A Remake That Stands on Its Own Two Legs: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2003

In the 2000s, the horror landscape was much different than it is today. It was a simpler time, one filled to the brim with slashers, monster movies, and even the start of the “Torture Porn” phenomenon of the era with films like Saw and Hostel.

The 2000s were also the decade of the remake. I say that because many remakes were being pumped out during this decade. Dawn of the Dead, Friday The 13th, The Amityville Horror, House of Wax, and The Ring are a few examples.

But today, I will be talking about a movie that I feel is one of the better remakes from that time. That film is The Texas Chainsaw Remake, and today I’m going to explain why I think it’s one of the better remakes out there despite not being nearly as good as the original film from 1974.

The Things It Does Right

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake does more right than you initially would think. It still has an excellent sense of atmosphere, despite being filmed with fancy modern cameras at the time. It moves along at a steady pace and manages to keep your attention throughout most of the 98-minute runtime.

 

 I also like the dreary, grey color palette that director Marcus Nispel (who would go on to direct the Friday The 13th remake in 2009) and director of cinematography Daniel Pearl (who was the director of cinematography on the original) chose to go for here. They went for a dimmer color palette, with a brownish/grayish overtone to everything that doesn’t make a lot of sense at first but comes into its own later in the film.

 

 The family in this film, the Hewitt Family here instead of the Sawyer family from the original movie, is great and has some standout performances among some of its members. The most standout performance came from the great R. Lee Ermey, who played Sheriff Hoyt in the film. His character is fantastic and is equally funny, serious, and creepy, and he can swap between those different tones on the fly without any hesitation whatsoever.

Another standout performance in this film is that of Leatherface, or Thomas Hewitt, as he’s known in the movie. Andrew Bryniarski does a great job here as Leatherface. He’s big and bulky and can sprint once he gets going, which adds to his creepiness. One thing that I commonly hear about Leatherface in this film is that he doesn’t feel like Leatherface does in the original film, but I think that’s a good thing in this case. It gives this remake a sense of originality that most remakes don’t have. There are remakes out there, such as the Psycho remake, that are a straight shot-for-shot remake with a new scene or two thrown in there to make it “new enough,” so I commend The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake for not doing that.

 

 Also, I like that some of the most famous shots from the original film were redone here, such as when one of the girls is walking up to the Sawyer Family's house, for example. Things like that give the film some familiarity to it while at the same time being new and fresh.

Where It Misses The Mark

This film may get a lot of things right for a remake, but there are things that it misses the mark on. For instance, the characters we’re supposed to be invested in and root for are all frustrating in different ways, and it just makes me not want to root for them at all.

For instance, our final girl Erin, played by Jessica Biel, is a little bit of a hard ass in the beginning when it comes to her friends smoking weed, and it irritated the living hell out of me. There’s one character you can’t understand AT ALL because he speaks in a low tone and slurs his words, not to mention that he’s one of those “know-it-all” types who will interject at any chance he can get to correct you on something. Eric Balfour’s character Kemper is almost non-existent in the film, and even when he finally does speak, he’s very one-note and forgettable.

The only one of these characters that are tolerable is Pepper, and even then, you can tell that she will get it from the opening scene. Erin does redeem herself throughout the movie, and by the end, you’re rooting for her, but you aren’t at the beginning, that’s for sure.

Also, the film does drag a little in certain spots, like when the group is waiting for the sheriff. This director made the same mistake with the core characters in the Friday the 13th remake, which kept that film from being great.

Closing Statements

This film is still fun to watch, and I recommend it if you’re in the mood for a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie. It still isn’t near the original's quality, but I can see where people would surely enjoy it.

What’re your thoughts on this film?? Be sure to let me know in the comments below! Thank you so much for reading this issue, and I’ll see you in the next one.

Read More

A Horror Classic That Still Stands the Test of Time: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

On October 1st, 1974, a horror movie that would be one of the most influential movies in horror history was released. This film would significantly impact many filmmakers and horror fans and birth one of the icons of the horror genre. This movie...is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and today I'm going to tell you why I believe it stands the test of time and deserves ALL of the crazy praise it still gets today.

Debuting With A Bang

When The Texas Chainsaw Massacre first hit theaters on October 1st, 1974, the world was a completely different place than it is today. In the 70s, America was nearing the end of the Vietnam War, and tensions were high across the country. The marketing campaign for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre consisted of the studio selling the film as a true story, which worked in the film's favor as it attracted a broader audience. The film went on to make 30 million dollars at the box office during its theatrical run and had a budget of anywhere from around 80,000 to 140,000 dollars, making it the 12th highest grossing film released in 1974 despite having such a small budget.

Tobe Hooper, the film's director, hoped initially that the film would get a PG rating due to the minimal amount of gore in the movie. But Mr. Hooper would have those hopes crushed as the film would go on to receive an X rating initially. Then after some cuts, Tobe got the Motion Picture Association of America to give the movie an R rating, which is what helped the film gain the audience that it did because if your movie gets anything above an R rating, it's dead on arrival.

A distributor restored all of the offensive material, though, and at least one theater at the time released the full version under the R rating. In San Francisco, movie-goers walked out of the theater in disgust. In Canada in 1976, the local police advised two theaters in Ottawa to withdraw the film, or they would face morality charges...yeah, that happened. When the film initially tried to get released in Britain, the British Board of Film Censors banned it because two secretaries advised the board to do so. This ban would continue to stay in effect until 1999, when the ban was finally lifted, and the BBFC granted it a release with an 18 rating. 

In Australia, the film was refused a classification by the Australian Classification Board both for its original 83-minute version and its 77-minute version. Greater Union Film Distributors submitted the 83-minute cut to the board in 1981. The Australian Classification Board again denied its classification, but it was finally released in Australia in 1984 under an R rating. It was banned for significant periods in multiple countries, including but not limited to Brazil, Chile, Finland, Ireland, France, Norway, Sweden, and West Germany.

Reception

The film was released to a mixed reception from fans and critics. For example, Linda Gross of the Los Angeles Times called it despicable and described Hooper as being too concerned with creating a realistic atmosphere than working on its "plastic script." While Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times said, it was "as violent and gruesome and blood-soaked as the title promises" while praising the film for its acting and technical execution. 

Donald B. Berrigan of The Cincinnatti Inquirer even said that Marilyn Burns's performance as Sally Hardesty deserved an Academy Award at the time for how real her performance felt in the movie. I agree with that statement; she should've gotten at least one award for that performance. Critics eventually came to appreciate the film for managing to be terrifying without being a bloodbath, unlike some movies at the time that seemed like they depended on having a lot of blood and gore to get the creep factor.

Leaving An Impact

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a movie that is one of the most significant and controversial horror movies of all time and a major influence on the genre. I believe this movie played a fundamental role in creating the slasher genre as we see it today. You can see its impact on films like The Hills Have Eyes, Halloween, and Friday The 13th. Two of those films have spawned franchises that are the most popular slasher series in horror right now.

The film is a movie that paved the way for horror to be a vehicle for social commentary, alongside movies like Night of the Living Dead by George A. Romero, for example. The theme that this movie conveys is us maybe being too trusting of our neighbors at the time, as well as the Sawyer Family being a symbol for victims of industrial capitalism.

The film also does a stellar job of forcing its viewers to use their imaginations to determine what's happening to its victims. This use of invention is due to well-timed camera cuts and bursts of light in darker scenes.

This movie has stayed in our collective consciousness for over 40 years. The film's villain, Leatherface, is as synonymous with the genre as Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers, and Jason Vorhees. In 1990, the film was inducted into the Horror Hall of fame, with director Tobe Hooper receiving the award. It's also preserved in the New York Museum of Modern Art as a part of the permanent collection.

Wrapping it up

That's all that I have for you on this film. I first saw this movie when I was seven years old and just starting to get into horror (thank you, grandma), which significantly impacted me. It taught me that not every movie needs to look like a Nightmare on Elm Street or Scream or even Friday The 13th to be scary. It needs a good sense of atmosphere, a compelling villain, good characters to root for, and a good story that ties everything together like a bow on top of a Christmas present.

What are your thoughts on The Texas Chainsaw Massacre?? Be sure to let me know in the comments below!

Thank you so much for reading, and I'll catch you in the next one.

Read More

The Cursed: The Best Werewolf Movie of the Past 20 years.

In the past 20 years or so, we've gotten a good chunk of werewolf movie. Some are big studio films like Cursed (2005), which I've already covered here on this blog and The Wolfman Remake from 2010. Some are more independent films like Howl or Wolfcop or Darkwolf.

One thing that's for sure though is the fact that the quality of these werewolf movies has been like a yo-yo. Up and down and up and down the quality has gone from film to film and it feels like every time we get one good one, we get about 2 to 3 bad ones in-between. Well today, I'm here to tell you about a werewolf movie that I don't just think is good, oh no...I think it's the greatest werewolf movie of the past 20 years.

That movie is The Cursed, not to be confused with Wes Craven's film which definitely lives up to it's name. This film takes a classic monster in the werewolf and makes a movie that is mostly unique and creative, which is something that this subgenre has needed for a long time.

The Cursed is a story about a peaceful remote village in late 19th century France that starts to suffer from attacks by a mysterious force that's rumored to be the result of a cursed land. This film does a lot of things that most major movie studios tell you not to do when making a horror movie. Those being: don't make a werewolf movie and don't make a period piece.

The reason for that is simple. Nine times out of ten, both werewolf movies and period pieces tend to flop at the box office nowadays. I attribute the failures of werewolf films to the poor reputation werewolves gained with the twilight films, and the fact that it hasn't been given a proper chance to get rid of that stigma. 

The downfall of period pieces though is a different story altogether, I attribute that to modern audiences wanting stories to be set in modern settings as opposed to periods like the 18th or 19th century for example. But this film? Throw all of those stigmas out the window, I'm gonna do BOTH, and I'm gonna do them both better than anybody has done in the last two decades.

This film accomplishes that by taking the werewolf subgenre and doing brand new things with it that we've never seen before now. Creating it's own werewolf mythology, not over relying on the titular monster to appear on-screen, not making silver the only way to kill the beast are just a few examples.

Let me go into more detail for you. You see, werewolf lore typically goes as follows: you get bit or scratched by a werewolf, you become infected, then you start to show more of a feral side. Heightened senses, increased strength, and not being satisfied with anything but raw meat are what goes on during the transition period. And typically to kill a werewolf you need silver of any kind, mainly a Silver Bullet will do the trick.

This film however does some new things with the transition period. When you're bitten in The Cursed, your body is taken over from the inside out and it's done in some gnarly body horror effects that would mildly impress Mr. David Cronenburg. The design of the werewolf is also unique in this film compared to other werewolf movies. You know how typically in a werewolf movie, the werewolf is wolf like in design and they usually go for a bipedal method of movement??

Not in this film, director Sean Ellis went for a four-legged hound design ala An American Werewolf In London. But unlike that film, The Cursed goes for not putting a whole lot of hair on the creature, which I feel is a nice change of pace in the design department. This film also goes for more natural lighting than studio lighting, which adds to the tension and the atmosphere in the film.

Speaking of atmosphere, this film is PACKED to the brim with it, perfectly building to the next scare and not feeling cheap with its jump scares. Another thing that this film does that not a lot of werewolf films do or want to do is it doesn't show the werewolf all that much in the film. It takes around thirty minutes or so for the first bite to occur and then another ten minutes for the first full fledged werewolf attack and even then the creature isn't on the screen.

This is something that studios across the world, big studios being the worst offenders, struggle with. They think that the werewolf is supposed to be on screen as often as possible during it's attacks and this film is solid proof to prove the exact opposite. 

Another thing that this film is unapologetic about is its use of blood and gore. The opening of the film sets the tone for this as there is a good amount of blood and gore during that section of the movie. There's not extreme levels of it of course, but there is a good amount of it regardless and there are moments throughout the film where the blood and gore is gnarly so if you're sensitive to blood and gore, be aware of that when watching this film.

Now even though The Cursed does a lot of things that make it fresh and unique in this subgenre, it does do some things that make it feel just familiar enough to be comfortable. Examples being using silver bullets to effectively kill the werewolf (although that's not the only way to do it). Another example being that you become a werewolf through getting scratched and/or bitten. It's these familiarities mixed with the new stuff that makes this film click and be as great as it is. 

And those are the reasons as to why I feel The Cursed is the absolute best werewolf movie of the past 20 years. Do you agree with me? Do you disagree?? If so, what are your reasons?? Be sure to let me know in the comments below!

I hope you enjoyed this issue and I'll see you in the next one.

Read More

Werewolf By Night Announcement

Yesterday Disney held their D23 conference, which is where they announce all of their upcoming movies and TV shows for all of their respective studios. They announced a TON of cool and exciting stuff that's coming up in the next few years but there was one announcement in particular that caught my attention.

Here's the trailer if you want to check it out 

Werewolf By Night is the name of this TV special movie and it was THE announcement that got me the most excited out of all of them. This show looks like the antithesis of everything that Marvel has done over the past decade or so since starting the MCU.

Showing actual blood a gore?? Yep. going for a completely different style that makes Werewolf By Night unique compared to other Marvel projects?? Yep. USING PRACTICAL EFFECTS FOR THE FUCKING WEREWOLF?! yep, looks like it in the trailer.

This movie looks to be the best thing that Disney and Marvel have done all year long in my eyes and that's coming off of She-Hulk, a show which I thoroughly enjoy. One of the reasons for that is very simple: it's a werewolf movie. If you've seen my past posts, you'll know that I like a good werewolf movie...and Werewolf By Night looks to be a good one.

I like the fact that Marvel decided to not only go into what looked like the 18th or 19th century in that trailer, but they also put a black and white filter over the movie to give it that old-school feel of something that came out of the Universal Monster Movie or Hammer Horror days.

Now if you don't know what Werewolf By Night is, let me explain it to you. Werewolf By Night is a series of comic books first published by Marvel that ran from September of 1972 all the way to March of 1977. The series originally centered around a character by the name of Jack Russell (who is in the new TV Special) and before he could get this series of comics, Jack made his comic debut in Marvel Spotlight #2 which was published in February of 1972 as a test run and it lasted until Marvel Spotlight #4, then it got approved to be its own series after Marvel saw how popular it was.

Marvel may make a lot of decisions that make me scratch my head but this isn't one of them. I love the fact that they dove deep into the archives and decided to go all-in on Werewolf By Night. This is a series of comics that I didn't know existed until yesterday if I'm being completely honest, but it's on my radar now!

There is one thing that I'm concerned about though with Werewolf By Night...and that is whether or not the effects are going to be completely CGI or not. Don't get me wrong, I understand that CGI is easier to deal with than practical effects and that it's probably cheaper than practical effects BUT...CGI effects in my personal opinion, don't belong in anything to do with werewolves.

Look at films like An American Werewolf In Paris, Cursed, and even The Wolfman Remake from 2010. Those films all use CGI effects for things like the transformation sequences and whatnot, and they all look HORRIBLE as a result. Meanwhile, you have films like An American Werewolf In London, The Howling, Dog Soldiers, and Ginger Snaps that look like they haven't aged a day even though in cases like The Howling and An American Werewolf In London, those movies have been out for 41 years now.

So as long as Disney doesn't use CGI effects, I think it'll be an AWESOME TV Special and I can't wait until October 7th when it comes out! Are you excited for Werewolf by night? Do you agree with my opinion on the use of CGI? Let me know in the comments below!

I hope you enjoyed this issue, and I hope to see you in the next one.

Read More

Issue #3- Halloween 3: Season of the Witch. A Misunderstood Hidden Gem.

Back in the early 80's, the horror genre was thriving. The slasher subgenre was hitting it's stride thanks to films like Friday the 13th, Halloween 2, and even films like the first Halloween, Black Christmas and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the previous decade. Tut there was one movie however that was getting a lot of buzz prior to it's release. A film in the Halloween franchise that had people clamoring for what could come next in this legendary series after the events of the first two films. And that movie...is Halloween 3.

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch was released on October 22nd, 1982 to critical and commercial failure. While the the film did actually make a decent profit at $14.4 million dollars to the $2.5 million dollar budget, it was nowhere near as successful as the first two films in the franchise were. This poor reception led to the film only being in theaters for around a week or so before it left the box office. This film suffers from many, many mistakes along the way that ultimately put the nail in the coffin on its potential...and I'm going to explain those mistakes to you and show you why I personally feel that this film is a misunderstood classic.

Halloween 3 mostly suffers from extremely poor marketing. The marketing for this film didn't do enough to tell people that this WASN'T another movie with the face of the franchise himself, Michael Myers. Instead, the marketing was very vague and it seemed like the studio didn't know how to sell it to the audience at the time. This was due to the fact that the creator of the franchise, John Carpenter, didn't want to keep making more movies with Michael Myers. What John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace, who directed Halloween 3 and was the editor and costume designer for the first film, wanted for the franchise after Halloween 2 was to release every single year and be a series of anthology films.

This was a good idea in theory and made complete sense given the context, BUT...there's one problem here. Not only had John Carpenter and his crew made 2 films with the same villain, but that villain had quickly become a horror Icon. So naturally, audiences were expecting to see Michael Myers when they went to see Halloween 3 and when they didn't get what they wanted and were expecting, they spoke their minds. I truly think that if the studio had marketed the film better or had named it just Season of the Witch or another title altogether, then this film may have just had a much better reception than it did. Now that you know why the film has the bad reception that it had back in the day, let me explain to you why I personally think it's a misunderstood horror classic.

Halloween 3 is a film that goes places that most horror films don't even dare to...you see, most horror films like to play it safe. You have a villain, a group of characters that help push the story forward, and a "sole survivor" in most cases. Some films like to play around with that order but it's all generally based around that same formula. Halloween 3 on the other hand, says "we're gonna be dark and taboo at the same time". What I mean by that is most horror films have a happy ending where the person who's chosen as the sole survivor overcomes the villain of the story and lives to tell the tale. 

Very rarely do you have a movie that ends on a dark note, and Halloween 3 goes for that. It's also considered taboo nowadays to harm children in a horror movie, but this film? It don't care, it puts a TON of kids in danger and it doesn't care if it's considered "taboo" or not. This film also adds in some social commentary, which wasn't uncommon in those days in the horror genre thanks to films like George A. Romero's "Living Dead" series for example. Halloween 3 tackles the topic of consumerism much like Romero's film Dawn of the Dead did but in a different context than that film did. In this film, Tommy Lee Wallace tackles consumerism in the context of obsessing over a super popular fad and the marketing of said fad.

This is done through the Silver Shamrock Novelties Company and the Halloween masks they produce. The film focuses heavily on kids flocking to stores to buy these masks and even adds in a Silver Shamrock commercial as a bit of satire to how companies advertise their products to the masses. This film also does something that most horror films tend to stay away from, which is to have a villain doing villainous thing with very unclear motivation as to why. The film basically requires you as the viewer to accept the credo that "anything is possible". And this is done through its main villain, Conol Cochran. Cochran explains in the film that people often do mischievous things with no rhyme or reason, and this case is no different.

This movie also manages to subvert the expectations of the audience which I think works in the films favor, although you could argue against it. How the film achieves this is it takes the slasher vibes that the other two films had and throws in our the window. Instead of a crazed serial killer slicing people up left, right and center like in the previous two films, this movie decides to go for a creepy, atmospheric vibe that also blends some witchcraft into it.

This film also does something that not every horror movie does. It makes someone that looks like an Average Joe its main lead. Tom Atkins is his name, and he does a fantastic job in this film of not only playing up the Average Joe look, but also doing things in the film that you would do if you were a typical Average Joe kind of guy and you were in his shoes. Going on a wild goose chase just for a chance to hop into bed with a pretty girl for instance or when the entire plan is revealed, doing everything within your power to try and stop it. 

Tom's portrayal of Dr. Dan Challis in this film is very believable and adds to the tension that the film builds because of the type of character that he is. Here's this normal doctor getting thrusted into this completely crazy, wacky situation because he thought with his dick instead of his head. And you're rooting for Dr. Charlie to make it out of this situation even though he doesn't get a whole lot of character development in the film.

And now, we have to talk about the films villain, Conal Cochran. Cochran, played by Dan O'Herlihy is a great villain in this movie. The fact that he's very well spoken, smooth and easygoing in one moment and then he can just switch on a dime to being either subtly or full on creepy and disturbing is why I believe that Conal Cochran is one of the better villains in all of horror, despite the fact that he's literally doing what he's doing in the film simply to cause mischief. Dan O'Herlihy does a phenomenal job with his performance in this movie, and I'm glad that more and more people are starting to recognize that.

Even though the film bombed at the box office in 1982, it has managed to find its audience in the home video market. From the original VHS release back in the 80's, all the way to the current 4K Blu-Ray release of the film from Scream Factory, this film has built a cult following over the years that loves and appreciates it for what it is rather than what it should be and I ask that those of you that are reading this post do the same. 

This is definitely a movie that I plan to watch every single year on Halloween, and I'm kicking myself for dismissing it and hating on it like I did as a kid. Did you have a similar experience with the film as I did? Have you always liked the film? Be sure to let me know your experience with the film in the comments below.

I hope you enjoyed this issue, and I look forward to seeing you in the next one!

Read More

Beware The Moon: A Retrospective on An American Werewolf In London

2022 has been a wild, wacky and crazy year and for multiple reasons. You've probably seen some pretty crazy things happen this year, the film industry. 

However, this year is a special year. a year (finds an alternative way to say year!)  that marks the 41st anniversary of not one, not two, but THREE werewolf movies. ALL of which released in the year 1981, a year which I've dubbed "The Year of the Werewolf". What are these movies? Why are they so special? What’s the history behind these movies? (Try using film as you’re over relying on movie.) Why did they all release in the same year? All questions that are probably racing through your mind right now, and for damn good reason.

That's where I come in you see. I’m going to explain to you why they’re so special, and even give you a peek at some of the history of these movies and how they came to be. starting with the most popular of the three (and my personal favorite Horror movie ever made), An American Werewolf In London! Let’s get started shall we?

The question that's probably on your mind if you haven't seen the movie is: What is An American Werewolf In London? It's A Horror/Comedy film about two American college students who are touring through Europe and while they're strolling through the English Moors, they're attacked by a werewolf. This film was one of the earliest examples of mixing Comedy and Horror together and it is also one of the best examples of that.

            A Classic in the Making

An American Werewolf In London was conceived in 1969 when director John Landis was working as a Production Assistant on a movie called Kelly's Heroes. Landis got the idea for the film one day on set when him and a fellow crew member saw a bunch of gypsies burying a corpse in the crux of a crossroad and performing a ritual so that his body wouldn't rise from the grave.

Seeing this burial and having the crew member that tagged along with Landis explain what they had just witnessed to him made the creative sparks fly in John's mind and he started thinking "well what if that body did rise from the grave? Would it be a creature? If so, what creature would it be?" and John went through every single creature imaginable before eventually landing on werewolves. 

It would take 12 years for Landis to make the money needed to start production on An American Werewolf In London through profits on films like The Kentucky Fried Movie, Animal House and The Blues Brothers.

Production started sometime between February and March in (of might sound better) 1981 because John Landis wanted the film to take place during cold weather and it lasted for around a month. 

6 months earlier however, special effects lead Rick Baker went to work on designing and creating the very effects that would turn him into a household name, thanks in large part to the film's legendary transformation scene that is held in very high esteem and seen as not only one of the best if not THE best transformation scene ever (in cinema might sound better), it was seen as an example of how realistic practical effects can look if they're done right. (If done correctly might sound better)

       Release, Reception & Legacy

The film released August 21st, 1981 in the US making $62 million dollars globally compared to it's $5.8 million dollar budget, $30 million of which came from the US. The film received generally positive reception with an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a more mixed 55 out of 100 on Metacritic. 

The film would find its audience on home video, being regarded as a cult classic that is continually growing in popularity year after year. (With continually growing popularity or some variant might sound better.) The film was also the very first film to win an Academy Award for Best Makeup and at the Saturn Awards in 1982, and the film was also very influential and inspired many filmmakers after its release in 1981. (This sentence could be restructured a bit)

One of the biggest examples of this influence can be found in Director Edgar Wright who directed Shaun of the Dead, a smash hit Horror/Comedy film from 2004, cited the film as a huge influence for him and the way he makes films. (This sentence could be re-worked) Another example of the films influence on the horror genre is the slew of Horror/Comedies that came after the films release in 1981 (Beetlejuice, Gremlins, Evil Dead 2, as examples), which all took inspiration from An American Werewolf In London's unique blend of Horror and Comedy elements, which to this day haven’t been bested.

 My Introduction to the film and the impact it had on me 

I was introduced to this film when I was 6 years old and just getting into horror movies, which was thanks to my grandmother. I went to a local rental store(when those were a thing) called Movies To Go and I saw the box art for the VHS release of it and I thought to myself "Ooh what's this?" And I saw the title, look at the pictures on the back of the box and I was intrigued by it so I rented it immediately. 

When I got home that day I immediately ran to my room, put the tape in my VCR, plopped down into my chair and I was immediately hypnotized by this film. The soundtrack, the locations, the characters that are unique and interesting in their own ways, the atmosphere and the tension that is beautifully executed in every single scene, the effects blew my six year old mind, the design of the Werewolf itself terrified me and made me have nightmares for a couple of weeks after I had seen the film (no joke that actually happened) and most importantly, its impact on me. Its impact on me  is like no horror movie or since. This film solidified my love for Horror as a genre, it solidified my obsession with Werewolves and the mythology of these fascinating creatures, and it also made me want to get into filmmaking at some point (which I still want to do before I die).

I'll be honest with you, if I wasn't introduced to An American Werewolf In London I probably wouldn't be as big of a fan of the Horror genre as I am today, and I'm eternally grateful to John Landis for sticking with this crazy idea he had for all those years and finally getting it onto the big screen.

             Rolling the credits 

In closing I just want to say that if you haven't seen this film, I highly suggest you go watch it. Because you can truly see the passion that John Landis had for this wild, crazy idea that he hatched in his late teens just jump out at you in every single scene. It's been 40 years since this film came out (which is FUCKING WILD to me) and it's still making just as big of an impact today as it did back then. If you've made it to this point, I just want to say thank you!! If you enjoyed this issue, please share it around and I hope you look forward to the next issue of The Chronicles of The Mad Cinephile! 

And remember...Beware the Moon lads. Keep clear of the Moors.

If you want to see the movie, here's a link to purchase it on Amazon:

Read More

#ReleaseTheCravenCut: The Story of Wes Craven's Werewolf Film and the Hellish Production of it

The 2000's were a unique time in Horror history. From remakes of films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday The 13th and The Ring (which is an American remake of a Japanese film called Ringu) to sequels in successful franchises like Freddy vs Jason, Hellraiser Inferno and Scream 3 to even original concepts such as Saw, Hostel and Cabin Fever, it seemed like there was a wide variety of horror goodness to consume back in those days.

Not much can be said for the werewolf subgenre however, as this subgenre didn't get a whole lot of love during this time. Vampires and Zombies on the other hand?? A LOT of love during this time both from major studios and indie filmmakers. Werewolf movies during this time were mostly indie films, with a few big studio films to boot. One of these films being Cursed, A werewolf movie from 2005 that would DEFINITELY live up to that name...and I'm about to tell you why.

Announcement and Hype

Cursed was first announced in October of 2002 by Miramax, and Bob Weinstein (one of the infamous Weinstein brothers) said that Cursed was "Going to reinvent the werewolf genre" when it released in the fall of 2003. Weinstein then went on to announce that Wes Craven of Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream fame was set to direct the film with Kevin Williamson (who wrote Scream 1 and 2) set to write the script and Rick Baker of An American Werewolf In London fame set to do the special effects for the film. The cast at the time consisted of Christina Ricci, Jesse Eisenburg, Judy Greer, Scott Baio, Skeet Ulrich, Omar Epps, Mandy Moore, Robert Forrester, and Heather Langenkamp, among others.

It felt like Weinstein had just assembled an Avengers-esque cast and crew to make this film into exactly what he said it was going to be and as you can imagine, hype was building. The hype for this film at the time was off the charts and for damn good reason too considering the crew that had been assembled.

Numerous articles being written and word of mouth spreading like wildfire set this film up to be one of if not THE most anticipated horror film of 2003. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?? You have an established director that has had success in this genre before, a writer that knew exactly what he was doing, a star studded cast AND you have by far THE best special effects guy for a film like this. But as you're about to find out, not all things that seem good on paper actually work out to be as good as they seem.

Now Entering Hell...enjoy your extended stay!

In early 2003 production began on Cursed, and all seemed to be going well at the time. Wes and the crew had shot and filmed 90% of the film and was getting ready to shoot the ending...when Bob Weinstein stepped in. Right before they could film the ending for the original cut of the film, Bob Weinstein came in, shut the production down, and mandated that script be rewritten and the film be re-shot. This halt in production caused Rick Baker to leave the production and his effects were replaced by a company called KNB.

The cast had also been shifted around as Skeet Ulrich, Heather Langenkamp, Omar Epps, Robert Forrester, and Mandy Moore among others were all replaced. Scott Baio, Judy Greer, Christina Ricci, and Jesse Eisenburg are the only cast members who survived the entire length of the production. So after going and rewriting the script and doing all of the reshoots that Bob mandated, ending included this time, Wes showed it to Mr. Weinstein to get his approval and to no one's surprise...he mandated EVEN MORE reshoots and rewrites, essentially giving Wes and the crew the middle finger...much like the werewolf you see above (yes that is an actual scene in the movie).

The reason for this is mainly because Mr. Weinstein felt that the ending was "too bleak" and he felt that some of the plot points didn't make sense to him so Wes and the crew went to work and did all of the reshoots that Bob wanted. Remember when I said earlier that Rick Baker and his special effects were replaced?? KNB had effects of their own that they wanted to use, which is fine so as a result, hardly any of Rick's effects were used in the film but do you want to know what Miramax and the Weinsteins did? They committed three cardinal sins in my opinion: 1. They gave Rick Baker ALL of the credit for KNB's work in the opening credits of the movie. 2. They replaced ALL of KNB's practical effects with CGI effects that look like they were ripped put of a cutscene in a late PS1 video game...in the middle of the PS2's life cycle, and it's aged like 17 year old milk that someone left out in the sun and 3. They went and cut all of the blood and gore out of the film so that it could get a PG-13 rating because Weinstein wanted to "appeal to a broader audience".

By the end of production, the film had been worked on for a grand total of two and a half years from announcement to the end of production when it was originally supposed to be a couple of weeks or so. Wes Craven originally signed on for this film because the plug got pulled on the film he originally wanted to do, which was a remake of Pulse, a movie that originally released in Japan in 2001 under the name Kairo. Wes ended up working for DOUBLE the amount of the fee that he originally signed on for, and he said that he could've made 4 films in the time that it took to make Cursed.

According to a man by the name of Patrick Lussier, who was the editor for this film and frequently collaborated with Craven, said in an interview with YouTuber Pizowell that this was a film that no one wanted to make and as sad as it is to admit...I can tell. This movie can be summed up in three words: Hot. Mangled. Mess. 

The reason as to why I say that is because you can tell while watching the movie that this film takes a bunch of different footage of the same film and just stitches it all together in hopes that no one will notice. If Wes and Kevin truly cared about this movie, they would've either fought harder for the original cut, or they would've just found a sneaky way to get the original cut out instead of the cut that we got.

Release, Reception and Rolling The Credits

Cursed was released on February 25th, 2005 and was slammed by fans and critics alike. Reasons being the stitched together nature of the sory, tropes that everyone had seen a million times over being reused and the fact that the effects were so terrible and there wasn't any gore at all in the theatrical cut. 

This film is a perfect example of what NOT TO DO if you're a studio that's working with a master of Horror like Wes Craven. Have faith in your directors and let them tell the stories that they want to tell through the medium. And if you see this post and you want to see the original cut of the film, let's see if we can't get #ReleaseTheCravenCut trending again.

Also if you want to read the original version of the script, click right here and go to the download link in the article! I hope you enjoyed reading this and if you did, be sure to share it around. Also, have you seen Cursed?? If you have, what did you think of the film?? Let me know in the comments. That's it for this first issue of The Chronicles of The Mad Cinephile and I'll see you in the next issue!

Read More