The television horror genre has its arm twisted behind its back and up against the lockers by a big bully named “The Walking Dead” (TWD) on AMC. It’s a horror hit with hardcore genre fans, and also to your median human. Why? People who wouldn’t […]
Movies & TV TV ReviewsThe television horror genre has its arm twisted behind its back and up against the lockers by a big bully named “The Walking Dead” (TWD) on AMC. It’s a horror hit with hardcore genre fans, and also to your median human. Why? People who wouldn’t normally go see a horror flick gave it a chance at home, boosting its popularity. And most people who have a deep attachment to the comic book series are religiously faithful to all that is dead. Or did some ‘familiar’ scenes turn them on in the beginning, like they did me?
I could ask those questions all day long, as well as raise questions on why people don’t dig it, but I don’t care. The questions I want answered are these: How does TWD stack up to similar shows in the genre? What’s different about it that makes it LIKE or very much UNLIKE others, and what makes a palatable horror show?
What makes “The Walking Dead” different from the others? Let’s stop there. What are the genre-shows I can compare TWD to? Certainly not those cited by the general public, or we would have to throw in “Buffy”, “Fringe”, and “Charmed”. Just because a show has an element of horror, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s going to make it to the table. I don’t get any staples of horror such as disgust, fear, and shock from those shows, at least not the way they are meant. For example, I feel disgust when eying up shows like “Charmed”, and I’m shocked that “Buffy” gets fed into the horror category, and I fear they will make more shoddy shows like “Fringe”.
There are shows that do infuse me with fear and disgust. “The Twilight Zone”, birthed by genius Rod Serling, is among the shows that hit the spot for me. The ending of each episode leaves me with my mind twirling, frightened and alone – the latter being somewhat of an anchor to the series. The ‘Zone’ was a half-hour format, so no sub-plot, and typically a calm set-up to the final mind-altering end.
“Autopsy” was an HBO documentary series narrated by Marlene Sanders, who is a perfect accompaniment to the macabre look into real world horror. What real humans have done to others is the ultimate terror. This was no “Forensic Files”.
Well, what about the hour long “X-Files”, you ask? That was a great series with sub-plots, and more. Nope, no horror there. It could get freaky at times, though, in the episodes that had nothing to do with the ‘conspiracy’ but beyond that, the only horror I can think of is getting a deep anal probe by some freaky S&M aliens. Same thing with “Dexter” which is a drama with a horror element, but certainly not horror.
“Tales from the Crypt” was a fantastic show that was disturbing to children and teens, but followed the same formula as the ‘Zone.’ It was only a half-hour, with a short set-up and the kicker at the end, no cliffhangers and no significant plot. Like me in the sack, it was just a quick one shot pop and you’re done.
All the horror television shows that I dig don’t have much in common with “The Walking Dead”, except one very important thing: They were “Fresh Meat”, approaching the genre from a unique angle. This show packs a punch and a pickax, with so much going on in each episode. The writers are cramming two hours of show into one, which is reminiscent of a comic book, where you only have a limited space to tell the story. This seems like a negative, but it’s not. You’d just better keep your eyes open or you’ll miss something, or maybe worse. Besides the fact that the show is fresh, there are other great aspects of this hour-long horror television show. Like what? Like GORE, that’s what! I haven’t seen that much flying brain matter since I killed my parents at the age of fourteen. KIDDING! I was sixteen. Also, it’s an hour show about zombies. Says it right there in the title and to my knowledge this has never been done before. It’s pure apocalyptic zombie madness, and I don’t even have to leave my couch to get it.
Does it follow the formula of the “dramatic arc” of exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution, like most movies, plays and other one hour dramas, in which maybe just one phase is horror? Hell no! Maybe once or twice over the course of the series from debut to finale, but not per episode. Rather, there is a certain chaos to the show which is on par with what happens in real life. At the end of every show you’re left hanging, just like the characters. What do we do next? How do we do it? Will it work? Who knows? This uncertainty, along with the other attributes I have mentioned is what makes this show unique among all others.
I have to admit, it is not the “Greatest Show on Earth”, but no show can boast that after only six episodes in the bank. The question is: Does it have potential for the long haul? I believe “The Walking Dead” is similar to totally dissimilar, but successful shows such as “Seinfeld” and the “Simpsons”, the first seasons of which were rough to put it mildly, but eventually the writers and actors settled into place until those shows were unstoppable. TWD has this same potential. The ‘suits’ at the network certainly think so and so do I. So many shows don’t make it past the pilot episode, but breaking cable records only after two episodes, says a ton.
“The Walking Dead” was green-lighted for a full second season, which speaks volumes. Once the small bugs are worked out, it’s going to be a great series unlike anything we have seen before. And like the zombies, I want episodes to keep coming and coming and coming and…
In 2006, the premium cable network Showtime introduced us to Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), the unassuming Miami Homicide forensics expert and prolific serial killer. The series became an instant hit, providing mainstream audiences with a truly compelling weekly drama which also included buckets of […]
Movies & TV TV ReviewsIn 2006, the premium cable network Showtime introduced us to Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall), the unassuming Miami Homicide forensics expert and prolific serial killer. The series became an instant hit, providing mainstream audiences with a truly compelling weekly drama which also included buckets of plasma and gore, appealing to those of us who enjoy that sort of thing.
The first four seasons of Dexter have all been unusually well executed, a rare feat for any television series. This was accomplished largely because of the series’ incredible cast and its fantastic writers. Moreover, Dexter has featured some of the most memorable “bad guys” in recent memory, all of them brought to life by character actors of extraordinary talent. The writing staff has optimized the show’s most fundamental idea, one that’s fraught with dramatic possibilities, to its fullest potential – our protagonist is, after all, a homicidal psychopath. And there’s been no blueprint, with each season uniquely composed of new twists and formidable antagonists, keeping us guessing, and most importantly, keeping us watching.
So how does Dexter Season 5 stack up to the body of work preceding it?
Unfortunately, the answer is not very well. Now, to be fair, an incredibly high bar has been set. Has Dexter jumped the shark? No, but it’s safe to say that there are fins in the vicinity.
Season 5 begins in the wake of Rita’s murder by the Trinity Killer. Dexter, having no empathy and unable to feel anything, reacts to his wife’s death in a predictably atypical way, confusing Rita’s kids, Astor and Cody, and raising the concerns of his sister Deb, and his coworkers at Miami Metro Homicide. Dexter’s awkwardness raises suspicion in Deb’s partner on the force and Season 5 love interest Joey Quinn, in particular, who thinks Dexter may have been involved somehow with the Trinity killings.
In the meantime, Dexter stumbles upon what he believes is a serial killer named Boyd Fowler. When Dexter tracks down and kills Boyd, he discovers that Lumen Pierce (Julia Stiles) – Boyd’s next intended victim, witnessed the killing, presenting Dexter with a huge problem. However, Lumen eventually tells Dexter that the torture killings from which she’s been spared are being committed by a group of men that included Boyd and that she’s intent on getting revenge.
As expected, Dexter’s sister Deb (Jennifer Carpenter) unknowingly finds herself in the midst of Dexter’s peculiar method of meting out justice, while sorting through her own personal turmoil. First, she’s forced to take the blowback from Homicide’s mishandling of the “Santa Muerte killings” – a series of ritualistic beheadings by a South American organized crime outfit. Then, Quinn (Desmond Harrington) hires a sleazy suspended cop named Stan Liddy (Peter Weller) to investigate Dexter, while simultaneously courting Debra. As Dexter and Lumen pick off members of the torture killing group, Deb puts together a remarkably accurate profile of the person/people responsible for the murders. And of course, unbeknownst to Deb, her conceptual “revenge killers” are her brother and his new “tenant”, Lumen. Inevitably, things come to a head in typical Dexter fashion. Welcome to the meat of Season 5, folks.
There are several disappointing weaknesses that have shown up this year. The show’s subplots are not as well conceived and are therefore less consistent, sometimes disappearing from the story altogether (Santa Muerta killings) and often times only existing to force characters to do things that they wouldn’t do organically in order to serve the broader plot (Dexter’s relatively ambivalent reaction to Lumen discovering his murderous secret). Julia Stiles as Lumen is good, but she doesn’t have anywhere near the same onscreen presence as Jimmy Smits’ Miguel Prado from Season 3 or last season’s Arthur Mitchell – The Trinity Killer, played brilliantly by John Lithgow. Lumen serves neither as a foil nor an antagonist for Dexter. And the love interest angle is largely ignored until extremely late in the season. This leaves a huge void. Peter Weller is a bright spot and he obviously has the chops to provide the show a spark as Stan Liddy, but his character is only a bit part, albeit an important one.
At times Season 5 edges perilously close to self parody. For example, episode 10, entitled “In the Beginning”, features a scene in which Dexter is gathering his killing supplies while he waits for Lumen to join him. He has his knives laid out before him and he’s dressed in his iconic killing outfit – the army green long sleeve thermal shirt, the black gloves, the khaki pants, etc. Lumen emerges from the other room, dressed identically and, as if Cupid sprinkles love dust from the heavens, Dexter is smitten. Nothing says romance like a set of his and hers serial killers. This scene is as cringe-inducing as anything I’ve seen in recent memory.
These issues are not as egregious as when Dan and Rosanne Connor won the lottery, or when the Fonze donned water skis, swimming trunks, and his leather jacket and literally jumped the shark. But the show has unmistakably lost its mojo. A huge contributing factor may be what has occurred behind the scenes following last season. Executive producer and series writer, Clyde Philips stepped aside after Season 4 and is now a consulting producer. This is no small loss as Philips had been nominated for the Writers Guild of America Award three consecutive years for his writing on Dexter. Chip Johannessen, formerly of the series, 24, stepped in to Philips’ previous position which inevitably moved the writing team in a different direction.
Dexter is only as compelling as his antagonist is. Pitted against the Ice Truck Killer whose cat and mouse game sucked us in as much as it bedeviled both Deb and Dexter, the series hit the ground running. When Dexter’s dumping grounds were discovered and the murders were attributed to “The Bay Harbor Butcher”, Dexter was hunted by everyone he cared about, some of whom really were his worst enemies, and we got a sober glimpse of the paradox that is Dexter Morgan. When Miami’s Assistant District Attorney, Miguel Prado befriended Dexter, we saw in Prado a man every bit as dangerous as he is passionate and every bit as dichotomous as Dexter is. And of course, there’s Arthur Mitchell, hiding a cold, calculating, and psychotic killing machine beneath the veneer of a churchgoing family man. Mitchell may have lost the war, but he certainly won the most significant of battles by murdering Dexter’s wife, Rita, before Dexter tracked him down and killed him.
Dexter’s arch nemesis this year? A handful of indecipherable losers who’ve been inexplicably raping and killing girls together since junior high school. None of them seem threatening, or even believable. All but one of them are one dimensional plot devices, while the group’s ring leader, Jordan Chase – a self help guru, no less – is as petulant as Prado was volatile and is as annoying as Arthur Mitchell was menacing. In Jordan Chase there are no layers to peel back, no contradictions, no redeeming qualities, and nothing to emphasize those qualities in Dexter that we find so intriguing.
However, even at its worst Dexter is still much better than the vast majority of what’s on TV right now. After 4 brilliant seasons, it’s not surprising that the show stumbled a bit this season. And despite the shortcomings of Dexter Season 5, it doesn’t change the fact that come next fall, I’ll be planted on the couch every Sunday night to see what happens next to everybody’s favorite judge, jury, and executioner.
The other day my lovely and extremely patient girlfriend was telling me about a soon-to-be-ex-coworker whose ambition is to be a roadie for Bon Jovi. “She’s only missed six out of forty-four Bon Jovi concerts this year,” said Ashley. “And she’s quitting her job because […]
Featured ArticleThe other day my lovely and extremely patient girlfriend was telling me about a soon-to-be-ex-coworker whose ambition is to be a roadie for Bon Jovi. “She’s only missed six out of forty-four Bon Jovi concerts this year,” said Ashley. “And she’s quitting her job because they won’t give her time off to go see him in Massachusetts this weekend.”
“Sounds kind of stalkery,” I said. “Maybe Jon Bon Jovi’s going to wake up with two broken legs and her standing over him with a sledgehammer.”
Ashley, being a horror buff, got the reference immediately. In my head, of course, it didn’t end there. This was Massachusetts, so J.B.J. had probably been scheduled to play in a certain decaying little college town, and Roadie had allowed herself to be impregnated by the eldritch thinghood of Yog-Sothoth in exchange for nothing less than the soul of Bon Jovi, who would be sacrificed in front of standing stones sacred to the Black Goat on Walpurgisnacht unless Ashley and I (Tool’s more my speed, but I’m not averse to Bon Jovi) rescued him, an act that might or might not include Tommy guns and dark pacts with deities from the Mayan underworld.[1] Horror, right?
Not really. I’m amused to an endless (and probably unhealthy) extent by the above scenario. It reaffirms all the things I secretly (or not-so-secretly) want reaffirmed in life: the world is filled with fantastic and mysterious things that regularly intrude in human affairs; a life of dangerous but thrilling adventure is not only possible but likely; all that’s necessary to solve life’s problems is courage and ready access to antique weaponry. That’s not scary–that’s comforting. So despite all those trappings–psycho fans, dark bargains with bloodthirsty gods, the Cthulhu Mythos–I’ve spent the last four hundred words describing a situation that really isn’t horror at all. In fact (to my perhaps diseased mind), the idea of all this happening to the guy who sings “Livin’ On a Prayer” and “You Give Love a Bad Name” is pretty funny. So why am I wasting time for you, the committed horror fan?
Douglas Winter famously claimed that horror isn’t a genre at all, but an emotion. I’ve seen some call Twilight horror based on the reasoning that if it has vampires in it, it must be horror. But when was the last time you really thought vampires were scary? Bad-ass, cool, maybe even sexy, depiction depending, but not really frightening. Horror is one of the few types of genre fiction determined not by its window-dressing but its attitude. Put another way, if I write about a wizard in a castle it’s definitely fantasy of some kind. Even if I make him a necromancer surrounded by zombie servants, it might not be horror. To make it horror, I have to show you something uncomfortable. Our necromancer’s isolation. His mental decay. The way his dick stirs when he looks at the shapely, stiff, pale legs of his maidservants and slides his tongue between their dry, rictused lips. Or, as Jeanne Cavellos says in her essay “Innovation in Horror,” “The horror genre has one requirement for membership: The story must make the reader feel. . .horrified.”
I’ve often found myself in disagreement with both sides of the Literature vs. Genre debate. As much as I railed in college against the expectation that we write nothing but plotless little stories about middle class suburbanites, the genres I love are often guilty of equally mortal sins. One of the worst is the tendency to core a story of all humanity in favor of barely original twists on extant props, like vampires that sparkle instead of burning up in sunlight. If there’s a defense for horror (and I don’t think we need to fall back on any such “it releases our inner devils” bullshit–I’m not drawn to this genre for catharsis), it’s that for horror to work its creator has to understand the human mind.
So imagine a young man who wants to be a writer, unhappily employed at a menial job he despises, having difficulty rising above the realization that he will always work behind that desk or stocking those shelves. When the supernatural intrudes, it isn’t a time for actualization, but a further tightening of the lock. Drawn into a conspiracy involving a musician our protagonist doesn’t much care about one way or the other, our would-be writer realizes, listening to the chanting from the next room, that a nationwide manhunt will result if the musician disappears. But the protagonist? Totally overshadowed, he won’t even have anyone beyond a few close friends to bemoan the fact that he was “cut off before his time.” The novel he’s agonized over for years will probably be thrown out. The girlfriend will move on. Death is the gate of obscurity, and worse than anything he might be subjected to by the secret society that has imprisoned him, he realizes that in a few years he will be almost totally forgotten.
I don’t know if you’re scared, but I am.
What do movies with a relentless killing machine and an old man chasing a little boy through a tomato patch have in common? Their sequels were as good, if not better, than their predecessors. Of course I’m talking about “The Terminator” and “The Godfather”. So […]
Movie Reviews Movies & TVWhat do movies with a relentless killing machine and an old man chasing a little boy through a tomato patch have in common? Their sequels were as good, if not better, than their predecessors. Of course I’m talking about “The Terminator” and “The Godfather”. So if you loved the first Paranormal Activity there might be a treat waiting for you in the theater.
In Paranormal Activity 2 there are moments that are similar to the first “PA”. But there are changes that, in my opinion, make up for it in “PA2”. It is not a clone of the first, but has all the fright and more of what made the first one successful.
It has a larger cast consisting of eight and a half terrorized characters (What? A half?).
Reprising their roles from the original movie are “Katie” (Katie Featherson), of the not-so-well-received movie “Mutation” and her boyfriend “Micah” (Micah Sloat). Didn’t Micah die in the first movie? I’ll get to that later.
The other actors that fill out the cast are basically “no-namers” which adds authenticity to the film and makes it feasible that this scenario could happen to anyone. This heightens the thrill factor. You’re not constantly being reminded of an actor you’ve seen in handfuls of overplayed commercials (Like actors from Geico ads.)
Sprague Grayden – the most seasoned actor in the film, plays Katie’s sister, Kristi. Her husband ‘Danial’ (not a typo) is played by Brian Boland of “The Unborn.” Danial’s teenage daughter from another marriage, Ali (Molly Ephram), her boyfriend, Brad (Seth Ginsberg), and brand new baby Hunter all live under the same roof. Vivis Cortez plays their housekeeper and there’s also Abby the German Sheppard played by, of course, Abby. The more I think about it, I am going to have to bump up Abby from a half character, to a full one. She’s in tons of shots if not all of them, and she even has some scenes that are all to herself.
As it turns out, this movie is a prequel. Ta-Da! That’s why Micah is in this film, but in a significantly smaller role. It was a pleasant surprise to learn this in the theater. I had no idea until I saw it happen on screen. The writers pleasantly and seamlessly wove some footage from the first Paranormal Activity into the second to give you a time-line of all the events leading up to the end of the first film.
Why do I like this film better than the first? Because you never know when something freaky is going to happen.
The movie starts out with the family coming home to a trashed house, but nothing appears to be missing. The family, thinking it’s a series of break-ins, has a professional camera installer put up six cameras hooked up to a DVR. So now you can see the entire house through all the cameras.
The technique they use to scare you is that every night the movie scrolls throughout out the house, from one night vision camera to the next. Sometimes nothing is going on, then the next night they go through the same motions and nothing is happening again. Then, suddenly, something freaky happens!
This uncertainty leads the watcher to be anxiously glued to the screen, unsure and on edge throughout the film. The other technique the filmmakers use to scare you is to establish the fact that daylight is not a safe haven. So again, you think you’re safe during the day, but sadly you’re mistaken. Now, you’re not safe from any part of the film – day, night, or any part of the house, for that matter.
In short, if you loved the first Paranormal Activity then definitely see the second. If you didn’t like the first so much, rent Paranormal Activity 2 when it becomes available. It’s definitely worthy of a ‘rent.’
Your opinion of writer/director Gareth Edwards film, “Monsters”, will depend on how much sway your expectations have over you. If you’re like me, a film nerd who’s a sucker for all well made films regardless of genre, then you’ll probably agree that Edwards’ film is […]
Movie Reviews Movies & TVYour opinion of writer/director Gareth Edwards film, “Monsters”, will depend on how much sway your expectations have over you. If you’re like me, a film nerd who’s a sucker for all well made films regardless of genre, then you’ll probably agree that Edwards’ film is an unquestionable success. If you’re a hardened horror fanatic who doesn’t stand for the annoyances of character and subtlety polluting your standard genre tropes, then you may be disappointed.
“Monsters” begins six years after a NASA space probe broke apart over the southern United States on its way back from a sample-collecting expedition in an attempt to find evidence of extra terrestrial life. Soon after, large life forms – monsters if you will – began evolving and inhabiting the sprawling crash site which covers the southern U.S. into northern Mexico. Dubbed the “Infected Zone”, fenced off, walled up, and aggressively patrolled by the military, this vast area is now a dangerous wasteland that also presents a navigational nightmare.
Photojournalist, Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy) is in Central America photographing the carnage left behind by the giant alien beasts and their military antagonists. When Andrew’s boss calls and asks him to escort the boss’s daughter, Samantha (Whitney Able), a stranded tourist, safely home to the States, he reluctantly agrees. However, things soon go from inconvenient to perilous. After trying and failing to help Samantha get to a ferry that sails around the infected zone, Andrew joins Samantha on a dangerous trek through the infected zone together with the halfhearted help of renegade guides and officials with well-greased palms.
The lives that Andrew and Samantha each left behind in the States beckon them home, but their journey there together changes them each in profound ways.
“Monsters” is in essence an intimate, small-scale character drama set against the backdrop of a large-scale, sci-fi monster melee. Edwards tells this story with deft skill, using beautiful imagery to establish subtle thematic motifs while never rushing the film’s pace or selling out its emphasis on the evolving and complex relationship between the two principals. This is a monster movie in the broadest sense, but with art house sensibilities at its core.
Scoot McNairy playing Andrew and Whitney Able playing Samantha are both fantastic. Their characters are fully realized and shaped almost entirely by things off-screen, in the past, and someplace else. Both actors embrace the weight that these intangible elements bear on their respective characters, and by virtue of some really nice writing by Edwards, McNairy and Able never have to present these elements through clumsy expository dialogue, but rather through subtext delivered through their exemplary performances.
Britain’s first time feature director, Gareth Edwards, cut his teeth doing visual effects for several documentaries and later directed a few of them. “Monsters” has Edwards wearing many hats, having written, directed, and provided the film’s visual effects. Perhaps the most remarkable fact of this film’s production, and one that’s most telling of Edwards’ talents, is the film’s $15,000 budget. Vertigo Films couldn’t have dreamed of a bigger bang for the buck.
Although “Monsters” isn’t a horror film in the strictest sense, it is a genre movie made for sophisticated film goers. It joins the ranks of other recent gems, such as “Martyrs” and “Let the right One In”, providing more evidence that in an overcrowded crop of bad American studio remakes, indie horror and foreign horror currently provide the very best the genre has to offer.
Welcome to Ravenous Monster – the newest horrorzine to inhabit the darkest stretch of the information super highway! This decrepit little corner of the web will cover the scary stuff from every angle, offering commentary, criticism, analysis, and information about our beloved and blasphemous genre. […]
Featured ArticleWelcome to Ravenous Monster – the newest horrorzine to inhabit the darkest stretch of the information super highway! This decrepit little corner of the web will cover the scary stuff from every angle, offering commentary, criticism, analysis, and information about our beloved and blasphemous genre.
My media sensibilities were polluted at a young age. Whether it was the Great White shark turning the waters crimson around Amity Island, the Wicked Witch of the West unleashing a furious flock of flying monkeys over Oz, or Michael Myers butchering teens with that ugly metal shard of a blade, I’ve immersed myself in the darkest stories I could find for as long as I can remember. This fact has been a defining characteristic of my life. As a result, I have great reverence for horror. I respect it, I root for it, and most of all, I expect it to continue to awe and inspire me. And from that expectation manifests my pursuit of the very best the genre has to offer. Ravenous Monster is essentially the chronicle of that quest, and one that I share with a talented group of writers and fans, each with their own unique takes on terror.
At the time of this writing, Ravenous Monster is very much a work in progress and I humbly ask for your patience as I navigate a wicked learning curve. I’m certain to make some blunders along the way, probably quite a few at first, but once the site is fully functional and I find my groove as your editor-in-chief I expect to deliver the goods as painlessly as possible. While I seek out additional contributors, we’ll continue to add content as well as tweak the layout and the look of Ravenous Monster until it’s functioning as the well-oiled death machine we’ve been seeing in our nightmares.
Let’s be honest, there’s not exactly a void that needs filling. Both the newsstands and the web are filled with genre coverage. However, Ravenous Monster will offer a unique and honest perspective of horror and in doing so, maybe we can help hold the genre’s feet to the fire as we expose what’s brilliant and eviscerate what’s not.
So, without further ado, please take a look around….
-Jason Thorson
Editor-in-Chief of Ravenous Monster