Ghost (1990)

Running Time: 2 Hours 05 mins
Genre: Drama/Thriller/Romance
Estimated Budget: $22, 000,000
Estimated Gross (worldwide): $507, 600,000
Awards: Oscar - Best Supporting Actress - Whoopi Goldberg, Best Writing - Screenplay

Director: Jerry Zucker
Writer: Bruce Joel Rubin
Stars: Patrick Swayze, Demi Moore, Whoopi Goldberg

My Rating: 9/10

For as long as I can remember Ghost has been in my top 10 films. I have fond memories of watching it repeatedly, though I was drastically too young to see such a violent film, but now I can look back and laugh at the years of nightmares its antagonists gave me. Ghost is considered a chick flick; one for the girls with a glass of wine and a box of tissues - true it is that but there is so much more to it.

From the ominous blast of music introducing the title you know this is not going to be sunshine and rainbows, through the opening scenes establishing the characters there is already a sense of foreboding; whilst we watch this happy young couple starting their life together in a great New York apartment. There are definite hints of something on the horizon in the dialogue, which only adds to the build up the audience is straining under. OK so it's not hard to guess what's coming, I mean it's in the title but the hows and why's are what make up this movie and make it so much more than just a chick flick.

Sam Wheat (Swayze) and Molly Jensen (Moore) are a happy couple moving in together and getting ready to start the rest of their lives until Sam is killed in a mugging gone wrong. But unbeknownst to the grieving Molly, Sam is still hanging around, he has not crossed over to the other side due to a desire to know why he was killed. When he discovers he was murdered in a premeditated attack and Molly is in danger he enlists the help of Oda Mae Brown (Goldberg) a scamming psychic who is distressed to learn she can hear him, to communicate to Molly for him. Through sheer love and perseverance Sam is able to reaffirm his love for Molly and settle his unfinished business.

So the reason most people (mostly men, sorry) think Ghost is a soppy romance is obviously due to one scene. The famous pottery sequence precedes the film; it has taken on a life of its own in skits and re imaginings, but it is not as bad as it is made out to be. It may be slightly cringey but the reasoning behind it is fundamental, it is used to show the fun light heartedness and more importantly closeness of Sam and Molly. The song played here has also reached great heights of infamy in relation to the film; Unchained Melody performed by the Righteous Brothers was actually released 25 years before in 1965 but was re-introduced to a legion of new fans through its use in Ghost's most recognized scene.

The score notably the love theme is introduced very early on in the movie and establishes a great tone for the relationship of Sam and Molly and its great depth. Created by Maurice Jarre it is one of the most beautiful and sentimental pieces of film music, full of longing and passion it is an unforgettable element of the picture and undeniably one of the main reasons you require a box of tissues close by. Saying that his more sinister pieces are menacing; summing up entirely the danger and threatening situations on screen and may I say for a 9 year old are truly frightening.

However I think people forget that this is not just a great love story but a tense and rather frightening drama, Swayze's performance as Sam is one of the greatest he delivered. Director Jerry Zucker has said that Patrick did not require dialogue in a scene to portray the message he could say it all with his eyes. His death scene is very underrated he portrays a convincing confusion and panic at being ripped so suddenly and violently from his body as can only be imagined. The strange dream sequence which I have always found perplexing is a manifestation of that confusion, integrating a collage of images and fantasy until Sam realises he has died.

This all happens so quickly that we are as unsettled as Sam in his new situation, we see this new existence through Sam's eyes; we learn to adapt as he does to all the bewildering things that come from being a ghost that has remained with the living. For instance a memorable scene involves someone walking through Sam, we see what is supposed to be the inside of a body, this is perhaps unnecessary to the plot but successfully portrays the repellent feeling that it gives to Sam who is wholly unused to his less than solid form. Demi Moore often forgotten amongst Swayze and Goldberg gives a solid performance, realistic in its approach of a woman not only grieving but thrown into circumstances she cannot begin to understand or wholly believe. Her Molly is the every woman if you will, the most relate-able character in the film and going through something we all have, or will go through; the loss of a loved one.

At the other end of the scale was the casting of Whoopie Goldberg as Oda Mae Brown, the fraud medium. This was genius casting and all down to Patrick Swayze who recommended and fought for her to get the role, they remained friends until his death in 2009. Goldberg displays her best comedic talents in Ghost and has impeccable timing. She is making money scamming grieving families pretending she can contact the deceased, as a fake it comes as a big shock to learn she can hear Sam. Goldberg gives the film something it needed to be as successful as it has managed to be, she gives the seriousness of the drama a light edge, a humour that relieves the tension. After all in all the worst situations there is usually both tears and laughter, the mix is what I believe makes the film stand up today. She steals every scene (watch out for the visit to the bank) and well deserved her Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress.

The supporting cast in the movie are also very memorable especially for me personally, Vincent Schiavelli's subway ghost. The set pieces are what keeps the film interesting and his fascinating character is one of the most entertaining. He teaches Sam how to control what little impact he can make in the living world. His own limited back story shrouds him in mystery but what is hinted at is very troubling and begins to explain his temperament. I Personally think his last jump back to his train mirrors what he probably did to end his life. Tony Goldwyn as Sam's friend Carl is also very affecting in the role, his character is very complex and required a multitude of feelings and actions to be explored throughout, Goldwyn is perfect in the part.

The effects used in the film now seem rather rough, but they are nevertheless still effective, the angles Zucker uses when Sam is in the presence of another person is very clever, it almost looks like he is not quite in the same place as if the living are divided from him. Light is very important to the film, good and evil is represented in the basic forms of light and shadows. The light that represents heaven/the something after  is very subtle, not corny just enough that we know what it is. On the other end of the spectrum are the creepy shadows that represent Hell, that and the sound effect used create such an effective response in audiences. One of the things I love about movies comes from repeated viewings; things only noticeable through watching the film multiple times. Ghost is littered with subtle but meaningful details. For instance how Molly wears only Sam's clothes and his ring throughout the film from the time of his death, another emphasis on the theme of not letting go.

Ghost is a film that reminds you how important relationships are, not only that but communication in those relationships, making it count while you can is a big theme. Also that despite the physical loss of a loved one they are never really gone. It was the highest grossing film of 1990 so it can't be that bad, take my advice give it a try and leave your cynicism at the door, you never know you might view it with a whole new perspective.

The Woman in Black (2012)

Running Time: 1 Hour 35 mins
Genre: Horror/Thriller
Estimated Budget: $17, 000,000
Estimated Gross: $127, 730,736 

Director: James Watkins
Writer: Susan Hill (Novel) Jane Goldman (Screenplay)
Stars: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer

My Rating: 8/10

Hammer, the studio synonymous with Horror in the 1950's and 60's with classics like The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Horror of Dracula (1958) and countless more opened its doors again to terrify a whole new generation of audiences. It's chosen subject; The Woman in Black a novella written by author Susan Hill in 1983 well known for scaring multitudes of readers with its ghostly subject matter. If that wasn't enough for curious cinema-goers already intrigued, it happened to be the first post-Potter film for Daniel Radcliffe and this had people turning out in droves to see if the film would triumph or sink.

The Woman in Black novella is a chilling read, I recommend no solitary reading and daylight is essential, read after dark at your own risk. It has been written in the style of a traditional Gothic Horror piece and certainly delivers. The movie has been adapted by Jane Goldman who has previous success with screenplays for Starust (2007), Kick Ass (2010) and  X-Men: First Class (2011). There are small changes made but the premise remains the same. A young father and widower Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is sent by his London firm to order the affairs and paperwork for the selling of Eel Marsh House an estate in a small country village. On the train he befriends a native of the village Sam Daily, but on his arrival at the inn he is staying at he receives a very cold reception. Everyone he meets in the town is hostile and weary of his presence there is obviously more going on here than meets the eye; a town secret they intend to keep. Nobody seems keen on Kipps getting to Eel Marsh house, but determined he pays to be taken across the remote causeway that cuts the estate off from the rest of the world by a changing tide and dangerous marsh land.

The house itself is in a state of disrepair, depressing and haunting it's isolation makes it an ominous place to be left alone. Once inside Arthur starts his work only to be stopped by noises around the house, looking out of the window he sees the figure of a woman completely in black in the grounds, when he looks back she has disappeared. He goes outside and hears voices in distress out in the mist of the causeway, searching he sees nothing until suddenly his driver appears through the fog. The longer Arthur stays in the town the more distressed the villagers become and tragic things begin to occur. The death of a child seems to confirm everyone's worst fears but Kipps is still fairly in the dark about the house and it's inhabitant.

He finally learns about the woman in black, Jennet, a mother mentally unstable and unable to take care of her son, when her relatives take the boy and he suddenly dies in the marsh she kills herself and vows to seek vengeance. Her victims; the children of the residents, whenever she is seen. Her child was taken from her so she will take the children of others. It is now clear why the town were so adamant against Arthur's coming, they knew that he would glimpse the ghostly vision and one of their children would die a violent death. Through a spiritual drawing Arthur is given a haunting message; the woman is after his son. Arthur tries to send a message to his son's nanny who is bringing him on the train reuniting him with his father for a weekend holiday. However the telegram office has been destroyed in a fire, Arthur has only one choice; try and rid Eel Marsh house of the woman haunting it. With the help of Sam he discovers Jennet's son's body and reunites him with his mother. He thinks this will give her closure and she will rest in peace, he is however, mistaken. She never forgives and she will never forget.

Daniel Radcliffe is surprisingly good as Arthur Kipps, there is no hint of the bespectacled boy wizard and he is thoroughly believable as a young dad. More impressive though was his portrayal of loss and dealing with that pain. He is a man not dealing with his grief but drowning in it, he is not with the living but stuck in a past that he cannot get back to, this is painfully apparent to his young four year old son, who can see quite clearly his father's distance and unhappiness. This link to death already for the young father is I feel what keeps him in the house despite what he knows and sees of the violent occupant; a morbid curiosity about life after death. The supporting cast; mainly Ciaran Hinds and Janet McTeer as the Daily's; a couple in a state of grief and denial over the loss of their own child years before and dealing with Mrs Daily's fragile state of mind, are vital to the realism and believability of the film. They are fundamental to creating the world that the audience are visiting, with horror especially it is important to believe the characters are real and down to earth. Without that you cannot invest in them, and if you don't care about the characters the scares lose their edge.

The cinematography, lighting and set design in particular remind me very much of another great British horror film; The Innocents (1961)  Like that film the look of this feature is so important to the atmosphere which is being created, it is obvious the film-makers were incredibly thorough and detailed in this department. The sets where so gothic and period dressed that you immediately feel you have been transported to that Victorian era. The lighting here is critical to creating the best scares, however they are not that obvious in design. Like The Innocents a lot of the structure of the film is the build of tension and suspence in the audience; administering the thrills only when least expected. There are numerous dark over the shoulder shots, where you assume something is going to appear, but cleverly director Watkins chooses these moments to simply build the suspense, leaving the audience to simmer over a scare that is overdrawn in its appearance. Suddenly when you least expect it, the scare is delivered. This technique is used to great success throughout.

An integral part of any horror picture is the music and with The Woman in Black there is no exception, the tone is chilling, ghostly children's music boxes added to an eerie score. This sets the mood for the entire film, this is so important for horror films especially. You can experiment with any horror film; watch a normally terrifying scene without the sound and see the difference it has on you. It falls flat, proving that the image is nothing without the sound that accompanies it. Even in the silent era it was never truly silent; there was always a small orchestra or piano accompanying the film.

There is a bitter-sweet ending to The Woman in Black without giving anything away, it is a shock for those expecting a resolved ending. However I think the final scene is acceptable due the protagonists disposition from the beginning. On the other hand in today's modern, franchise world the studio was naturally hoping for a hit so they could expand the story, there are many places to go with this supernatural tale. As proved by The Woman in Black: Angel of Death the anticipated sequel due in theatres February 2015. Set 40 years later during world war 2 Eel Marsh house sees a collection of evacuated children take up residence and unfortunately wake up the spectre who never left.

Whatever you may have heard, The Woman in Black is a very effective horror film, creating an entertaining and thrilling atmosphere. If this is what we can expect from a revitalised Hammer Studios then we are in for some exciting treats.

The Innocents (1961)

Running Time: 1 Hour 40 mins

Genre: Horror

Awards: Nominated for a BAFTA for Best British Film

Director: Jack Clayton

Writer: Henry James (Novel) William Archibald, Truman Capote (Screenplay)

Stars: Deborah Kerr, Peter Wyngarde, Megs Jenkins

My Rating: 9/10

I have been a fan of Deborah Kerr for many years, I greatly admire her work and The Innocents has long been one of my favourite in her catalogue of stunning performances (Kerr also regarded it as her finest performance). I had the pleasure to re-watch this film and enjoy again the superb acting, lighting, sound and dialogue that, put together, makes this film a classic.

The Innocents is loosely based on The Turn of the Screw by Henry James and was directed by Jack Clayton. It stars Deborah Kerr as Miss Giddens who takes up the post of governess to two children in the country. All is not right in the house and she soon begins to suspect that both the grounds and the children themselves are being haunted by previous staff members who have died at the house.  The Innocents has an unusual start, there is a black screen that holds for several seconds and a child’s voice begins to sing an eerie tune, this becomes a theme throughout the picture. This then passes and the Twentieth Century Fox Sign fades on and off the screen. People running the projection actually thought this was a mistake left on the film and often cut the song from the beginning of the picture. The credits begin in front of a black background along the right side of the screen and we see a pair of hands in prayer and begging alongside on the left amid sobs and moans. The camera then pulls back to reveal Kerr’s face; eyes closed, head facing the sky. An atmosphere has been created without a single word being uttered. There is a disturbing mood in place and the audience is pulled in immediately.

 Deborah Kerr’s Miss Giddens basically adopts the two children Miles (Martin Stephens) and Flora (Pamela Franklin) when their bachelor uncle hires her. She immediately feels a sense of duty and is bound to the children and this is only strengthened with time. Fairly early into her employment Miss Giddens begins to see things, unsure if it is her imagination she brushes it off at first, but the audience is convinced and are waiting for her to join us in our realization that something is very wrong in this house.

                           

The performances given by Stephens and Franklin are beyond what could be expected of children so young, there is so much meaning and subtlety to their performances. We truly believe along with Kerr’s character that there is something unwholesome about them. At first she is nothing short of thrilled at their charm and amiability but we are told of Miles expulsion from school before he arrives and this fact alone is very strange. There is something sinister about Miles and there is always a look of doubt in Giddens eyes when they are together. He is old before his time, he calls her my dear but it is no term of endearment, it comes across as patronizing, as if he were the one talking to a child. There is an extremely controversial kiss on the lips, but this is no child’s kiss it is mature and sexual; there were thoughts of cutting it from the film. This thankfully was decided against, it is a shocking moment, uncomfortable and indecent; it only adds to the awareness that the governess has about the corruption surrounding and enveloping her charges. She can’t know exactly what is really going on behind those old eyes but she is not convinced with his act and neither are we.

It is not long after Kerr begins to see apparitions in the grounds and house, the housekeeper simple and kind and with a continuous look of holding something back, reveals that the masters old valet died on the steps of the house and the previous governess who was in love with him killed herself in the lake. Miss Giddens was growing weary already and with this revelation her attitude to both the house and the children shifts; she becomes distracted by the thought of these malevolent spirits wondering around. She becomes convinced that they are linked to the children, after hearing worrying stories about the connection between the valet and Miles and the governess and Flora. There are hints throughout the film that the children are not as innocent as they seem and they appear to be linked not just in body but in mind; Flora has a premonition that Miles is coming home before the letter even arrives confirming it. The audience is almost in certain agreement with Miss Giddens that these children are communicating with the dead and are perhaps even as far as being possessed by them so they can be together again.                   

                        

What is clever about this film, is the more the past is revealed and the more Kerr comes to understand what is happening in the house, the more she seems to be the one becoming unhinged. It is such an ingenious performance, we have distrusted the children from the beginning but suddenly for a split second we doubt ourselves. These children are playing mindless games with the dead lovers against the governess and it is only her love of the children that powers her determination to save them and keep her horror at bay. This is a film shrouded in suspicion and doubt, the scares are very subtle no big shocks needed here, the acting is enough to unsettle anyone; incredibly ominous there is a definite macabre created for this film with its Victorian setting very important to the atmosphere. The tone is really created not with any conventional horror tricks and jumps but with dialogue. There are double meanings to many of the conversations and predicting what is really being said is what makes the film so intriguing. The film benefits completely from being in black and white, there are so many beautiful shots in the picture; the effort that has gone into the lighting alone is mind-blowing.

The film would not have been the same without the black and white format used; cinematographer Freddie Francis used so many lights on the set, Deborah Kerr reportedly wore sunglasses in-between takes and he was jokingly accused of trying to burn down Shepperton Studios. But without this lighting The Innocents would be entirely different film, it creates a mood so ghoulish that there is no need to shock the audience into being horrified, it is a feeling they keep with them from the moment the theme starts until they leave their seats at the end of the movie.

The horror is created with sound effects as well as lighting, these effects become clearer and louder the further into the film we get they build into a crescendo as the threat grows larger. The elements themselves (wind and rain) seem to be in on it and help to create one of the greatest psychological thrillers Britain ever produced. For any film fan this is a must-see, if your a fan of Horror, British Film-making, Deborah Kerr or simply a classic from a great period of cinema this is one for your collection.

Top 10 Animated Films

When people think of animation the first thing that immediately comes to mind is Disney and Pixar, the dominant studios in the industry. But there are many other studios who are hot on their heels in recent years, turning out great features that both children and adults can enjoy. So lets not forget the likes of Dreamworks, Aardman, Ghibli and many more.

10 - Cloudy with a chance of Meatballs (2009)

Running Time: 1 Hour 30 mins
Genre: Animation/Comedy/Family
Director: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller
Stars: Anna Faris, Bill Hader, Bruce Campbell

A loud and buzzing film with a great concept; a rather useless scientist. But in trying to create a machine that turns water into food he accidentally sends his invention into the atmosphere. The results; it literally rains food, hence the title. A fun, colourful film with a recognisable voice cast this was a great success on release. It has also since rendered a sequel in which the food in their town has taken on a life of its own with food-animals such as tacodiles and shrimpanzees.

09 - How to Train Your Dragon (2010)

Running Time: 1 Hour 35 mins
Genre: Animation/Adventure/Fantasy
Director: Dean DeBlois, Chris Sanders
Stars: Jay Baruchel, Gerard Butler, Christopher Mintz-Plasse

A surprisingly huge hit for Dreamworks, HTTYD was not a film I was enthusiastic to see, and I didn't for a few years. However when the moment struck me to finally watch it I thoroughly enjoyed the excitement and the heart that fills this film. Set in the Viking era Hiccup is the son of the Viking leader but he just doesn't fit in with their violent dragon killing ways. When he sets out to prove he can kill one he ends up finding his soul mate. Toothless is a rare breed and it becomes Hiccups task to train him and teach his people that dragons do not need to be feared. A great movie for the whole family.

08 - The Croods (2013)

Running Time: 1 Hour 35 mins
Genre: Animation/Comedy/Family
Director: Kirk De Micco
Stars: Nicolas Cage, Emma Stone, Ryan Reynolds

I'm not ashamed to say this animated movie made me cry. Most animated movies today deal with very real and deep subjects in this case it is father daughter relationships and the issues with growing up and letting go. All set hilariously within a family of cavemen, with an all star voice cast this film is packed with jokes, the most successful those integrating modern world jokes into this primitive setting. Great animation, fantastic colour palette, delightfully funny and a compelling story this is a great animation from Dreamworks, again proving that not only Disney and Pixar can make animation movies.

07 - Howls Moving Castle (2004)

Running Time: 2 Hours
Genre: Animation/Fantasy/Family
Director: Hayao Miyazaki
Stars: Christian Bale, Jean Simmons, Emily Mortimer

Not considered the best, but definitely my favourite from the Studio Ghibli cannon. This fantastical story centres on a young girl called Sophie who has an ageing spell cast on her, she seeks out a young Wizard named Howl who is her only hope to break the spell. She finds him in his moving house (the image to the left) and becomes part of the unconventional family living there. Quirky and filled to the brim with the strange and magical, it is hard not to enjoy this movie from the genius Hayao Miyazaki.



06 - Coraline (2009)

Running Time: 1 Hour 40 mins
Genre: Animation/Fantasy/Mystery
Director: Henry Selick
Stars: Dakota Fanning, Teri Hatcher, John Hodgman

Coraline is a vivid, imaginative tale from the unmistakeable talent found at Laika Entertainment Studio. Dakota Fanning voices the title character of a young girl who has just moved into an old dingy apartment house. She is frustrated with her boring life and the lack of attention or intimacy she gets from her parents. When she discovers another identical world behind a door in her living room, and finds another mother and father who lavish her with treats and attention she is tempted to leave one world for the other. However all is not as it seems, the buttons for eyes should be a clue all is not right.

05 - The Polar Express (2004)

Running Time: 1 Hour 40 mins
Genre: Animation/Family/Fantasy
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Stars: Tom Hanks, Chris Coppola, Michael Jeter

The Polar Express is one of those movies that just makes you feel warm inside. Our protagonist a young boy doubting the existence of Christmas boards a magical train on Christmas Eve bound for the North Pole and a meeting with Santa. Through a action packed adventure getting there and then a captivating exploration of the North Pole this is a great Christmas movie for the kids (and fun-loving adults). Displaying perfect motion-capture techniques we get to see one of our best loved movie stars Tom Hanks in a selection of roles. Christmas, animation, Tom Hanks; what more could you want.

04 - Despicable Me (2010)

Running Time: 1 Hour 35 mins
Genre: Animation/Comedy/Family
Director: Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud
Stars: Steve Carell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand

A major success when it was released it has now spawned a sequel and a spin off due for release 2015. One of the greatest premises for an animation in years. Gru (Steve Carell) is your stereotypical evil villain, except he isn't very good at it. Everything changes when he gets involved with three orphaned girls who through their sheer personality and dependence on him, change him for the better. This is a great film, one that adults can easily sit through without falling asleep. With a perfect voice cast it is incredibly funny and introduced the world to minions (who can imagine one without them).


03 - The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

Running Time: 1 Hour 25 mins
Genre: Animation/Family/Fantasy
Director: Henry Selick
Stars: Danny Elfman, Chris Sarandon, Catherine O'Hara

This has been a favourite of mine since a very young age, I have always been drawn towards the gothic. It also happens to meld two of my favourite things; Christmas and Halloween. Jack Skellington is king of Halloweentown but he is feeling bored and depressed. On discovering Christmastown he decides that this year he will take over the beloved holiday. Unfortunately he doesn't quite get the idea and his scary presents are not to peoples liking. Awesome film, great songs and the animation is superb.

02 - The Snowman (1982)

Running Time: 26 mins
Genre: Animation/Short
Director: Dianne Jackson, Jimmy T. Murakami
Stars: (Aled Jones singing - in the original)

As a person of tradition and sentiment, I get a lot of joy from watching The Snowman at Christmas every year. The style in which it has been made makes it look like the drawings are magically coming to life on the page. Without any dialogue apart from an introduction from Father Christmas himself, this short animation is all the better for it. Simple and effecting with great charm and innocence, the inclusion of the now infamous christmas staple 'Walking in the Air' makes this a must see. I can't imagine not watching this one at least once in December.

01 - Shrek (2001)

Running Time: 1 Hour 30 mins
Genre: Animation/Comedy/Adventure
Director: Andrew Adamson, Vicky Jenson
Stars: Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz

With Shrek, animation was given a modern kick, with the use of so many familiar star voices and a fresh vibrant comedic script incorporating pop culture, there was little chance this could fail. Shrek is an ogre who's peaceful swamp is disturbed by fairytale creatures. To return it to it's previous state he agrees to go on a quest to rescue a princess from a dragon. This goes more or less to plan, with the help and hindrance of a talking donkey (Eddie Murphy's best role in years) however he didn't plan on falling in love with the Princess in the process. Action packed and hilarious you can't not like Shrek, I challenge you.


So if you're wondering how to spend a rainy afternoon or you fancy something a little lighter and brighter than your dramas and thrillers then these are the perfect collection of animated films to fill your day with. Enjoy.

Special Feature: Horror

Horror films are probably the most suited to being displayed in the dark rooms of spacious theatres and big screens with surround sound. A horror film uses these elements to epic success to scare the audience; since the dawn of the film industry horror films have been a successful genre, scaring people out of their wits from decade to decade. Horror seems to be so much in demand that in the last decade Hollywood has taken to remaking all the classics that we have grown up with. I've decided to take a look at the horror genre in all its glory.

 

Lon Chaney’s iconic horror characters from The Phantom of the Opera (1925), London after Midnight (1927) and The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

The horror genre really began in the 1920’s in the heart of the Hollywood studios. The godfather of horror pictures is ‘The Man of a Thousand Faces’ Lon Chaney, his characters were so memorable they are still recognised today. His portrayal of the phantom and his reveal in the silent classic The Phantom of the Opera (1925) is considered the first true horror moment. What made Chaney so impressive was not only that he could completely disappear into a part and look nothing like his true image, but that he did all the make-up himself. If it were not for Lon Chaney in the early 1920’s we would not have the classic horror films and monsters that we are so accustomed to today.

Universal Studios were at the helm of horror and developing it into a real genre. Carl Laemmle Jr. the son and partner of the Universal head had many ideas to push the success of this new kind of film. In 1931 he released Dracula to great success, Tod Browning directed Bela Lugosi the Hungarian actor cast in the role of the count. He made it entirely his own and is the image that most Dracula’s have drawn from ever since. Lugosi was even buried in his Dracula cloak. The same year Laemmle hired James Whale the eccentric English Director to helm the adaptation of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein (1931). He worked with the genius make-up man Jack P. Pierce to transform a little known English actor Boris Karloff into the monster creation. Frankenstein was a huge hit and Universal knew they had found a magic formula; audiences wanted to be scared, and they loved monsters. This lead to a slew of monster pictures and to this day Universal monsters are beloved around the world. The Mummy (1932) and The Wolf Man (1941) came next in the line of success, the first played again by Boris Karloff and the latter by none other than Lon Chaney Jr. son of the great horror actor. Sequels followed naturally, the best being The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) widely considered superior to the first. Universal made many of these films to great success in the 1930’s like The Old Dark House (1932), The Black Cat (1934) and The Invisible Man (1933). But the sequels became predictable and boring with ridiculous titles and even more ridiculous plots. They tried to mix popular monsters together in titles like Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943) and even hired popular comedians of the day Abbott and Costello to take on their monsters. But as the decade slipped by and the 1950’s arrived horror was failing rapidly. There were some stand outs like It came from out of Space (1953) and Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) but for the moment the genre had become clichéd and laughable, horror it seemed was dead.

For almost a decade Hollywood forgot about Horror, the industry was changing and horror seemed to be a part of the old days; no longer popular or financially stable. That did not mean everyone had forgotten about it, at Bray Studios in England Hammer films found that America might have had enough of Horror films but Brits were ready for more. Beginning with the slightly more Sci-Fi film The Quatermass Experiment (1955) hammer recreated the classic monsters for a new generation along with the helping hand of their new find Christopher Lee who has since gone on to have an incredibly long and diverse career. Along with Lee was an actor who became a horror staple, both actors becoming the equivalent of Lugosi and Karloff at Universal, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee are now forever linked with the horror genre. The most impressive of the collection are of course the most famous of the monsters The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) with Cushing on board as Dr Frankenstein and Lee his creature. Then came Horror of Dracula (1958) with Lee being promoted to star as Dracula himself and Cushing as Van Helsing.

Inspired by Hammers success was the man who became one of the most famous independent producers in the industry. Roger Corman created a series of films between 1960 and 1964 based on gothic stories from Edgar Allan Poe. He used another English actor who will always be remembered for his work in the horror genre, even being asked personally to narrate the speech at the beginning of Michael Jackson’s hit song Thriller. Vincent Price had great success with House of Usher (1960), The Pit and the Pendulum (1961), The Masque of the Red Death (1964) and many more.  British horror was beginning to follow a similar pattern; cheap films with mediocre scares and over acted performances. That was until the most famous of directors turned the genre on its head. Alfred Hitchcock was looking for a new script; he found the book Psycho about the famous serial killer Ed Gein and decided this would be his next film project. What he ended up with was a film unlike any he or the industry had ever made before. Anyone who hasn't seen Psycho (1960) is missing out; it was Hitchcock’s most successful movie and left audiences screaming and running for the exits.Psycho did wonders for the horror genre; it showed film-makers that there could be realism and serious drama in these films. Hollywood rediscovered the horror genre and unlike the independent studios they had money to burn. Films like Night of the Living Dead (1968) introduced the world to zombies without a hint of humour, they were a serious threat. Rosemary’s Baby (1968) was the first American film from European director Roman Polanski; his star Mia Farrow plays a woman who moves in next door to Satanists who decide she is the perfect host to have the devils baby. The Innocents (1961), an excellent British feature, focuses more on the supernatural, but it is played just as straight, if not more so as those listed above. Hollywood had found a new formula for horror movies; play it straight, give them realism - or as realistic as you can get within the horror genre.

As the 1970’s arrived Hollywood delivered more and more impressive examples of how to best scare an audience. This decade probably gave birth to the most memorable and classic of the horror model. William Friedkin’s The Exorcist (1973) being the best of these, it stars Ellen Burstyn as the mother of a young girl (Linda Blair) who is possessed by the devil. The film was so realistic it terrified audiences out of cinemas and was banned in many countries (including the UK until 1990), yet it was the first horror film to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best . 

Along similar lines, and almost as frightening was Richard Donner’s The Omen (1976) with Gregory Peck as a politician who learns to his terror that his son is the antichrist. This seemed to be an era of films with superb performances from

terrifying children, delivering horrific scenes the like audiences had never seen before. It was this loss of innocence that I feel makes these films so dramatically lucrative. Breaking the mould was Toby Hooper’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) another film based on the life of serial killer Ed Gein but in much more depth and gory detail than Psycho. Brian De Palma’s Carrie about a young girl repressed and bullied both at school and home and discovers she is telekinetic almost isn’t a horror film at all, directors added more social elements and dimensions to their movies, it was obvious that money was being put into a significant budget, scripts were being drafted carefully and because of this noteworthy actors were taking notice. The 70’s developed horror films of a much higher quality than ever before and the box office only proved this.

Halloween (1978) was a new breed, proving that the genre could be developed and pushed further in every sense. Halloween ushered in the serial killer movie or slasher movie as many became, it welcomed in the 80’s and the horror franchise. John Carpenter created a memorable horror villain in Michael Myers, one who audiences wanted to see more of. Most importantly he made it cheaply; this was a movie that was filmed on a miniscule budget but reaped huge rewards at the box office. Studios took notice and tried to recreate this little miracle, there were a lot of failed attempts but some did strike gold. Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) introduced audiences to the pizza faced Freddy Krueger as a paedophile serial killer killed by parents but comes back to haunt and murder teenagers in their dreams. This premise was so popular with audiences that the franchise has produced seven sequels and a reboot of the original film in 2010.

Similarly Friday the 13^th (1980) or rather Friday the 13^th 2 (1981) introduced yet another serial killer this time attacking camp counsellors attempting to reopen a summer camp that was the location of a child drowning years before. Jason Voorhees is of a similar build to Michael Myers and just as viscous. But instead of a stretched and painted William Shatner mask, Jason wore an ice hockey mask, it might not sound scary but it did the trick. Friday the 13^th outdid Elm Street with 10 sequels and a reboot of the original in 2009.

The 80’s was a decade of similar works, directors copied what worked or tried to and many failed in the attempt. But there were some stand-alone movies that did not belong in the B movie trash bin or any of the franchises taking over the cinema. Poltergeist (1982) was a Steven Spielberg produced horror, which happens to be one of my favourites. Unlike the gore that filled Elm Street and Friday the 13^th, Poltergeist concentrated on the good old fashioned supernatural; when a young girl is drawn inside an otherworldly portal inside the family Television by malevolent spirits haunting the house, her family bring in an expert to help get her back.

Long considered the scariest movie of all time (personally sceptical of that analysis) and an audience favourite was Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of the Stephen King multi-layered head-spinner The Shining (1980). It starred Jack Nicholson as a man who takes a job as a caretaker in a hotel closing for the winter season which will be blocked off and remote. He takes his wife (Shelley Duvall) and their son but soon becomes murderously influenced by an evil presence in the hotel that his psychic son can sense. This was not your usual horror film, as with any Kubrick film it had been masterfully shot with every minute detail there for a purpose. There are supposedly so many hidden meanings and interpretations in the film that an excellent documentary Room 237 (2012) was made trying to explain it. This was a horror film with much more depth a plot unlike the simple murderers and victims that were frequently on offer to audiences. This was a film that made you think, lots of the most intriguing points to the films are beneath the surface. But also had lots of humorous moments and one of the most infamous film quotes of all time; who hasn't heard “Here’s Johnny!!” even if they haven’t seen the film.

Ridley Scott changed the genre for the better when he made his Sci-fi epic Alien (1979) but it is widely considered a horror film due to its terrifying scenes of an alien murdering the crew of a ship in space. It became more frequent to see films merging genres together to create superb new editions to the canon. John Landis took audiences back to the days of the studios with his love of old fashioned horror pictures for An American Werewolf in London (1981) with a monster to rival the best of those classics from Universals glory days. The 1980’s proved that horror was on the up and up with a host of successful franchises, stand-alone classics and a return to the best of horror from the studio era.

The 90’s was really a decade of sequels; sagas that had been introduced the decade before were continued because once again ideas were lacking. Horror was laughable and predictable; everyone who went to see a horror film knew who the victims were and how the plot would play out. It was from this that a very clever film was created. Scream (1996), directed by A Nightmare on Elm Street director Wes Craven, was a look at the rules and conventions of horror films, basically a piss take of how the genre had lost its edge. Teenagers today knew what was coming; they couldn't be scared any more, and it was a villain who used these rules and contradicted them to murder his victims; It is a very very clever film. Along with Scream were a number of horror films for young adults based around the lives and murders of teenagers. It really was a case of directors biting the hand that fed them; the majority of a target audience for horror films by the 1990’s were teenagers and here they were seeing a film about relatable young characters like themselves being killed off one by one. I know What You did Last Summer (1997) and Jeepers Creepers (2001) were among many of this particular type; good looking casts, cheap scares and predictable stories.

The Sixth Sense (1999) was a Hollywood sleeper hit; it had Bruce Willis starring and was directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The Sixth Sense follows Willis’ psychologist who is trying to help a young boy (Haley Joel Osment) who can see dead people. The reason the film was such a huge hit was not just that it had a promising cast and budget but that it had the biggest twist in horror movie history. It was that one revealing scene that got people talking and it was word of mouth that got people into the cinema to see it and before the boom of the internet the ending could not be spoiled in a matter of minutes. Another film that used the public, in a way no other film had before was The Blair Witch Project (1999). The film is based on an old myth, a group of teenager’s camp in the woods to find evidence of the myth being true, but with dire consequences.  Filmed like a home movie, in itself a new concept, the film-makers used the internet to attract audiences. They created a website, used advertising in a way that was new to the industry. Audiences were made to believe the actors in the film were really missing. By using the internet and advertising to a wider range of people Blair Witch is now a cult classic, despite being a terrible horror film. But most importantly it paved the way for movie marketing in the 21st Century. Without it we would have no Paranormal Activity (2007) franchise which successfully copies the hand held camera/found footage technique.

Horror seems to have been on the back-burner during the naughties; there are maybe one or two worthwhile horror films in a year. But apart from these many are cheap B movie horrors that come and go straight to DVD, with little or no marketing to attract audiences. There have been interesting ideas in the last decade The Ring (2002), The Grudge (2004) and Rec. (2007) were all successful but all followed the same pattern; they were remade from the original, often better foreign film. Saw (2004) became the new horror franchise to follow, bringing gore and torture front and centre. Along with Final Destination (2000) about a group of teenagers who survive an accident only to have death hunt them down one by one to correct the balance.

There have been a number of high quality horror pictures recently due in most part to director James Wan who brought the world of Saw to life 10 years ago. He has reinvented horror films and brought realistic scares back to a dying genre. Supernatural horror was the trend in 2012 and 2013 with Insidious (2010) and its sequel (2013) being hugely popular and genuinely scary, it had a great script and plot which has been sorely missed in many horror films of recent years, and a spin-off Annabelle coming later this year. Wan said an apparent goodbye to horror with the spine tingling The Conjuring (2013) about a real-life paranormal investigating couple at their peak in the 1970's, which will get

a sequel next year though perhaps without Wan's involvement. Hammer studios also made a comeback after a nearly 30 year hiatus with The Woman in Black (2012) Daniel Radcliffe’s first post-Potter attempt. This is yet another film with a quality story behind it, a good cast and genuine scares, it's sequel The Woman in Black: Angel of Death  is due in 2015.

With a list of impressive films in the last two years and many successful actors more than willing to get their hands dirty it looks like the horror genre is done stumbling and might be in for a cracking few years, here’s hoping.

Special Feature: Harry Potter

The Harry Potter series is one of the most financially successful and popular series in history, it has showcased some of the best British talent on offer and created huge stars of its young cast. For ten years the premiere of a Harry Potter film has been the biggest and most anticipated of the year.

As an avid reader and a huge fan of the books it was inevitable that I would see the films, as a nine year old when the first one came out I was the perfect age to enjoy it. As has now become tradition, I read the books every summer and then watch the films. 

However sad this may be I thoroughly enjoy myself. The first two films; Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone (2001) and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) were both directed by Chris Columbus who made such classics as Home Alone (1990) and Mrs Doubtfire (1993). There was a lot of deliberation about who would helm the films but I think especially for the origin it was a fantastic choice. Both Philosophers Stone and the Chamber of secrets are the lightest in tone. They have a more colourful palette and are purely magical films. So to get Columbus to direct two films so child based was a great idea. Both films have very simple plot lines and Chamber of secrets especially is incredibly funny. It’s hard to say what makes a perfect cast but I think the Harry Potter series just about nailed it. Can you really imagine anyone else playing Severus Snape other than Alan Rickman? Would there have been anyone more suited to playing Hagrid than Robbie Coltrane? The children being so young completely inhabited the parts they played with each coming film, so much so that they have fought a hard battle with type-casting the last few years as everyone all over the world associates Radcliffe, Grint and Watson with Harry, Ron and Hermione.

Alfonso Cuaron directed The Prisoner of Azkaban which was released in 2004. This was the least profitable of the series, but saying that it still made $249 million, which isn’t bad in the scheme of things, it is also one of my favourites. The Mexican director Cuaron may have seemed an odd choice for this, but he has worked on other films for young audiences. Including a childhood favourite of mine; A Little Princess (1995), he successfully managed to darken the tone of the film, not just with use of the script but with cinematography, he also added a little kookiness that is not in any of the other films and was Cuaron's own flourish on the finished product. He has more recently proved just how much of a cinematic genius he is with the release of Gravity (2013).  We are introduced to a selection of new characters; therefore even more of Britain’s insane acting talent, Emma Thompson and Gary Oldman being among them. This is also the film that changed locations and became the standard for the rest of the saga.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) was the first of the larger books to made, therefore harder to adapt as completely as the previous three. The producer of the series David Heyman and his team decided that they would concentrate on the plot that involved Harry and everything that was seen through his eyes. This was an effective way of cutting out extra story lines that would not be necessarily needed in the film. Mike Newell known for Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) directed and decided to have a typical English boarding school environment to the film, amongst all the magic of course. This does not seem to be a fan favourite despite having amazing effects such as the dragon and underwater sequences. Maybe it flits from one thing to the next just a bit too much.                                      

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) began the tenure of David Yates who directed the rest of the series. He came up with just the right formula of tension, drama and magic that was needed to attract audiences and keep them coming back year after year. This movie also added the romantic element between Ron and Hermione, which is one of the most interesting developments in the books. This aged the films tone slightly to keep up with the original audience who were growing up as fast as the cast. The most important thing about the movie is the development of character. Yates was obviously keen to create some depth to the returning characters, this came with a fresh, tight script, and a new villain causing lots of trouble in the guise of Professor Umbridge played brilliantly by Imelda Staunton.

Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince (2009) is the film that seems to get forgotten about. Though story-wise it is incredibly important as it explains the origins of Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) power and the connection he has with Harry. Looking back it also has a very subtle humour in this film. It is amazing that in each movie the film-makers were able to add more ingenious ways to keep the audience invested. Whether it was with extravagant sets, computer generated effects, or new characters, there was always something fresh that kept audiences lining up for miles to see each film.  

The Last Harry Potter book is absolutely by far the stand out novel of the entire series, it explains everything that has been left unsaid throughout the plot and it rounds everything off perfectly in a wave of emotion and thrilling suspense. Because of its importance it was decided that there would be two films so that nothing would be left out. The Deathly Hallows Part one was released in 2010, it was highly anticipated of course but I feel that most people think it is a bit of a let-down; it has a lot of camping and a lot of moving around but little action. I personally think the film is excellent and it develops the characters and shows their growth and emotional baggage like no other film before it due to the time they had to spend on them. It may be the penultimate film and many simply want to get to the finale to see the big set pieces, but there are some exceptional moments in Part 1, proving that you don’t need to explode sets or use effects to create a great scene.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011) was possibly the most highly anticipated film of this century so far. I have never seen a film so advertised and people get so excited about its release. I was lucky enough to get a ticket to the midnight showing of the film and it was an unbelievable experience. The excitement buzzed in the air, and the queues went all the way down the street to the car park. It is a very emotional film, characters get killed off and Hogwarts is partially destroyed. But not only that I think most people, myself included, were devastated that the series was coming to an end. This was it, the last one; we would never get to do this again. It might sound stupid, but for fans this had been an annual or almost annual occurrence for ten years of our lives. For most of us we had grown up with Harry, Ron and Hermione and were entering adulthood ourselves. It was with a heart-wrenching feeling that we left the cinema knowing that we had just seen the last of a tremendous saga.

If I was truly honest with myself I would have to admit that the films do have some most obvious flaws. The biggest for me being the script, the stories themselves are fantastic but I feel that some of the dialogue used, especially in the earlier films sounds false and makes the acting look bad and frankly makes you want to cringe. Granted some of the acting in the first few movies cannot be called great either but it did get better.

Another flaw for me is the way the films have been adapted, this may just be my point of view as I prefer the books, but I feel that too many things have been left out. I know it is hard to adapt books that are as large as the last 4 but when you compare the first three to the later films I don’t think they are in the same league in terms of quality. They are perfectly adapted and make sense to the audience. The later films miss certain points and then carry on with later plot lines which relate to the missed out information; the audience can then not understand what the characters mean. My prime example for this is my own experience at the midnight showing of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2. When Harry says to Lupin “Remus your son” a member of the audience actually said huh? out loud. The fact that Remus Lupin and Tonks have a baby called Teddy is never mentioned in the film but this line refers to it. Not everyone reads the books so there are definitely moments when I think non-readers must be terribly confused. But that might just be me picking.

Everybody has examples of scenes or characters or just lines that they don’t like or makes them cringe to be watching. But it can’t be denied that there is a love for this saga that just doesn’t come around very often, the stars themselves have stated that a Harry Potter premier is an event unlike any other. The huge fan base for these films does not occur every day or even every year. It is a rare occurrence when something can strike hold of audiences and keep them coming back for more.

We could probably count on both hands how many times this has happened; it is this element that makes the Harry Potter series so special. The utter love that people have for the whole package; whether it is the films, the books, the actors whatever part it’s simply magic. I don't think I could have a complete friendship with a person if they had not (or even worse refused to) see the Harry Potter Saga, there are so few franchises that can build a complete world and drop you in it for a few stunning and miraculous hours. We should take advantage and watch as often as possible. Enjoy!