Total Score - (4.5)

Freaky Friday - The Evil Dead Franchise

With the release of "Evil Dead" just two weeks away, I thought I'd give you guys a quick refresher on the films that began it all. This isn't really going to be a review, just a little bit of film history and a cultural lesson that maybe will get some people to not only see the "remake" (which seems vastly different, but I'll get to that later), but also to either see the originals for the first time or revisit them.

First off, though, if you say you are a "Horror Movie Buff" and have never seen these movies, then immediately stop calling yourself that. You're not. Simple as that. I know they're "old" and "outdated looking", but they are, without question, some of the greatest horror movies ever made (well, I & II are for sure, Army is good just not really Horror per se).

These were the start for a young filmmaker named Sam Raimi who went on to make the Spider-Man Trilogy and "Oz the Great and Powerful". He cut his teeth on these movies and learned from mistakes he made. He also built up his trademarks here (especially with the gallows humor of II) and made Bruce Campbell a "star" (at least an underground one).

For those of you that are casual movie goers and the like, lemme give you a quick run down of the movies:

The Evil Dead

Though not necessarily the first isolated cabin in the woods style horror movie, it is probably the defining film of the sub-genre. Made on the super cheap, it was more inventive and downright creepy than anything before it. No longer was it a slasher, it was actual demons possessing the young 'uns one by one. This meant that there was more of an emotional element to it. These people are having to deal with their friends, relatives, and lovers trying to mutilate and kill them via some unseen force. And tree rape...LOL.

This one is a straight-forward horror flick with very little humor and is done with entirely in-camera effects. If you've never seen it before, it can look a little dated in certain areas, but there's no CGI here. This is old-school makeup and prop effects.

Oh and here's where Joel Coen of Coen brother's fame got his start as an assistant editor. Cool huh!

Evil Dead II

Funny thing is, the film opening April 5th isn't the first remake of "The Evil Dead", "Evil Dead II" is. Not a sequel, but a re-telling of the first film, but with way more humor and gore. It also features a different set of characters except for Bruce Campbell's Ashley (or Ash) who was the central character in the first one. When most people think of Evil Dead, this one is the one that comes to mind. It's more polished and a little more flashy, even though it is WAY gorier. Here's where Bruce Campbell shows why he's the king of the witty one liners (and really amps it up for Army). Raimi had a bigger budget and a better handle on the film-making process and it shows. It still features no CGI, but definitely doesn't feel quite as dated as the first one, save a little Ray Harryhausen moment (look him up).

This began Raimi's most memorable style. Dark, twisted humor interspersed with gross-out gore. I was so glad to see it return in the very under-appreciated "Drag Me to Hell".

Army Of Darkness

This is the one that will often lose people. It picks up directly after the events of II. I don't want to give too much away if you haven't seen it, but it has mostly to do with the effects of a modern man with some modern tools in medieval times dealing with the same forces from the cabin. It becomes more of a slapstick comedy with funny as hell one liners throughout. It's fairly short, but in this case I think that's good because it could have gotten boring with the silliness. It's an intelligent silliness, but silliness none the less. There are a few little CGI moments, but again, it is mostly in-camera effects and a very loving homage to Harryhausen (seriously, look him up if you don't know who he is) in the 3rd act. A good ending to the "trilogy", just not as intriguing culturally and historically.


So what do these mean for current audiences? Well, first off, if you liked "The Cabin In the Woods," then thank these movies. Sure there were loads of elements from other movies, but the most glaring homages and nods were to "The Evil Dead" and there were LOTS of them.

What about the remake? I'll be there day one. From what I see and hear, it isn't a direct remake, so I plan on watching the trilogy once again leading up to seeing the movie on day one. That way I can see all the references and where they changed it. I just hope it is different enough without veering off the tone of the originals. Otherwise, why call it "Evil Dead" in the first place? I don't think that will be the case with Sam Raimi involved as a producer. Besides, look at these two pictures:

...and tell me they didn't nail it for a modern audience? BTW, the top picture is from the original LOL.

So go curl up on the couch and watch the old classics before seeing the new one so you can once again call yourself a "Horror Movie Buff" or "Junkie" or "Geek" or whatever...

Freaky Friday - Rosemary's Baby

WARNING: Minor Spoilers May Occur!

I'm trying to mix it up some, but basically October is going to be Horror Month. What's funny is, you might think, then, that December will be Christmas month, but I like horror way more than any Christmas movie save one. Anyone that knows me will know what that one is.

Having just watched my yearly viewing of "Rosemary's Baby," I thought it appropriate to review that one. Yes I know it's an old one, but dammit, it's a good one. The review will get into this in more detail, but this is subtle horror. You don't really see anything, but it is that claustrophobic atmosphere and impending gloom that hangs over the movie that just makes it so good.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"A young couple move into a new apartment, only to be surrounded by peculiar neighbors and occurrences. When the wife becomes mysteriously pregnant, paranoia over the safety of her unborn child begins controlling her life."

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/

Technical (4.5) - Roman Polanski's pièce de résistance. Although he's done some amazing work since ("Chinatown") this is definitely his defining movie. Its full of subtle nuance that could have easily been over worked and over blown. Michael Bay was working on a remake a few years back that thankfully got cancelled, you can imagine what kind of overblown crap that would have been ("and then we can make the car EXPLODE!!! 'splosions, 'Splosions, 'SPLOSIONS!!!"). He made the right decision to make it character and actor driven more than anything. Most of the movie takes place in the apartment and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) is in every scene. It is her movie and how she's dealing with the conspiracy against her is central. There are some odd things surrounding the "conception" scene that are very avante garde, but given the time this was filmed I think it was very contemporary and it may have been in the novel this is based on, so I have to overlook it somewhat. The half point deduction goes for the camera work that sometimes gets a little shaky. I understand it wasn't shot on a soundstage (it was in an actual apartment so they couldn't make tracks everywhere to do it conventionally) and stedicam hadn't been invented yet, but it gets really distracting at times.

Dialogue/Story (5) - I'm not going to say much here because I might give too much away, but sufficed to say, it is very well written and the dialogue is pretty realistic. Granted they had a novel to work from, but you can cut too much or not enough and have a choppy and uneven movie. Again, it is terribly subtle and nuanced. Like Rosemary cooking a steak for about 1 second a side and then eating it. Just creepy, eerie stuff. They struck the tone just right and were able to make this whole thing believable.

Acting (4.5) - As I said above, this is Mia Farrow's movie. Her husband at the time, Frank Sinatra, divorced her for doing this role against his wishes. And she's all the more famous for doing it. She plays sweet and innocent so well, but pulls off the blood curdling screams and freakouts with the best of them. The secondary actors are amazing too. Guy (John Cassavettes), her husband, is such a shit (excuse the language) and even in the background of the scenes you can see his struggle and angst over what he has done. The Castevets (Ruth Gordan and Sidney Blackmer) are the neighbors and while Gordan won and Oscar for her role (and you can totally see why, your eyes are drawn to her every scene she's in) it is Blackmer that kinda draws the acting down a bit. You can see he's acting in many scenes. Something that I just can't stand.

Tilt (5) -  If you couldn't tell by previous posts, I love this movie. I watch it every year in preparation for Halloween.

Total Score - (4.75)

Top 10 Tuesday - Horror Movie "Villains"

Continuing with the October Halloween theme, I decided to do the Top 10 Horror Movie Villains, then I realized two things:

• I started listing and thought it would be tough, then realized I could do way more than 10. And even then, it's tough...especially trying to rank them.
• It's not always really a "villain", so I changed it to antagonist (and yes I'm a freak that way)

So today is Top 10 13 Horror Movie Villains Antagonists! Today they will be in order. And, yes, I probably left your favorite out (like Chucky who was never really that creepy to me) or included at least 1 you'll go "WHAAAAA?" with, but too effing bad. My blog, my list.

I've never actually been a big fan of the "Hellraiser" movies. Although they never seemed to get overly silly like the rest of the group past movie 3 or 4. I get the concept and it's always well "executed" (pun intended ha. ha.), but I've never been one for buckets and buckets of blood, or weird just for the sake of being weird which is Clive Barker's modus operandi. Pinhead makes the list because he's really iconic and pretty spooky too. Other icons didn't make the list, but you'll see why later.


Another icon that waned as the series went on which is pretty standard for horror, but the bludgeoning of the first victim (and the subsequent lifelessness of the body) and the following slamming of the door in the original "Chainsaw" make me shudder every time I see it. Plus this is one of the few that's based on a real killer (Ed Gein...who shows up a little later too).

Zombies. Romero style is great, but the fast moving style of the Infected in "28 Days Later" is just way scarier (and you can argue until you're blue in the face that they aren't zombies, but the style and setup is exactly the same). And the church....heebie jeebies....

"Oh yes, they float, Georgie. They float. And when you're down here with me, you'll float too!" Enough said. Except they screwed it all up in the second half because Pennywise is replaced by that stupid spider!






 Never saw the resemblance until now. Yes, I know, another clown, but dammit! Captain Spaulding is creepy as hell and funny as hell too. That scene in the car with the kid in "Devil's Rejects" is so perfectly played and eerie that you can't help but squirm a little in your seat for that kid.

You can't tell me you didn't scream (or at least gasp) at the end of "Alien" when you think she's gotten away and the Xenomorph starts to uncoil out of focus in the background. Another series that had it's low points (looking at you "Alien 3"), but never went into the realm of campy, cheesy, or bad unless you count the "Aliens Vs. Predator" movies which I don't, because I think the connection is stupid.

Michael Myers is an icon that I can get. At least up until "Halloween 5" (ok, 3 and 4 not withstanding lol) then they just get stupid, but at least he never went to SPACE! Jason! Silent and ever focused on the goal of killing his sister and anyone who gets in his way, Michael really was scary in the first too. Yeah you know he's gonna get up 100 times now, but when it first came out, that was unheard of.

Probably the least known here, especially to a younger audience, but the Tall Man and his spheres in the "Phantasm" movies still stand as some of my earliest memories of horror movies. A tall, gaunt, grim undertaker and his dwarf zombie minions sounds like a funny premise, but actually it is quite terrifying. If you've never seen one of them, go rent it. NOW.

I truly debated on putting Hannibal Lecter on this list because I'm not sure I really call "Silence Of The Lambs" and all the sequels "horror", but settled on putting him here because of that soul penetrating stare and flowery words that are describing the most grotesque of things. Buffalo Bill was another Ed Gein wannabe, but he never was the central scare. Him you kinda pitied, but NEVER Hannibal. The most famous serial killer that never existed.


"Dead by dawn! Dead by Dawn!" and "Someone's in my fruit cellar!" Ellen here along with Linda, Henrietta, and hordes of others maim, dismember, possess, and kill everyone that Ash loves and cares for! Sure they got sillier as the series went on, but "Evil Dead" is still a flat out horror movie that is the mother of all cabin in the woods style movies. "Evil Dead 2" even has some creepy as hell parts.



Not the silly remake, and not any of the later ones (with the exception of "New Nightmare" which was actually pretty good...at least he never went to SPACE! Jason!), but someone who comes after you when you're most vulnerable and completely fucks with your head before performing the coup de grace is downright scary to me. I think 3 was the first horror movie I ever saw in the theater and it messed me up for a couple of days...or maybe that's why I'm so screwed up today.


He's had so many incarnations and you could really lump most of the vampires of movie lore into one idea: Dracula! I almost put my favorite Dracula as the pic, then realized I didn't put him in my horror movie list, so...meh. He hypnotizes, evolves, and is always mesmerizing. Every generation has had some incarnation because the idea is just too damn alluring and when it's done well, it's pure gold. I hear there's a TV show in the works, so maybe that will be this generations (and I swear if any of you say we already have one in Edward Cullen I will find you and beat you).

Any of you that said "Ohhhhhh, The Devil!" or didn't know what this was need to go find a wooden spoon and smack your ass until you bleed. No, Regan McNeil was not possessed by The Devil, she was possessed by Pazuzu (pictured above in the 5 frames he's shown in the movie). Reason why this is number 1? Opposite of the reason of Dracula. It can't be duplicated and never has no matter how many times they've tried. "Exorcist III" and "Exorcism Of Emily Rose" were the closest (I'm sure I'll catch flack for this one), but because they went at it in a very different way in that it was concerned with the effects of the possession rather than the possession itself. I'm sure someone will try to remake this and fail miserably. Yet again I stress this is the only movie that I get spooked every time I see it and make a point to watch on Halloween.


Oh, and an honorable mention goes to...

The Castevets from "Rosemary's Baby" who define creepy, nosy neighbors. Oh, and The Devil...grumble, grumble, grumble.

Freaky Friday - A Plea

Please, for the love of God, do not go see this movie. It might be good, for all I know (it won't be), but that's not my point. The first two were awful. Sure, if that crap was happening to you, you'd be scared, but after you watched the first video showing some screwed up stuff, wouldn't you GET THE HELL OUT OF THAT HOUSE or LEAVE THAT FREAKY BITCH SOMEWHERE? I understand that you wouldn't have a movie otherwise and the horror genre is full of people doing something illogical for the sake of a plot, but come on.

Besides, they aren't that well made to begin with. The acting is sub-par at best and the security camera thing was played out with the first one. And let me clue you in on a little secret...they aren't SCARY. There's only one decent scene in the first one and the second one had no scares at all. I haven't watched the third one (waiting on Netflix, because I'm not paying for this crap), but I'm sure it isn't much better. You're actually being duped by a mob mentality in a theater. Everyone expects to be scared and as the audio swells, so does the palpable tension in the room. The girls that are dragged there by their boyfriends so they can cop a feel start screaming and you start to buy into the scariness. Watch at home, and you'll go "Meh".

The fact is, they are super cheap to make (3 was $5 Million) and people go see them in droves. That's great for the Studio, but horrible for the horror movie buff. Although it is still one of my favorite horror movies, I blame "The Blair Witch Project" for this. What makes that one work, is that the forest is actively working against the group so that they can't leave. They're stuck. They've gone too far and there is no hope of escape. It's that claustrophobic atmosphere and impending doom that creeps up that makes it effective. There's plenty that can be done to remedy the problems with these "haunted houses" but they just don't. And yes, I know that's the case in movies like "The Amityville Horror" too, but I don't like that one either.

But I digress. I would ask that you stay home and don't go see this one. You're just feeding into the studio engine of churning these and all its copycats (since this is this generation's "slasher" flick) which isn't helping anyone. Go see something like "Sinister" instead (which is produced by the same people that produced "Paranormal" coincidentally). That one uses found footage too...but looks AWESOME. I hope to hell it is.

Freky Friday-The Cabin In The Woods

Today's review is probably going to be pretty short because I don't want to give anything away about this movie since spoiling anything would take away 1/2 the fun of the movie. I regrettably did not see this movie in the theaters and after seeing it on BluRay, I kick myself.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"Five friends go for a break at a remote cabin in the woods, where they get more than they bargained for. Together, they must discover the truth behind the cabin in the woods."

The Cabin In The Woods (2011)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259521/

Technical (4.5) - A little bit of a back story on this movie. It was actually made in 2009 for a measly $30 Million, which is about average for a horror film, but not for one of this caliber. This was the directorial debut of a Joss Whedon prodigy (Drew Goddard) from his "Buffy" days, but you'd never know he'd never directed before (I'm sure Joss helped quite a bit, but he wasn't always there) because it is really masterfully done. Then Lionsgate shelved the project to do a post-convert to 3-D against Whedon and Goddard's wishes. Eventually they saw the error of their ways and put it out, probably in no small part because of Chris Hemsworth's sudden rise to fame. As I said, this is horror film making at it's best. Especially because they didn't use a whole mess of CGI unless they had to. That's where it struggles a bit towards the end is when the CGI parts start happening and hence the .5 deduction, but otherwise it's done very well. There's also something that I should put here, but I'll put it in the next section because there won't be a whole lot to write there lol.

Dialogue/Story (5) - Here's where "Cabin" shines the most. I can't say much, but it really turns your the tropes and stereotypes of a horror movie on its head and is pretty funny to boot. Think of how "Scream" did it and you'll get the idea. Another thing that was really awesome was the myriad of references to other horror movies that just seem to be everywhere. The most obvious and pervasive is that of "Evil Dead", but you'll get "Hellraiser", "Wrong Turn", "Night Of The Living Dead", and even a quick "The Shining" reference. It is obvious that it was written by horror fans for horror fans. "Cabin" always seems to be an homage and never a caricature which is a hell of a feat considering the style, tone, and scope of this film.

Acting (4) - Ok, this is where it gets a little odd. Watching a horror movie for the acting is like watching a porno for the acting. It's just stupid. There's some great names in this one, though, and they all bring their "A" game. Brad Whitford and Richard Jenkins are just superb and really, really funny. Hemsworth is pretty damn good, but the rest of the "kids" are only ok. Nothing to write home about. A surprise cameo towards the end will have Geeks squealing and is done pretty well.

Tilt (5) - I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Especially while playing "Spot the reference"! "Cabin" surely isn't for everyone, but if you like horror movies and enjoy an interesting story instead of just buckets and buckets of blood and torture devices this is a movie you're going to want to see.

Total Score - (4.63)

I think that's the 2nd highest yet!

Top 10 Tuesday +2-Horror Movies

Tonight I watched "Cabin In The Woods" (review to come tomorrow), which incidentally came out on DVD and BluRay today, and in honor of that as well as the fact that Halloween is a mere month and a half away I thought I would do my top 10 favorite horror movies. Then I started my list and realized I HAD to have 12. So sue me.

As usual, these are not in any particular order, although my #1 will definitely be last. There's lots of other movies I could have put on here that I really like and many that I don't really see as "horror" per se (I'm looking at you, "Bram Stoker's Dracula" which I feel is the best vampire movie ever, but is a drama, not a horror movie). I know some people will have a problem with some of these, but I really don't care. My list, not yours.

Not that crappy prequel either. This is just an awesome example of what you don't see is scarier than what you do see. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some great special effects for the time of the monster and transformations, but what really makes the movie is the unsettling idea that anyone in the movie could be "infected" at any given time.


















I count these as one since 2 is kind of a remake of 1. The first one was a straight up horror film and the sequel basically was a send-up of the first one with some great Sam Rami sight gags. Both are classics in their own right and started the career of the one and only Bruce Campbell. 'Nuff said.

Say what you want, but this is one I watch every October. Another wonderful example of what you don't see is spookier. When you're having the Devil's baby you'd think there would be all sorts of demons hanging around, objects floating, and stuff like that, but here it is just a bunch of unsettling things that involve somewhat normal experiences that just turn more and more unsettling as the movie goes on.

Second best vampire movie of all time, but the best vampire horror movie. It doesn't stray from the vampire lore, but gives it a modern, urban neighborhood spin. It has this wonderful mix of "Dracula" and "Rear Window" that just works amazingly well. The sequel was great too.

I know what you're gonna say, but too bad. Yes it was a stroke of marketing genius that made this movie bigger than it had any right to be, but it still creeps me out. The acting is actually really good and it's really amazing how they could keep your attention and make you feel for these characters. It started the trend of "found footage" horror and that damn shaky camera, but here it works to a wonderful effect. The build up to that last 15 minutes is all worth it too. And next time you watch it, listen for that creepy hum in the background in the last scene...gives me chills.

Screw "Aliens". Ridley did it all better the first time around. A claustrophobic masterpiece that started a franchise that still is churning out intelligent Sci-Fi to this day. Sure there was a stumble or two along the way (cough Aliens 3 cough), but this one has some of the most unforgettable imagery in horror history like exploding chests and aliens hiding in ductwork in the background that you haven't noticed for the last 15 minutes...an absolute classic.

Most of you have probably never seen this movie, which is a real shame. It has one of the best endings of a movie ever and is a prime example of the '80s slasher flick. The acting is not particularly great, but who watches these types of horror movies for the acting? Just don't watch the remake...blech.

 I know many people complained about the whole "astral projection" thing, but I thought it was a great thing to base the movie on. Sure the last 10 minutes are a little disappointing in how the "Lipstick Demon" chases them and stuff, but everything leading up to that is just creepy as hell. My dog stares at the corners of the ceiling now which really gives me the heebie jeebies.

I don't to hear it. "Scream" was the rebirth of the slasher flick and is one of those defining of a generation movies. Yes the sequels were uneven at best, but this one was self-referential, witty, and pretty damn gory too. It set off a whole slew of copycat movies and the "I Know What You Did Last Summer" franchise which actually wasn't that bad in its own right.

They got progressively more stupid with each progressive movie (except "New Nightmare" which wasn't too bad), but the idea that you could be killed when you are your most vulnerable makes it hard to watch this one and NOT have nightmares. Creative with its kills and the way that reality slips into a dream state without you realizing it sometimes just makes it work so well. The remake was awful.

 Ok, I have an admission here. I've never been a big fan of the shambling zombie genre. I like "The Walking Dead", but it's the character examination I like about that one. "28 Days Later" is arguably not a zombie movie because of it being based on a virus outbreak. That's what makes it scarier: it could potentially happen. This one started the whole running zombies idea and just has some of the eeriest images (all I have to say is the church).

 Here we have my top horror movie of all time. Gives me the creeps even to this day and I watch it every Halloween for that reason. The potential reality of it makes it even scarier still. There have been lots of possession movies over the years, but none hold a candle to the original (although I do like "Exorcist III" and "Exorcism Of Emily Rose"). The voice, the pea soup, the Crucifix.... It just amazes me that the black and white face that you only see for a few frames the entire movie is still one of the spookiest images in film history.