I’ve got a couple of things to say about The Wicker Man, one of the most unfairly reviled movies of the last decade. A) How “unintentional” do you really think some of the more hilarious scenes in this movie are? Do you really think Nic Cage was wearing a bear suit on set, taking swings at Kathy Bates, and no one was like “this is too much”? Well, if Cage was behaving super seriously, I could see everyone else shutting up and letting it happen, because they trust in Cage. There’s no fault in that.

The film starts with the Cage as a highway cop, picking up a doll thrown from the window of a passing car. He then pulls the car over and gives the doll back to the little girls in the back seat. She throws it again. He walks across the road to pick it up. In the meantime, a semi-truck runs over the stopped car. Cage tries to save the little girl, but it is unsuccessful and she burns to death.

This scene has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. I mean, there’s a bunch of flashbacks to the event whenever Cage gets stressed out, and then he takes drugs to cope, and there’s a suggestion that his narration may not be reliable, perhaps because the trauma from this event has caused him to hallucinate, but in terms of actual narrative, this event his very little relevance. Following this event, the Cage gets an meticulously hand-written letter from his former fiancée, asking him to come to her weird traditionalist community (think Amish, but feminist) in Puget Sound and help search for her missing daughter, whom he didn’t know she had. Cage, following his masculine tendency to be the hero, does so, despite being given several reasons not to.

When Cage gets to the island, he becomes the unwanted guest of a matriarchal community of beekeepers. Every woman refers to the others as sisters, and the men don’t say much at all. He starts searching for the missing girl and it seems everyone is either lying to him about the existence of the girl or intentionally misleading him. The odd thing about the screenplay is that almost all of the revealed plot points lead to squat in the end. Many hacky Hollywood movies have twists, but few are three quarters filled with red herrings. Thus, what we as viewers are left with is the image of Nic Cage attempting to fulfill his role as the masculine hero, recruited by the needy feminine victim. Except what we’re really seeing is a masculine Nic Cage grow uncomfortable in world where his male authority is not pre-assumed, and where his role as a male saviour to a female victim is constantly under question. In all sincerity, I cannot think of another Hollywood movie in the last ten years which challenges gender roles with the same originality as The Wicker Man.

Throughout the film, Nic Cage grows more and more insecure with his ability to, erm, perform. He claims he has authority as a law enforcement officer, but he’s a California officer in Washington. He attempts to intimidate and harass the female residents of the island, but he is ignored. The other men on the island make no attempt to back him up. The heavily YouTubed clips of Nic Cage screaming “How’d it get burned! How’d it get burned!” (among other things) are really a cathartic way for Cage to deal with the emasculation of being on this island. Essentially, the film is one long castration, in which Cage attempts to use his authoritative phallus, but it is removed by a community which does not ascribe to the authority of the phallus. This point is emphasized when Cage barges in on a female populated schoolroom. The teacher, Sister Rose (Molly Parker), asks the class what “man represents” and the response of the children is (hilariously) “Phallic symbol. Phallic symbol.” And you thought it was just a shitty horror movie. You fool.

There’s really no way of knowing what Neil LaBute’s intentions were with this film. Commercial necessity may have had a large or small effect on the final film. LaBute’s previous film, The Shape of Things deals with the same themes; themes regarding the emasculation of  men by strong female figures. Unfortunately, as it comes across in the film, it resembles the paranoia of masculine insecurity. The idea that everything the woman Nic Cage loved did to him is part of one incredibly elaborate prank meant to humiliate him in the most painful way possible – not necessarily by killing him, but by letting him know that every other women is in on the joke. In fact, in this film, they’re all (literally) part of a secret society, and everything his fiancée said to him from the first moment they met was part of this plan. Furthermore, wielding one’s phallus won’t help. Masculine authority is of no help in the midst of castration. In this way, Cage’s performance is fantastic. He turns into a flailing, pathetic, but compulsively watchable figure – a figure that is probably relatable to all the men who have ever really related to Weezer’s Pinkerton (i.e. insecure men who have yet to realize how fucked up Rivers Cuomo’s worldview is).

So, the film may still be a tad misogynist, but at least it’s not dominant ideology misogyny, where the man saves the day in the end, and then gets to bone the women as a reward. It’s a problematized misogyny that hints at something darker; maybe a bit of self-loathing, maybe a self-awareness on the part of formerly Mormon director Neil LaBute. So you may dispute that The Wicker Man is good film. That is your perogative, but please don’t dispute that for all its flaws, it is at least an interesting film.

And yeah, the opening credits are in papyrus font. Deal with it.

In 2009, Ti West directed Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever, a direct-to-DVD, unnecessary beat horse sequel which embodied the huge plague upon the horror genre where even original ideas are strung out into irrelevancy. Ti West disowned it, and even requested his name be swapped with an Alan Smithee. So, in that same year, West also released House of the Devil, a character driven, style-drenched, brooding paranoia picture, showing what amazing things can be still be done in a genre that’s seen it all. If West was looking for a way to be disassociated from Spring Fever, he found a way, and if horror fans were looking for a fresh new talent, they had certainly found him. As his first film since The House of the Devil, The Innkeepers is Ti West’s opportunity to show a winning streak, or at least an uncanny corridor. It also happens to be a chance for star Sara Paxton, often cast as that pretty blonde in really forgettable roles, to earn a new start, not unlike West himself.

The Yankee Pedlar is a slow hotel in a small, even slower town. On its last weekend of business, slacker part-timers Claire (Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy) have one last marathon shift before moving on to whatever’s next. Luke’s brought a generous amount of beer, but Claire’s brought an excess of curiosity about the Pedlar’s rumoured haunted reputation, something they had both taken casual interest in during their employment. Luke, a proud dropout and pessimist, is confident his rusty, amateur, GeoCities-level web design will carry his future career, while Claire has literally never thought about the next step until provoked by sitcom-actress-come-spiritualist-come-inn-patron Leanne Rease-Jones (Top Gun and Stake Land’s Kelly McGillis.)

Claire begins to seek Leanne’s guidance, despite being turned off by her drinking habits and snappy tone, which pummels her self confidence but inspires her sense of adventure. Leanne warns Claire that the Pedlar’s spirits are not only real, but very dangerous. During her shifts, Claire can’t help but push her luck, sitting alone in the humming empty spaces of the hotel, trying to record the sounds of spectres as her work-hour hobby evolves into a deadly obsession.

A far more modestly produced feature than House of the Devil, The Innkeepers is much more interesting in terms of its identity. While House was lush with homage and slow-built dread, Innkeepers is a craftier, more cautious film. It is as much a horror film, as things are horrifying, as it is a character study or a drama with comedic freckles. The quirkiness that surrounds The Yankee Pedlar and the cast within it makes our heroes more likeable, though Lucas’ web flavoured cynicism edges on the stock side. The terror that lurks above Claire is less about fearing a grotesque, shocking sight ahead as it is you fearing for her safety and well being.

West is accomplished in this cinematic chemistry. There is horror and then there is comedy and they are not things that soil each other while simultaneously overlapping. The horror is never made slapstick or farce, and the humour is either dramatic folly or dopey witticisms from our two leads. Sara Paxton truly is Claire; a spunky, raspy ragdoll girl who walks into doors more than opens them. Paxton is unrecognizable from the deer in headlights in The Last House on the Left remake. Sara Paxton makes Claire likable, someone you’ll care about and want to pluck out of the calamity before it’s too late. While, like Luke, she can veer close to being a cropped concept of youthful kookiness, Paxton tampers it down with fragility, and discomfort. She plays up her attitude to compensate for her unshakable anxieties, she’s rattled by a loss of innocence and playfulness when she confirms to herself that the ghosts are real.

The Innkeepers has unconventional priorities for a horror film, using scares as a feature instead of the purpose of the movie. You can almost talk about the film without talking about ghosts at all. There’s uncertainty in the air; there may or may not be something in the dark, making you more vulnerable to attack. There’s a general unrest as the camera floats about the musty old in inn with its humble halls and muted carpets. There are times when a jumpy scare could have been cheesy in any other film, a moment when Claire gets a bedside visitor comes to mind, but because this fear is something banked off the characters that “yeah right”-ness almost plays directly into the atmosphere. There’s also a circular motion with a lot of the frights, almost like the second half of the film is haunted by very slight foreshadowing in the first. The development of these characters dictate the fear, and in turn will be what scares you.

The Innkeepers is good, eerie and frightening, but I didn’t feel frightened afterwards. I did feel another strong emotion, one that was hard to shake and one that will remain anonymous so I don’t spoil anything. To horror addicts, The Innkeepers may not gratify in the same way The House of the Devil did, as there’s a very hard line straight down the film that lets the audience decide whether there was any paranormal activity or if it is really a horror at all. To more flexible filmgoers, The Innkeepers is a strange, interesting atmosphere-driven blend that pushes through styles, tones and genres. It doesn’t astonish elegance quite as boldly as The House of the Devil, but it does strut West’s versatility within and outside of horror. Most importantly, it shows Ti West has absolutely no desire to create stale, routine horror films, the like you’ve seen in the last decade. So he can stay as long as he likes.

The first film to be released in any year often isn’t very good. They are the films that are quietly released amid award season fare and during the period where the kiddies are going back to school. Even by those low standards, one would be hard pressed to think of a worse start to a year than The Devil Inside. If there is a worse film than this dreadfully inept “found footage” horror coming out in 2012, I hope and pray I don’t have to sit through it. Six days into 2012 and it feels like the top of the worst of the year list is already in the bag. That record has to count for something, right?

Following a 1989 multiple murder in South Hartford, Connecticut, the woman accused is whisked away to Italy following the “not guilty by reason of insanity” verdict against her. Vatican doctors and priests want to examine her for the possibility of a demonic possession. The woman’s daughter, Isabella (Fernanda Andrade), teams up with a documentary filmmaker (Ionut Grama) in 2009 to go to the holy city in Italy (read: very obviously Romania) for answers. While there, she meets a pair of renegade priests (Simon Quarterman and Evan Helmuth) who perform exorcisms outside the eye of a Catholic church, but who would prefer to ignore the prospect of demonic possession altogether.

The priests talk A LOT about what possession entails before taking Isabella to an actual exorcism (complete with menstrual blood exploding all over an overhead camera in the one gleefully deranged moment the movie has). Then eventually they get around to taking care of Isabella’s mother (OR DID THEY?!?) before a perfunctory twist that doesn’t have to be spelled out to be awful and an ending so atrocious that some people in the preview screening – who started off excited to see the movie based on the strength of an admittedly decent trailer and all of whom were seeing it for free – both booed and slow clapped it off the screen.

It’s easy to pick on found footage films for being done to death in recent years, but The Devil Inside marks the ultimate tipping point. Writer-director William Brent Bell (Stay Alive) has no concept whatsoever of how to make a found footage movie. Jumping around between every possible cliché in the found footage playbook and utilizing every possibly shaky-cam style he can get his hands on (from security cameras, to handheld, to dashboard cameras, to the ludicrously named “pupil cam” that never once focuses on a person’s pupils), Bell mistakes shakiness and forced editing for actual action. Not once is the audience ever convinced they are watching anything other than a movie. In comparison to the Paranormal Activity films or Cloverfield – which know exactly how to generate tension within a narrow frame – Bell seems to be working from a script designed to be a full budget film and not a half-assed mockumentary.

Bell even directs his actors as if they were in a film. Andrade and Quarterman (who fares the best of the cast simply because he looks strikingly like Joel Edgerton or Leigh Whannell if you squint a lot) are never once believable amid their settings. They never once give off the impression that they are remotely in any sort of danger. These are clearly actors playing roles on sound stages with “clever” tricks designed to obscure how cheap the movie is.

But how about those scares, you ask? They don’t exist. Bell has made a film that thinks it’s far cleverer than it actually is. The first moment of “terror” comes 45 minutes into an 80 minute movie (that also has, no joke, 9 minutes of super slow credits) and it’s a jump scare involving a dog too large to sneak up on anything approaching a fence. The low key approach where everyone just sits and talks endlessly might have worked in better hands and with better writing, but it leads to everything feeling way too obvious. The arguments of the first half of the film are circular and nonsensical (especially with regard to where Christianity and science meet), and the brief set pieces of the second half of the film lapse into sub-Exorcist II aping complete with the immortal line “I’m going to rip your tongue out and use it to skull fuck the baby killer.” The movie peaks at that exact moment, since the actual exorcisms feel like a Three Stooges number choreographed by an obviously trolling Harmony Korine.

There’s a scene, not too long before the end of the movie, where Bell stops the action so Isabella can drop everything she’s doing to frantically look for her keys in her purse. The scene, like many others in The Devil Inside, holds no purpose. At this moment (about 15 minutes before the end), viewers who already don’t like what they have seen should just leave the theatre. The ending of this film is quite possibly the worst ending to a film in recent history. Bad movie aficionados might get a kick out of it, but it isn’t worth paying for. Those who sit through the entire sordid experience will likely be paying for the rest of their lives.

(Side note: The Devil Inside marks the first release for Paramount’s new subdivision, Insurge, which will distribute only microbudget films. This film is so toxic, it might kill the label before it even gets off the ground.)

Sarah Michelle Gellar in Scream 2

Most filmmaking is a seat of the pants endeavour fraught with pitfalls and last second changes. Nothing goes according to plan, but more often that not on major Hollywood productions things tend to go more swimmingly. That is, of course, provided that they aren’t making a sequel to one of the previous year’s biggest success stories. That situation gets stickier if said film had a twist ending that threw most viewers for a loop and reignited an entire genre. It gets even tougher when the film you are making a sequel to is still in theatres and not showing any signs of slowing down at the box office when cameras are set to start rolling. Oh, and it has to be done by December of that year to cash in on the same season that made the first film so much money, meaning the sequel is coming out just a shade under a year after the original. These are the circumstances under which Scream 2 was made, and all things considered, it stands as a testament to director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson that the film managed to be almost equally as good as the original and actually far more interesting on an academic level.

Following the slowly growing success of the original Scream, Craven and his long time producing partner Marianne Maddalena signed a three picture deal with Miramax in March of 1997. The deal was to include Scream 2, a non-genre film titled 50 Violins (with Madonna tapped to star), and third unnamed film (that would almost obviously end up being Scream 3).

Williamson was brought into the fold far quicker than Craven, thanks to the outline of Scream 2 already being included with the original’s script. Arguably, he had a harder job than the director on this outing because where the original film was one of the first in the horror genre to fully exploit the dangers and pitfalls of the cellular age, Scream 2’s production would be beset on all sides by a series of internet leaks and misinformation almost from the outset. Even before casting and pre-production were finished, Williamson’s entire 30 page outline for the film had leaked onto the internet. While changes had already been made to the leaked treatment, Bob and Harvey Weinstein demanded that even further precautions be put in place from such things ever happening again in the future and that the current draft be rewritten.

Casting for the second outing was fairly easy despite not having anyone other than star Neve Campbell under contract for a follow-up. David Arquette (who played a character that was originally supposed to die in the first film), Courtney Cox, Liev Schreiber (who only had a cameo in the original as Cotton Weary, the alleged killer of Sidney Prescott’s mother) and Jamie Kennedy were all set to return, but due to the success of the original film, casting director Lisa Beach was beset by requests from big name actors interested in joining the project.

While new additions Jerry O’Connell (as Sidney’s new frat boy boyfriend), Timothy Olyphant (as obsessive cinema studies major Mickey), Duane Martin (as Gale Weather’s new cameraman), Elise Neal (as Sidney’s new best friend), and Laurie Metcalf (as the creepy Gale Weather worshiping reporter Debbie Salt) were all cast through normal channels and auditions, agents representing damn near half of young Hollywood would be banging down the doors to get their clients even the most minor of roles in the sequel to Scream.

Jada Pinkett-Smith and Omar Epps lobbied heavily to appear in the film’s now famous opening sequence. Rebecca Gayheart and Portia de Rossi, both of whom were considered for roles in the original, were able to snag roles as a pair of sorority sisters trying to court Sidney to their organization. Joshua Jackson, who was currently working on Dawson’s Creek with Williamson, and Sarah Michelle Gellar, who had just finished work on the Williamson scripted I Know What You Did Last Summer, used their connections to procure roles smaller than their growing star power would suggest they get. It seemed like everyone was happy to be a part of the burgeoning franchise no matter the pay, and while Dimension Films and Craven were happy to have them on board, it would lead to more than a few headaches once cameras began to roll due to scheduling constraints.

While it was generally seen by the public at large that Craven would be able to handle the stresses of bringing a bigger budget sequel to the screen in a small amount of time, doubts were being cast upon Williamson’s ability to keep it all together under a growing workload brought on by his recent successes. Not only had Williamson just finished work on I Know What You Did Last Summer, but he was also elbow deep in the writing of another Dimension production, The Faculty (set to roll later in the year with another all star cast of young talent and Desperado director Robert Rodriguez behind the camera), and was beginning pre-production on his long gestating Killing Mrs. Tingle, which had yet to firmly hire Williamson for his directorial debut or change its title. On top of all this was his commitment to the WB network’s Dawson’s Creek. With Scream 2 always seeming to be a priority, many wondered if the wit and scares of the original could hope to be matched.

The plot of the sequel moves the meta-humour of the original to a different location and introduces the “film within a film” motif that the following sequels would stringently adhere to, leading to a film that is tonally closer to Craven’s Elm Street send up Wes Craven’s New Nightmare. Sidney has moved on to campus life at Windsor College, studying acting much like her deceased mother did. Strengthened by the events of the first film, Sidney weathers constant harassment from jokesters intent on scaring her again following the success of the slasher movie Stab. Loosely based on Gale Weather’s “tell all” book, the fictional version of Sidney’s life provides ample basis for a new killer to begin replicating the events of the first film on a grander scale. The murder of a pair of young lovers at the premiere of Stab provides the impetus for Gale and Dewey to eventually join Sidney and Randy at Windsor.

Omar Epps and Jada Pinkett-Smith in Scream 2

After the leak of the original outline for the story, changes often had to be made on the fly, with the film’s twist ending kept famously under wraps. All the security in the world, however, couldn’t stop what was about to happen once filming began. Keeping the ending a closely guarded secret meant the film had to be shot largely in sequence with the opening set piece involving Smith and Epps fateful trip to the movies coming towards the beginning of the shooting schedule. The scene, which is constructed to mirror the opening scene of the original film by setting up characters to only have them killed off moments later, required a movie theatre full of extras to chant and cheer the movie within the movie. Only hours after shooting Smith’s climactic death scene had been shot, the footage had been leaked to the internet by an extra who had smuggled a camera into the theatre. Despite streaming video still be in its infancy at the time, the bootlegged raw footage was downloaded thousands of times over.

Following this transgression, no Scream film would ever again have scenes requiring large crowds of extras. Portions of the film that required Sidney’s character to act on stage in front of an audience were quickly axed and a pivotal cafeteria scene where Sidney’s boyfriend professes his love to her (which was also the scene Jerry O’Connell was forced to read for his audition) was almost in danger of being cut. While the film still has several scenes that take place in open air spaces and at parties, the shoot turned mostly to crew members, interns, and Dimension films employees wherever possible.

All scripts from that point on were confiscated and shredded. They were reprinted on a special kind of paper originally designed by the tobacco industry to prevent pages from being photocopied or photographed. Even these copies had to be shredded immediately after scenes were filmed. Security tensions regarding the project were at such an all time high that when a reporter for Fangoria jokingly asked where the paper shredder was located during a well guarded press day on set, he was almost asked to leave out of suspicion that he would try to glue the already shot pages of the script back together again for an exclusive scoop.

If security was a main concern from a marketing aspect, scheduling was just as big of a concern from a filmmaking standpoint. With a script containing close to 40 speaking roles that has even minor characters played by familiar faces, the already tightly packed shooting schedule was constantly in danger of spiralling out of control. The biggest concessions had to be granted to Sarah Michelle Gellar, then busy at work on two other films in addition to the upcoming Buffy the Vampire Slayer television series.

Gellar’s sequence (shot to echo the opening sequence of Bob Clark’s seminal slasher Black Christmas) had to be shot away from the rest of the project at a sorority house in Pasadena, California (whereas most of the college sequences were filmed just outside Atlanta, Georgia) to account not only for the scene’s numerous steadicam shots, but also to put the least amount of stress on Gellar’s already packed schedule. Moving the shoot to Pasadena required “heaven and Earth to be moved” according to Craven, and while the scene feels oddly out of place from the rest of the film, it does add a bit more star power to a film all about making things bigger and badder than the original.

With the production moving from Atlanta to several sets at UCLA (that actually weren’t big enough to accommodate the proper shoot), post-production happened concurrently with filming. Craven, anticipating another battle with the MPAA on the sequel, shot sequences to be gorier than he even necessarily wanted them to be in a bid to make the scenes he wanted included pass on to the final cut. Shockingly, the MPAA let Craven and Patrick Lussier’s cut pass with no changes for an R-rating, citing the opening sequence as appropriately setting up the tone for the carnage to follow in the film. A few cuts were made after the film passed the censors to some of the gore in two sequences (one involving the death of a major character and another involving a car crash) simply because Craven never wanted them in the first place

The film was picture locked in late October 1997 for release approximately one month later, and that was surprisingly ahead of schedule. The buzz on the film was positively thunderous, solidifying the idea that the Scream franchise had resurrected the horror genre permanently. Full page ads were bought in every major film market to herald the film’s release. An eclectic soundtrack album designed to appeal to rockers (Foo Fighters, Everclear), indie blues lovers (Nick Cave, John Spencer), Juggalos (Kottonmouth Kings), hip-hop heads (Master P, who along with Silkk the Shocker delivers one of the most hilariously awful movie tie-in tracks ever created), frat boys (Dave Matthews Band), R&B slow jammers (D’Angelo, covering Prince), and others (Collective Soul) was integrated into the film and proved to be a successful standalone product. TV ad time was bought up for almost every NBC prime time show to exploit Cox’s high profile on one of the network’s top rated shows. It seemed a foregone conclusion that Scream 2 was going to be a blockbuster with the only question being how high the ceiling was.

Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox in Scream 2

The $24 million dollar production (ten million more than the budget of the original film) opened on December 12th to predominantly positive reviews from critics and one of the highest ever opening weekends for an R-Rated film, netting $32 million in its opening weekend. Released only shortly before a crowded holiday season that would include Titanic, Tomorrow Never Dies, Good Will Hunting, and As Good as it Gets, Scream 2 didn’t really have the legs to sustain itself as long as the original film, but it still ended up crossing the $100 million mark at the box office thanks to a late April re-release akin to the one used to milk some more money out of the original film.

Scream 2 is very much a “sequel’s sequel.” Where the first film was keen to play around with the conventions of and entire genre, Williamson and Craven created a film that acts as a logical extension of the first film while delivering more of what is expected of them after a successful first outing. The gore and body count increases in this entry, but so too does the technical mastery on the part of Craven and Williamson who remain sharper than ever despite the troubles of crafting a project on the fly.

While the overall story of Williamson’s sequel is admittedly so-so, where the writer succeeds is creating a sandbox-like world for Craven and the cast to play within. The pieces of the story don’t fit together as nicely as they do in the original and the characters are admittedly a bit more two dimensional this time out (including the returning cast members), but the characters themselves fit together quite nicely. Williamson and Craven create an almost absurdly dreamlike experience where random characters, which may or may not be important at all, float in and out of people’s lives. As such, the ending of the film is almost arbitrary. Williamson does a great job of keeping the killers in plain sight, but buried under a wealth of exposition, misdirection, and misinformation; in short, exactly what the audience expects after the conclusion of the first film.

Craven does some interesting things on a visual and thematic level to play games similar to the ones Williamson is foisting upon the audience through the use of these characters. Two of the most interesting visual touches come in from of deep focus camerawork and the costume department.

In a film with so many characters to keep track of, Craven repeatedly goes back to using deep focus shots not only for the depth of the frame, but also because the audience is intently scanning the frame for clues. A key scene where Randy receives a call while talking to Dewey and Gale is technically masterful with almost every shot including someone in the background on a phone or running somewhere to make the audience just as confused as the character. These background players can barely be seen, and the famed Ghostface outfit is almost immaterial. No one would be able to spot the killer even if they were wearing the mask, but the principal characters know that the killer is watching every move the make despite being in broad daylight with few precious places to hide.

The costuming of the film, much like on many genre films, is something that often goes unaddressed, but is something that fans of the series might find interesting. Craven, who previously clothed Freddy Krueger in particular shades of red and green that would be harsh on the eyes, read once that people wearing certain shades of light, almost denim like blue are seen as suspicious, while people who wear shades of tan are often seen as more studious and trustworthy. To this end, in Scream 2 whenever Craven wants to cast suspicion on a particular character, they are purposefully wearing or carrying something with that particular shade of blue, and when he wants the audience to know that a character is inherently good, they wear shades of brown. There are a couple of exceptions, notably Randy (who often wears blue and tan at the same time), Gale (who is almost exclusively clothed in black to signify her almost as a bringer of death), and Cotton Weary (who always wears the blue jeans, but is often seen wearing shades of white and grey for shorts before the climax). It’s a subtle, but effective technique.

Craven also gets more of a chance to get literary with his material with a sequence he largely wrote himself involving Sidney rehearsing for a stage version of Troy where she will be playing Cassandra. Famous in Greek mythology, Cassandra was endowed with the power of prophecy. She would later be deemed mad for foreseeing the fall of Troy (specifically the famed Trojan Horse, the death of Agamemnon, and her own death).

David Arquette and Courtney Cox in Scream 2

Sidney is almost a mirror image of the character in this film, conforming to the more Jungian idea of a Cassandra complex espoused by scholars starting in the late 1980s regarding a woman who is seen as being irrational simply because she is a woman. Her concerns are certainly valid, but she is surrounded by males (known appropriately as Apollo archetypes) that cause a distance and disconnect to the world around her. By the end of the film, which so gloriously takes place on the same rehearsal stage she was on before (set to a piece designed specifically by Danny Elfman instead of regular series composer Marco Beltrami) two of the characters in the film will mentally violate her to the point where her gradual transformation into the character will become complete. It’s an often unheralded bid by Craven to make the audience and his critics realize the parallels between acting and reality that’s more effective than the fame seekers Williamson has stocked the film with.

Another character in the film will reshape the entire franchise at the end, by helping Craven to turn the next two films in the series into a play on Aeschylus’s House of Atreus cycle. The story at the end of this sequel would move forward, away from simple interpersonal issues to a tale on the limitations of revenge and how to fight evil from within without succumbing to the evil itself.

The final moments of the film are almost unnecessarily happy in tone, but it’s undeniably designed to be a crowd pleaser to keep audiences interested in a future instalment. It isn’t so much a set up for a third film as it is Craven and Williamson gently elbowing the audience as if to say “Wouldn’t it be great to spend another day with these guys?” It smacks oddly of a sense of good will that the original film tried to steer clear of, leading to the only part of the film that feels thematically false.

In the end, Scream 3 was all but assured to go ahead as planned, but not right away this time. Williamson was far too busy and Campbell (who fulfilled her contractual obligations to the series with this film) and Craven were largely disinterested in a third outing. Williamson would go on record as saying that he always had the idea that Scream would be a trilogy, but after two gruelling back to back shoots, no one was exactly in fighting shape to get back on board right away.

The series would take a two year break before reconvening on the third instalment. It was unknown if Campbell would return or if Williamson would even be able to produce a script. Also looming on the horizon unknown to Dimension and the production staff, was a tragedy that would reshape the dynamic of the franchise for better and worse.

The Complete Scream Collection is now available on DVD and Blu-ray from Alliance Home Entertainment. It has proven an invaluable asset to the construction of this series.

We would also like to take this opportunity to formally congratulate the winners of the Dork Shelf Scream Box Set Giveaway.

Our grand prize winner (receiving a Complete Scream Series Box set with mask and free six month subscription to Rue Morgue online) goes to Kelsey Allan of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba. Second prize winners are Marla Pollard of Mississauga, Ontario, Susan Bannister of North York, Ontario, and Ed Kanerva. Congrats the winners and thanks to all who participated, and stay tuned for more great giveaways from Dork Shelf in the weeks and months to come!

Then I was approached with the idea of revisiting the Scream films in time for Halloween. Just like Craven was hesitant to take on the first Scream film because he was burnt out on horror, I had to think twice about whether I wanted to delve back into a topic I had already spent far too much time on.

After watching all four Scream films again on Blu-ray, I find it a bit strange that I haven’t devoted more time to talking about a series of films that single-handedly revived the slasher genre with a blend of genuine terror and self-reflexive humour. So here now begins a four week long look back at the history of the now seminal series that has been slaying audiences since 1996.

Scream

Much like the first film in the Scream quadrilogy, the history of one of horror’s most successful and beloved franchises began with a phone call. Screenwriter Kevin Williamson received a call from his literary agent that his potentially groundbreaking screenplay for his Lois Duncan adaptation Killing Mrs. Tingle had fallen into what was known as “development hell.” The script, which had been purchased by a major studio, languished for so long that it looked as if it was never going to be made. It would later be bought by Dimension Films, was renamed Teaching Mrs. Tingle in light of the Columbine tragedy, and would become Williamson’s directorial debut in 1999, despite having been written in 1992.

Taking on rewrite work wherever he could get it, Williamson was barely making ends meet. In danger of losing his house and his livelihood after staking so much on the potential success of his first major screenplay, Williamson took a job housesitting for friends in an effort to make ends meet. One night, while watching a television news show, Williamson became taken by the story of a Florida-based murderer.

The unseen inspiration for the Scream films belonged to a serial killer named Danny Rolling, better known as the Gainsville Ripper. Rolling, who was captured by police in 1991, was found guilty of mutilating and decapitating five high school students and posing them to create a work of art. Rolling stated upon pleading guilty to the murders that his goal was to become a “superstar.” (He would later be connected to an unsolved 1989 murder in Louisiana with similar staging of bodies.) During his tenure in prison before his execution via lethal injection in 2006, Rolling continued to pen poetry and create paintings in an effort to be recognized as a serious artist.

Screenwriter Kevin Williamson

The idea of a killer taking “life imitating art” seriously stuck with Williamson, who would sink the last of what money he had into renting an apartment on the outskirts of Palm Springs, California for ten days in a last ditch effort to save his writing career. The move was also done to emulate one of Williamson’s favourite writers of teen films, John Hughes, who would often sequester himself for days at a time to simply write and do nothing else. If Hughes could write National Lampoon’s Vacation, Weird Science, and The Breakfast Club together in one nine day span, Williamson thought he could at least churn out one excellent script in the same amount of time.

Written in just a shade under ten days, Williamson submitted his script, titled Scary Movie, to his agent. The film was a wry blend of Williamson’s favourite slasher movie conventions (a genre he was also a huge fan of) and Hughes’ knack for crafting believable teenage characters. Williamson, who was already being lauded for his dialogue in the yet unfilmed Tingle script, returned from Palm Springs with a story about a group of small town teenagers falling prey to a serial killer who knows the ins and outs of being in horror movies. The killer would use horror movie conventions, and occasionally trivial details, to trap and stalk his prey. Utilizing the rules set forth by the horror films of the 70s and 80s that stated that promiscuous sex, investigating scary noises, and answering the phone would get one killed, the masked killer would come to claim the lives of unsuspecting teenagers who think they have the upper hand by knowing what to expect. The film would also function as a twisty whodunit with a big reveal of the killer in the final act.

Almost as soon as the script was on the market, a massive bidding war started between studios and production companies who saw Scary Movie as the necessary kick in the pants the horror genre was looking for. After almost a decade worth of diminishing sequel returns and unoriginal ideas, horror films had become persona non grata at most studios. They were cheap to make, but they almost always tanked. Even the most notable horror success of the early 90s, Clive Barker’s Candyman, didn’t exactly set the box office on fire. Freddy and Jason were dead for the time being. Michael Meyers and Leatherface were still around, but they had both been last seen in laughably awful sequels that would see Meyers become a druid and Leatherface become a cross dresser with Matthew McConaughey as a brother. Other than Candyman, the only new horror icon to be created in this dark period was the Leprechaun, and the only new film in that pipeline was set to send the diminutive gold seeker into space. This is the kind of disarray the horror world had fallen into.

The price of the screenplay kept rising in value, and studios and investors kept dropping out until only two entities remained. Director Oliver Stone, who was keen on turning Scary Movie into an extension of his work on Natural Born Killers, and Dimension Films.

Dimension was founded by Bob and Harvey Weinstein as a precursor to their eventual success with Miramax Films. The first ever film released under the Weinstein’s genre imprint was 1981’s slasher classic The Burning, a film that gave the brothers much needed capital to become the studio that would be responsible for winning more Academy Awards than any other distributor from the mid-90s to the early 2000s.

Director Wes Craven

Once the Weinsteins had won the bidding war, the search for a director began. Horror maven Wes Craven always stood out as the primary choice for the film, with Dimension head Bob Weinstein heralding him as the best suspense director since Alfred Hitchcock. Craven, however, had maintained that he wanted nothing to do with the genre that made him a household name. He felt as if he had been simply been going through the motions on his past few films where he felt more engaged as a writer than as a director. Despite constant pleadings from Williamson and the Weinsteins, Craven passed on the project several times not because the quality wasn’t there, but because he was simply burnt out on horror.

After being turned down by George Romero and Sam Raimi, the Weinsteins once again approached Craven with the project, this time with Drew Barrymore attached to star as the film’s heroine Sidney Prescott. While Craven was intrigued by the idea of making a film with a star like Barrymore, it was the admonishing of teenage fans to “make one more movie that kicks ass” that led to him stepping back into the director’s chair.

It wasn’t exactly a bait and switch to get Craven to come on board when Barrymore ended up not being the lead in the film. Barrymore genuinely did agree to play the role of Sidney until about five weeks before shooting when the actress decided she wanted to only appear in the film’s opening sequence as Casey Becker. Barrymore, who was beginning to get a lot more job offers at this point following a rocky transition between her childhood career and her adult career, insisted that she loved the opening sequence more than anything else in the film and that seeing her die in the opening scene would have a greater impact on the audience.

Craven was tempted to walk away from the film after losing his star, but he had grown too attached to the material. While not exactly thrilled at Barrymore’s early departure, Craven saw the newly revised opening as a way to reference not only Janet Leigh’s appearance in Hitchcock’s Psycho, but also as a callback to his own A Nightmare on Elm Street which kills off the young woman seen in its opening sequence thirty minutes into the film.

Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott

The search for the new Sidney came down to three primary names: Alicia Witt, Brittany Murphy, and Neve Campbell. Reese Witherspoon was also approached, but she turned the film down before reading for Craven. The role ultimately went to Guelph, Ontario native Campbell, then star of TV’s Party of Five and member of 1996’s ensemble teen horror film The Craft, whom Craven thought struck a nice balance between being tough and vulnerable,

The rest of the casting was filled out mostly by people who auditioned for the parts through regular channels. Skeet Ulrich (playing Sidney’s boyfriend Billy) was seen as being “the next big thing” and was hired by Craven for looking similar to Nightmare on Elm Street’s Johnny Depp. Young actors Matthew Lillard (as Billy’s best friend Stu), Jamie Kennedy (as movie nerd Randy Meeks), and Rose McGowan (as Stu’s girlfriend Tatum) were hired for bringing a much needed sense of humour to a film that was going to take its jokes as seriously as its kills.

For the now iconic roles of news reporter Gale Weathers and local law enforcement officer Dewey Reilly, the casting process was a bit different. David Arquette was originally approached to play the role of Stu, but he felt he was a bit too old to play a teenager. Craven agreed and allowed him to read for the role of Dewey, which Arquette would turn into the much needed heart that the franchise desperately needed to function as well as it did.

The role of Gale Weathers wasn’t so much cast as it was given to the Friends actress Courtney Cox who lobbied heavily for the job after Janeane Garofalo turned it down. Cox agreed to a pay cut to be in the film simply because she was a huge fan of the script. Craven and Williamson still asked that Cox audition because based on her television work, neither was convinced that she would be able to be “bitchy” enough to play the hard nosed reporter that would gladly place her cameraman in danger in service of a great scoop.

Despite the script clearly spelling out the identity of the killers at the end of a red herring filled mystery, Williamson’s script wasn’t specific about the look or sound of the killer. All that Craven had to go on was that the killer was masked and that he used a voice box to disguise his voice. Williamson felt the majority of his creative energy should have been spent working on the dialogue, characters, and plotting. He flat out said that the look and sound of the killer was “not my problem.”

The Ghostface Killer

Craven and the special effects experts at Gregory Niccotero’s KNB drew up hundreds of conceptual designs for masks and costumes, but none really stuck. Instead, Craven turned to a mask found at a previous location scouting exercise, a simple, elongated ghost faced mask to be the most believable for the story. The mask functions as almost a blank slate, and for a film where the killer needed to be entirely obscured from the audience in every possible way it proved to be the most effective. The Weinsteins were hesitant at first, since the design of the mask was something that needed to be purchased from the rights holders, but after seeing how some of the aborted ideas looked, they granted Craven the ability to use the mask.

Also, being the first film of the new digital age to use cellular telephones as a major plot device, the focus on the killer until the big reveal was more about the sound than the look. For the sound of the killer across all four films, Craven required voice actor Roger Jackson to be on set all the days that the killer’s voice was to be heard. While a stunt double would appear on screen as Ghostface and take all the physical punishment, Jackson would be sequestered to a trailer on set and away from the actors to keep his identity secret. To this day, no actors on any of the Scream films have ever gotten a look at Jackson per Craven’s orders.

The shoot itself wasn’t without incident, as the production was forced to move from Santa Rosa, California to Sonoma after the local school board and parents objected to the extremely violent content in the film. Of particular note was the objection to the murder of the fictional Woodsboro High School principal Arthur Himbry (an uncredited Henry Winkler) which took place on school property.

The film’s lengthy climax would also prove problematic. The second half of the film takes place entirely on a single set and for continuity and budgetary purposes had to be shot largely in sequence. It was also written on the page by Williamson as a single scene with different sub-scenes and cuts to exteriors on the same property. The second half of the film took approximately 17 days with an average of 20 working hours per day to complete.

Skeet Ulrich, Jaime Kennedy, and Matthew Lillard in Scream

Once the film was finished and submitted to the MPAA for ratings approval, Craven hit another roadblock when the film was given the dreaded NC-17 rating. Censors objected to several specific moments of violence in the film, mainly in the opening sequence with Barrymore, a death involving a garage door slowly opening with someone caught in it, and a scene during the big reveal of the killers where they repeatedly stab each other. All of these scenes were easy fixes. The opening was sped up with shots of strewn entrails cleverly obscured. The garage door sequence cut away for a few key seconds, and the stabbing sequence was cut down by about thirty seconds and cropped to focus more on reaction shots. But there was still one problem the MPAA had with the film, and it came down not to violent content, but a line of dialogue.

The MPAA was not going to let the film pass because of one of the film’s most iconic lines; one that would stand as the calling card of the entire franchise and describes the M.O. of the murderers.

“Movies don’t create psychos. Movies make psychos more creative.”

The MPAA believed that they line was inherently insensitive, and in a way, a slight against their job to police multiplex fare for parents of young children. Craven and Williamson protested fervently to no avail on their own on the grounds that while cuts to the violence were somewhat understandable, changing the dialogue that the plot of this film hinged upon was outright censorship. In the end, it was Miramax head Harvey Weinstein who would make the MPAA see things his way, by convincing the ratings board that the film was actually a satirical comment on societal norms.

It was at this point where the Weinstein’s changed the name of the film from Scary Movie to Scream. No real reason for the change was given except that the brothers found the title of the movie too telling and generic. Craven and Williamson weren’t sold on the title, but as long as the film was in the can and released, they were on board.

While Harvey had done a huge favour for Craven in getting the film past the censors, Bob Weinstein over at Dimension was about to take an even bigger risk with Scream that was almost unheard of. Dimension had slated Scream for a Christmas release on December 20th, 1996 (a rare Saturday opening) opposite the similarly teen themed animated TV spin-off Beavis and Butthead Do America and the George Clooney starring romantic comedy One Fine Day. The notion was that horror movie audiences often had nothing to watch over the long and financially lucrative Holiday season. It was hoped that the modestly budgeted $15 million production (then the second largest in Dimension history following the troubled production of The Crow: City of Angels) would at least triple its investment by January before making its way to the even more lucrative home video market where Dimension titles traditionally earned the majority of their gross.

Drew Barrymore in Scream

The film opened to generally positive critical notices, but opened to middling grosses amidst a crowded field of largely family oriented fare (the live action John Hughes penned 101 Dalmations remake, Jingle All the Way, The Preacher’s Wife) with a weekend gross of $6.4 million. The traditionally long Holiday week known for giving boosted grosses to mostly all the films in release led to Scream boosting its take to almost ten million in the second weekend, but also watching it slip into fifth place. The film had served Dimension’s gamble well and made close to $30 million in the first ten days, but at the end of the holidays, things got even more interesting.

In the third week of release Scream pushed past the ten million dollar mark and rose to third place, a rarity for most three week old films, especially for an R-rated release in the dead zone of early January. The film remained in the top ten throughout the month of January, dropping as low as sixth place (but still making $7 million for the weekend) before jumping back into third place on the weekend of January 31st behind Jerry Maguire and the re-release of Star Wars. The film would not drop out of the top ten at the box office until Valentine’s Day weekend when seven new releases took spots in the top ten, but by this point Scream had very quietly amassed over $80 million and was still pulling in over a million dollars a week outside the top ten.

So successful was Scream that Dimension re-released the film for late shows in many markets on April 11th, which would shoot the film from 34th at the box office to 9th. By mid-May, the re-release was still pulling in over a million a week, and production on the now seemingly inevitable Scream 2 was fast tracked for release by the end of 1997. By early June Scream had passed the coveted $100 million mark at the box office. Scream was finally pulled from theatres on July 25th, 1997 by Dimension who wanted to focus on the upcoming sequel and home video sales of the film. It’s 219 day run on the box office charts was something unheard of in the modern age of multiplex releases that make most of their money during a film’s opening weekend. Not since the late 1980s had a film had such a long and quietly profitable run.

As for the film itself, it is nearly impossible to talk about horror films today without bringing up the original Scream. The film would inspire countless imitators (including Williamson’s own I Know What You Did Last Summer, Urban Legend, and the Kevin Spacey produced Cry_Wolf) and an entire series of parodies that used the original title of the film to poke fun at nuances that were quickly becoming genre conventions (which were also ironically produced through Dimension Films and became a profitable franchise in its own right).

Scream saved not only the horror genre from the shallow grave it found itself buried in, but also saved the career of Craven as a director. Scream plays to Craven’s two biggest strengths: literary wit (although in this case the text is previously made films including his own) and the creation of tension within confined spaces. Next to Roman Polanski, one would be hard pressed to find a filmmaker as well versed in claustrophobic settings as Craven is. The opening sequence at Casey Becker’s house and the finale at Stu’s are cat and mouse tour de forces. They are scenes of sustained terror confined to one single location, a common Craven calling card also seen in The Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, The People Under the Stairs and the terminally underrated Red Eye. All these films find Craven at his best as a director. He seems almost energized by limitations and he crafts his most visually stunning films when forced to work within enclosed spaces. On films with larger visual planes like Vampire in Brooklyn and The Serpent and the Rainbow, his directorial style is perfunctory at best, but here Craven has the chance to reenergize and it feels like watching the re-birth of a great director.

Williamson’s screenplay is often taken to task simply for being a bit too clever for its own good. The dialogue can come off as a bit too snappy and self-aware even for a film that is built around already knowing all the answers. Where Williamson excels, however, is with his sense of characterization and plotting. Every character in the film has a full story arc regardless of how long they survive on screen or how long they disappear from the story. These characters are all placed into a plot that makes the audience guess who the killer is based on a combination of logic and character traits. When Ghostface is finally unmasked, it is the final piece of the puzzle for this film, but it leaves a lot of ethical questions unanswered to hang a sequel onto.

There isn’t much to be said about the cast for the most part. Everyone is just really good at what they do. Campbell and Ulrich were exactly the right choices for their parts. Lillard and McGowan are a bit too over the top, but it makes sense that their characters find themselves aligned the way they do. Kennedy strikes the perfect balance of sympathy and unease as the most likely suspect for most of the film. Cox definitely shows how bitchy she can truly be, and Arquette is just barely a step away from showing audiences that he is the true MVP of the franchise with his portrayal of a good natured doofus in far over his head.

Craven and Williamson know exactly what the audience of a horror film is looking for and they teamed up to give a film that delivers no more or less what the audience expects. Williamson also knew that if the movie was a success that a sequel would be necessary.

At the end of Williamson’s draft for Scary Movie was a five page outline for Scary Movie 2, a film that would delve deeper into the role of films (and more specifically sequels) on a pop culture obsessed populace. The film was greenlit by the Weinsteins in January 1997 with a $20 million budget that would be increased by double the amount by the time the original crossed the $100 million mark. The pressure and stakes were higher, but a plan was already in place. The production of the second film wouldn’t be without problems, but most of those problems would come from outside influences rather than ones within the project. It also would have oddly more historical context than the original film.

The Complete Scream Collection is now available on DVD and Blu-ray from Alliance Home Entertainment. It has proven an invaluable asset to the construction of this series.

In 2009, Ti West directed Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever, a direct-to-DVD, unnecessary beat horse sequel which embodied the huge plague upon the horror genre where even original ideas are strung out into irrelevancy. Ti West disowned it, and even requested his name be swapped with an Alan Smithee. So, in that same year, West also released House of the Devil, a character driven, style-drenched, brooding paranoia picture, showing what amazing things can be still be done in a genre that’s seen it all. If West was looking for a way to be disassociated from Spring Fever, he found a way, and if horror fans were looking for a fresh new talent, they had certainly found him. As his first film since The House of the Devil, The Innkeepers is Ti West’s opportunity to show a winning streak, or at least an uncanny corridor. It also happens to be a chance for star Sara Paxton, often cast as that pretty blonde in really forgettable roles, to earn a new start, not unlike West himself.

The Yankee Pedlar is a slow hotel in a small, even slower town. On its last weekend of business, slacker part-timers Claire (Paxton) and Luke (Pat Healy) have one last marathon shift before moving on to whatever’s next. Luke’s brought a generous amount of beer, but Claire’s brought an excess of curiosity about the Pedlar’s rumoured haunted reputation, something they had both taken casual interest in during their employment. Luke, a proud dropout and pessimist, is confident his rusty, amateur, GeoCities-level web design will carry his future career, while Claire has literally never thought about the next step until provoked by sitcom-actress-come-spiritualist-come-inn-patron Leanne Rease-Jones (Top Gun and Stake Land’s Kelly McGillis.)

Claire begins to seek Leanne’s guidance, despite being turned off by her drinking habits and snappy tone, which pummels her self confidence but inspires her sense of adventure. Leanne warns Claire that the Pedlar’s spirits are not only real, but very dangerous. During her shifts, Claire can’t help but push her luck, sitting alone in the humming empty spaces of the hotel, trying to record the sounds of spectres as her work-hour hobby evolves into a deadly obsession.

A far more modestly produced feature than House of the Devil, The Innkeepers is much more interesting in terms of its identity. While House was lush with homage and slow-built dread, Innkeepers is a craftier, more cautious film. It is as much a horror film, as things are horrifying, as it is a character study or a drama with comedic freckles. The quirkiness that surrounds The Yankee Pedlar and the cast within it makes our heroes more likeable, though Lucas’ web flavoured cynicism edges on the stock side. The terror that lurks above Claire is less about fearing a grotesque, shocking sight ahead as it is you fearing for her safety and well being.

West is accomplished in this cinematic chemistry. There is horror and then there is comedy and they are not things that soil each other while simultaneously overlapping. The horror is never made slapstick or farce, and the humour is either dramatic folly or dopey witticisms from our two leads. Sara Paxton truly is Claire; a spunky, raspy ragdoll girl who walks into doors more than opens them. Paxton is unrecognizable from the deer in headlights in The Last House on the Left remake. Sara Paxton makes Claire likable, someone you’ll care about and want to pluck out of the calamity before it’s too late. While, like Luke, she can veer close to being a cropped concept of youthful kookiness, Paxton tampers it down with fragility, and discomfort. She plays up her attitude to compensate for her unshakable anxieties, she’s rattled by a loss of innocence and playfulness when she confirms to herself that the ghosts are real.

The Innkeepers has unconventional priorities for a horror film, using scares as a feature instead of the purpose of the movie. You can almost talk about the film without talking about ghosts at all. There’s uncertainty in the air; there may or may not be something in the dark, making you more vulnerable to attack. There’s a general unrest as the camera floats about the musty old in inn with its humble halls and muted carpets. There are times when a jumpy scare could have been cheesy in any other film, a moment when Claire gets a bedside visitor comes to mind, but because this fear is something banked off the characters that “yeah right”-ness almost plays directly into the atmosphere. There’s also a circular motion with a lot of the frights, almost like the second half of the film is haunted by very slight foreshadowing in the first. The development of these characters dictate the fear, and in turn will be what scares you.

The Innkeepers is good, eerie and frightening, but I didn’t feel frightened afterwards. I did feel another strong emotion, one that was hard to shake and one that will remain anonymous so I don’t spoil anything. To horror addicts, The Innkeepers may not gratify in the same way The House of the Devil did, as there’s a very hard line straight down the film that lets the audience decide whether there was any paranormal activity or if it is really a horror at all. To more flexible filmgoers, The Innkeepers is a strange, interesting atmosphere-driven blend that pushes through styles, tones and genres. It doesn’t astonish elegance quite as boldly as The House of the Devil, but it does strut West’s versatility within and outside of horror. Most importantly, it shows Ti West has absolutely no desire to create stale, routine horror films, the like you’ve seen in the last decade. So he can stay as long as he likes.

“What’s your favourite scary movie?”

15 years and three sequels later the Scream franchise has become on of the most beloved horror movie series of all time. We here at Dork Shelf want to help you relive the memories of watching Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), Deputy Dewey (David Arquette), and Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) try to stay alive against the infamous killers hiding behind Ghostface masks.

Thanks to our good friends at Alliance Films, we’re giving one lucky winner a copy of the recently released Complete Scream Collection DVD box set.

Included in this set are all four Scream films, together for the first time. It also includes a code for a free six month subscription to Rue Morgue Magazine online! Oh, and you also get a badass Ghostface mask of your very own!

In addition to the grand prize, three runners up will receive a special three-pack DVD that includes the first three Scream films.

For your chance to win, email contest@dorkshelf.com with your name and mailing address and answer the following question:

“What’s your favourite scary movie… and if you were in it, how would you survive?”

Contest is open to all Canadian residents and the deadline for entries is (appropriately enough) midnight on October 31st. Winners will be notified by email,

So until then, no drinking, no drugs, no promiscuous sex. Don’t go upstairs, don’t go in the basement, and for the love of God don’t go outside to see what that noise was!

We’ll be back later this week with a special look at the Scream series and its place in horror history.

The festival runs from October 20 – 27 at the Toronto Underground Cinema. Be sure to visit the Toronto After Dark website for the full schedule of films playing this year.

Below you can find a few of our picks for the fest. There are many great films playing at Toronto After Dark this year, but we think these ones are particularly noteworthy

Redline, dir. Takeshi Koike

A film that could easily be described as a mash-up of Speed Racer and Death Race 2000, Redline takes futuristic auto racing to a place where most cars never go: outer space! This break-neck anime feature from the animation gurus at Madhouse was seven years in the making. Blisteringly fast-paced and beautifully realized, Redline is unlike any anime you’ve ever seen. The film follows JP, an up-and-coming race jockey who qualifies to compete in the Redline – the galaxy’s most dangerous (and lucrative) race.

Redline features the voice talents of Takuya Kimura, Yû Aoi, and Tadanobu Asano.

Screenings: Saturday, Oct. 22, 4.15pm at Toronto Underground Cinema
More info here.

The Divide, dir. Xavier Gens

Sheltered in the basement of an apartment building, eight survivors of a nuclear apocalypse have trouble surviving one another. Think of The Divide as a post-apocalyptic riff on Lord of the Flies, only with adults, fallout, and no beach. Director Xavier Gens made a splash on the horror scene with his bleak and brutal 2007 film Frontier(s). The Divide looks to be a claustrophobic return to form for Gens. Seriously though, what is with this guy and axes?!

The Divide stars Michael Biehn, Rosanna Arquette, Milo Ventimiglia, Michael Eklund, and Lauren German.

Screenings: Tuesday, Oct 25, 7.00pm at Toronto Underground Cinema
More info here.

The Innkeepers, dir. Ti West

Director Ti West (House of the Devil) tackles the well-tread haunted hotel subgenre head on with The Innkeepers. A New England hotel with a history of unearthly phenomenon and mysterious sightings is about to be shut down. With only one weekend left before the hotel is shuttered forever, two employees take it upon themselves to uncover the secrets of the old inn.

 The Innkeepers stars Sara Paxton, Pat Healy, and Kelly McGillis.

Screenings: Thursday, Oct 27, 9.45pm at Toronto Underground Cinema
More info here.

Set largely in 1988, the film functions as a prequel to the series, depicting the formative childhoods of the women from the first two films. Katie (played here by Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) live in Southern California with their mother (Lauren Bittner) and their stepfather, Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith). Once mysterious unexplained phenomena begin occurring within their house, wedding videographer Dennis begins setting up cameras throughout the house to capture spectral evidence.

It all sounds like a bit of the same old, same old at this point, and the notion that the characters from the first two films had previous experiences with being filmed around the clock is a bit hard to swallow at first, but directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (Catfish) have found a successful way to breathe new life into a concept that might already seem to be on its last legs.

Joost and Schulman have created the first Paranormal Activity that openly feels like a movie. The material here is far too stagey to work as a found footage film (especially one that’s supposed to be late 80s camcorder footage but looks like it was shot last week in HD) so the directors simply focus on something somewhat brilliant: making an entertaining movie within a rigid framework. It isn’t so much a fly on the wall documentation of a happening, as it is something more sinister and voyeuristic. In this film, the audience is just as important to the story as the cameras are. These guys know that the audience is there to have a good time, but they want to make them earn that good time in a satisfying manner.

One of the things that I like best about this franchise is that it forces the audience to unwittingly become cinema studies majors for 90 minutes. The audience is constantly scanning the frame to see where the next big scare will come from, since the soundtrack for films of this style offer no clues aside from occasional low end rumblings once things have already begun to happen. The audience is so invested in not looking foolish that they are trying to find out how the magician is pulling off the tricks.

Joost and Schulman inherently understand that this is the biggest appeal of the series and they give the audience more than just clever hints to how everything is going to go down. They artfully obscure parts of their static camera angles so the audience will never get the whole story, including a really clever use of a camera strapped to an oscillating fan base that allows for both movement and obfuscation. Even genre fans who don’t necessarily want to intently study the image on screen will be sucked in by clever nods to horror staples like Poltergeist, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and Child’s Play.

The onscreen performances are also the strongest in this entry. Smith and Bittner make up the most believable married couple yet, and the kids are simply stellar. Csengery and Brown both evoke Heather O’Rourke and Linda Blair at the same time. They are creepy, but wholly sympathetic; especially when the final ten minutes of the film turn into a different experience altogether and things get even more unsettling than the first two films. It actually veers pretty close to becoming almost like this year’s TIFF favourite Kill List in the best possible ways.

I suppose the biggest qualm I have with the film, other than a wonky premise and the fact that this in no way feels like a period piece, is that it might have worked better as a genuine movie instead of a found footage film. I can understand the trepidation of going in that direction after the critical debacle that was Blair Witch 2, but it really would have worked better in this case. The static camera gimmick set the tone for the series, but it doesn’t do the film many favours here. Even if filmed as a regular movie, the budget (which is the biggest in the series thus far) would have remained the same. I would like to see an entry in this series where they give up the “real life” pretence and simply make a movie that exists within the same world. Paranormal Activity 3 will probably at least earn quintuple its budget in the opening weekend, and on that basis the studio probably won’t tinker with the formula, but I’d be interested to see if any sequel could do it as well as this one does it.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2011: Final 10 Films include Ti West’s INNKEEPERS! Lucky McKee’s WOMAN! Two World Premieres and More!

Toronto After Dark Film Festival is THRILLED to officially announce its FINAL WAVE of exciting new Horror, Sci-Fi, Action, and Cult feature film selections that will screen at the festival’s 6th Annual Event this October 20-27, 2011!

THE FINAL 10 FEATURES REVEALED

The final lineup includes a number of hugely buzzed genre movies including the Closing Gala Film, the scary supernatural tale and festival circuit hit , THE INNKEEPERS, from acclaimed horror filmmaker Ti West (HOUSE OF THE DEVIL)! Fans will be also be delighted to hear that Toronto After Dark has programmed the Sundance sensation THE WOMAN, an outrageous new horror film from Lucky McKee (MAY), about a suburban family that decides to ‘domesticate’ a woman found living in the wild!

The festival is also thrilled to announced two more WORLD Premieres, bringing the total at Toronto After Dark 2011 to a record three! First off, WAR OF THE DEAD, a thrilling new war movie with an undead twist, will delight both zombie and action movie fans with its masses of undead hordes terrifying a group of soldiers trying to complete a secret mission during World War II. While fans of dark and edgy superhero films like KICK-ASS will go nuts when they get to be the first in the world to catch sight of VS which sees a despicable super-villain (James Remar) forcing a group of young costumed crusaders into playing a series of impossible-to-win games where the penalty for losing is… death!

Vampire lovers should sink their fangs into MIDNIGHT SON, a dark and gritty look at a young man’s descent into the world of drinking blood, while dark sci-fi fans should check out THE CORRIDOR, an award-winning new film about a disturbing energy force discovered in a remote forest by a group of friends on their winter vacation, and the dark implications it has for them all!

Those looking for more light-hearted fare should check out the Canadian Premiere of MANBORG, an hysterically lofi but fun homage to cult sci-fi action films of the 80s like ROBOCOP and the THE TERMINATOR. Meanwhile festival circuit hit crowd-pleaser SOME GUY WHO KILLS PEOPLE adds healthy doses of black comedy to its serial killer horror, and features a wonderful, eclectic cast that includes cult film icons Karen Black and ROCKY HORROR’s Barry Bostwick!

Finally, for pure adrenaline-rush seekers, Toronto After Dark has booked the supernatural horror film ABSENTIA, possibly the most chilling new horror film of the year, and the award-winning new mountain climbing dark thriller, A LONELY PLACE TO DIE, which has drawn favourable comparisons to another thrilling and chilling film from Britain, that wowed fans a few years ago, THE DESCENT!

SEE THE EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW AT THE SPACE CHANNEL WEBSITE: A few days ago, Toronto After Dark gave an exclusive sneak preview on TV of the final ten titles for The Space Channel. The 4-minute segment, which includes lots of fun clips from all the films has now been posted online at SPACE’s official website, and fans can watch it here: http://bit.ly/tad11-space-web-vid2 SPACE has also posted a bonus video introducing Toronto After Dark here: http://bit.ly/tad11-space-web-vid1

WATCH ALL THE TRAILERS AT YOUTUBE: We’ve added all the trailers that are currently available for our lineup at our YouTube Playlist for Toronto After Dark 2011 here: http://bit.ly/tad11-trailers

We’ll be adding two more trailers, for our World Premieres, WAR OF THE DEAD and VS, later this week. Unfortunately there is no trailer for THE INNKEEPERS at this time.

PASSES NOW ON SALE: Fans wanting to see a bunch of movies at Toronto After Dark this Oct 20-27, 2011, are encouraged to snap up one of the ever-popular All-Access Passes, which are already on sale. The passes give a huge discount on buying individual tickets, and are already over 60% sold out. For more info on the many benefits of the All-Access Pass or to grab one now, click here: http://bit.ly/tad11passes

COMPLETE SCHEDULE & INDIVIDUAL TICKETS FROM OCT 4: The final festival schedule, including short films lineup, and advance box office for buying individual screening tickets will be available from (updated) October 5. For complete info visit the festival website: http://www.torontoafterdark.com/

PLANNING ON ATTENDING? RSVP AT THE 2011 FACEBOOK EVENT PAGE! And invite your friends to join in the cinematic fun here: http://on.fb.me/tad11-fb-event

FOR BREAKING UPDATES: we also recommend fans subscribe to our Festival Newsletter, join our Facebook Group, Like our Fan Page, and Follow us on Twitter at these links:

http://bit.ly/tad11enews

http://on.fb.me/tad-fb-group
http://on.fb.me/tad-fb-page
http://twitter.com/TADFilmFest

We look forward to thrilling you at the movies next month!

SEE YOU AFTER DARK!

There might not be a more colossal misfire this year than Creature. That’s not to say that it’s the worst horror film of the year. but there are a few things worth recommending in this tale of a monster living in the Louisiana bayou. Director Fred Andrews seems to have no clue what tone he wants his film to have. It isn’t bloody or sleazy enough to be a serviceable grindhouse throwback and there isn’t anything particularly inventive about its spin on the dead teenager film. It starts cheesy, turns ponderous, and has the worst ending to any film this year. Worst of all, Creature feels no need to overcome its shortcomings by at least being fun. There’s very little joy to be had in how bad this film is.

A group of college students (who all look like they are in their thirties) on a camping trip in the backwoods of gator country are stalked by a mutant who demands human sacrifice from local residents. The creature’s backstory is explained, but not a heck of a lot else is. I honestly can’t tell you the dynamics of what constitutes a human sacrifice to the monster since it is never full made clear. All the audience needs to know going in is that this monster is just going to kill a bunch of stereotypes and there are going to be a bunch of creepy hillbillies.

To the film’s credit and in an effort to accentuate anything positive about this drab affair, Creature is very well shot and it does manage to subvert the notion that the black guy always dies first by making True Blood’s Mechad Brooks the only person fully capable of stopping the monster. The performances themselves are all just fine; with horror vet Sid Haig showing up as the creepy store owner who sets the film’s “plot” into motion.

I use the airquotes around the word plot because I can’t honestly tell you guys what the point of all of this is. I guess the creature wants a child. Or blood. Or the blood of a specific family? Maybe the town’s residents are related to the monster even though the film previously established that he never was able to have a kid as a human. None of it makes a lick of sense, which would be fine if it decided on a single tone and stuck to it. A film with no direction can be saved sometimes by either going over the top or playing everything so straight that it goes over the top by default. There is simply no effort here to make anything even remotely watchable.

As for the ending, I am tempted to spoil it, but that isn’t my style. On the other hand the ending is so fucking stupid that I am afraid that if I don’t spoil it, someone will punch me in the face for not warning them about it. Suffice to say, I would have preferred watching a blank screen or an unfinished film than see the ending of Creature. You could easily leave before the end of the film, though. It’s not as if it is going to make any less sense.

The Toronto After Dark Film Festival has announced the first wave of feature films slated for this year’s event. The Canadian genre fest features some of the best and most off-beat horror, sci-fi, action and cult cinema from around the world. Some of the highlights from the recent announcement include creature wrestling feature Monster Brawl, Canadian splatterfest Father’s Day, claustro-pocalyptic The Divide, full-throttle anime Redline and horror anthology The Theatre Bizarre.

The sixth annual edition of After Dark has a new date and a new venue, a move that will likely please fans. TADFF will officially return to the Halloween season this year, running from October 20-27. The fest has also left its long time home at the Bloor Cinema (due to ongoing renovations) in favour of the entirely suitable Toronto Underground Cinema.

You can get a taste of this year’s offerings in this awesome sizzle reel put together by Toronto After Dark.

Toronto After Dark 2011 runs October 20th – 27th. For ticket info and to see the full list of announced films, be sure to visit the official Toronto After Dark Film Festival website here.