King of the Drive-in

I don't remember how I ever came across MonsterVision, but I'm glad I did. While I usually don't like watching movies that have been edited on network television, one thing made MonsterVision worthwhile: host Joe Bob Briggs. You always read of horror fans who talk about growing up watching monster movies on television, usually on a weekend block hosted by a character -- an idea put to use in the 1985 movie Fright Night, where a teen horror fan enlists his favorite horror host to help him kill a vampire. Joe Bob Briggs is the Peter Vincent for horror fans in my age range.

On the surface, Joe Bob's humor might seem simple or absurdist, but he has a bullseye delivery, a sharpness and wit. He can provide spot-on critiques of movies or defend its flaws and make you appreciate or enjoy the movie anyway. He has such a giddiness about horror and genre movies that doesn't seem artificial or doesn't seem to condescend to the material or its fans. You never get the sense from Joe Bob that he thinks he's above everything, looking down on these movies from a distance of snobby irony; the persona is used to point out the hypocrisy of film critics who dismiss movies like these or movies that are made to entertain the moviegoing public. His enthusiasm is genuine and he made MonsterVision a blast to watch, even if the horror movies were butchered for TV or something sucky like Wishmaster 15. (I'm still bummed out about not winning a MonsterVision shirt.)

While TNT did everything it could to chip away MonsterVision's identity, forcing on barely-qualifying movies like Malice (even if it produced the memorable Drive-In Total "fire-extinguisher fu"), Joe Bob still delivered. He still delivered even when TNT, after a shopping spree at the DVD bargain bin at Wal-Mart, turned MonsterVision into "Joe Bob's Saturday Night," where he was stuck hosting a night of movies from every genre BUT horror. (Movies like Adventures in Babysitting.) But it didn't matter -- Joe Bob was still hilarious and still provided fun facts about the movies. And that's something that should be appreciated -- Joe Bob's massive knowledge about these movies. Before DVD featurettes, before Google, before Wikipedia, horror fans had Joe Bob Briggs. (Joe Bob's a trouper when it comes to the fans, because God knows I've pestered him with a bunch of emails.)

One of Joe Bob's greatest recurring bits is the Drive-In Totals, the tallying of all of the various outrageousness found in a movie. I still try to come up with Drive-In Totals for ANY movie I watch, and I still often think of a lot of Joe Bob's bits when watching horror movies. (Check out the special features of Jason X for some great Friday the 13th stuff by Joe Bob. I think Joe Bob should be an interviewee for every DVD release.) Joe Bob's a superstar of horror, and the name of this blog is in honor of him and his always great Drive-in Totals.

Now, why can't AMC get him to host their Halloween horror marathons -- or even a new variation of MonsterVision?

A Drink of Redrum

I never really understood why people made such a fuss over The Shining. I remember when the TV miniseries was coming out (and being hyped in your face at every turn) that people were in outrage -- outrage! -- that they tried to remake such a classic movie. And on TV no less! (This was 1997, a year before Gus Van Sant's terrible, terrible karaoke of Psycho -- no, it's not a remake, it's a bad, drunken karaoke cover. Once word of that movie leaked, it sparked such a powerful hyperbolic outrage that it blotted out the already fading memory of The Shining miniseries.) I thought the miniseries was pretty silly, and I remember renting the 1980 movie at this time, and just being bored by it...

But, hey, I was a teen. Maybe I just didn't have the patience for a bloated Kubrick film, right? So I gave the movie another chance around last Halloween and...sorry, I was still bored by it. So bored, in fact, that I had to stop it and finish it later, and I HATE interrupting movies like that. I was a bit disappointed that my perception of the movie didn't change. (Ridley Scott's Alien is a movie that, when I watched it as a youngster, it felt like time froze, but I've come to really like it over the years.) Kubrick's film is stylish, and I like it visually, but he is more concerned with mood and atmosphere and not on characters or emotion, so the movie seems pretty hollow to me.

I don't know why, but recently it just popped in my head to check out the novel, which I hadn't read before. I supposed I always figured...why bother? I didn't like either filmed version, why would I like the novel? And it turns out...I liked the novel! A lot of things click and make more sense -- and are actually scary -- when the reader can get into characters' heads. King really succeeds in driving home just how terrifying that feeling of isolation could be, letting you feel the dread the Torrance family feel on that last day of the hotel's business, as the guests and workers leave one by one until the Torrances are all alone. And it just clicked for me in a way that it really hadn't in the movies. (I've stayed with friends who lived in the boonies, so, you think I WOULD have realized just how dreadful of a feeling it is, to feel like you're so far removed from civilization, away from help if you needed it, away from LIFE.)

Also, it helps the reader being able to get into the heads of the wife and child -- the helplessness they feel when the man of the family, the one meant to protect them, becomes an incredible danger. (The movies barely touch upon them, but I think the chapters with Jack locked in one of the hotel's pantries is some of the book's most tense.) And Jack himself -- you better understand his struggle. Is he exhausted? In withdrawal? Going crazy? Being possessed? Jack's more his own person, and King walks a line, where the reader and the characters are never sure what to make of Jack until the end.

So, reading the novel, I decided to check out that miniseries again. I mean, why not, right? King wrote the teleplay, he approved of the project -- it was his idea! (I actually LOVE how rock 'n roll King's attitude is about Kubrick's movie. When the rest of the world is worshiping Kubrick, King gives his movie the middle finger and is like "You know what? No, I don't like it. You screwed it up.") Was I misremembering the miniseries? Was I prejudiced against a TV movie?

Nope! I still didn't like the miniseries. I'm not really a fan of director Mick Garris's works -- I think his movies are incredibly plain, and his scare scenes can be a little hokey and predictable -- but I'm willing to cut some slack because it just had to be a pain in the balls to make this movie with the constraints of television. (Not to mention making a genre movie for the family-friendly tight-asses at ABC.) I like the casting in this movie even less than King liked the original's casting -- I get what they were going for with Steven Weber, who's a likable guy, so you're meant to be shocked when he becomes monstrous, but Weber's not a scary or intimidating guy, so I feel he's miscast. They have to bury him in make-up and applications to try to make him seem scary. (Garris wanted Gary Sinise, who was too afraid to step into Nicholson's shoes, but I can't picture him working out, either.) I know King's complaint with Nicholson was that he always seemed sinister and crazy, but I think that's the fault of Kubrick not being concerned with characters or performances. Nicholson CAN be a charming and likable guy, so he could have been directed as such in order to make that side of Jack work. Needless to say, Nicholson can certainly be scary and intimidating -- his Jack's not a dude you'd want to be snowed in at the Overlook with. I'll even defend Shelly Duvall's casting a bit -- no, she's not as take-charge as Wendy is in the novel, but I think the casting works in how it highlights the desperation of an ordinary woman up against a much stronger, unpredictable madman who's backed by supernatural drinking buddies. De Mornay was more well received, but I felt like the movie tried a little too hard to prove that she wasn't Duvall that it ended up calling too much attention to itself.

Most kid actors are awful, so it would always be hard to cast Danny when he's supposed to be so smart and mature for his young age. I think the key to casting a kid like that is to get a kid actor who has a bit of an edge or an old soul quality about them, and Danny Lloyd fits that. The miniseries' Courtland Mead isn't the best choice, cast mainly in terms of cuteness and not performance, since he says every line the same exact, whispery way. (He must hate Haley Joel Osment for stealing his career.) I also think it's a big mistake for the miniseries to have shown his imaginary friend, Tony -- the novel mentions Tony just being a shadowy figure until his last appearance, but the miniseries has this horribly cast, pulled-from-the-1950s dork as Tony, popping up accompanied by terrible special-effects. The vagueness of the shady figure made it spookier, and was reminiscent of Victor Pascow from King's Pet Sematary -- a mysterious character with an unsettling appearance, but ultimately benevolent and trying to help the character(s).

And like any newbie to the book, I was surprised to find that all of the classic moments associated with The Shining...were inventions of the 1980 movie! All of that classic stuff -- the two Grady girls, the bloody elevators, the hedge maze, the all work and no play bit -- nowhere in the novel! That really surprised me. (And I have to admit, I find the hedge maze scarier than the novel's topiary coming to life. I couldn't believe the miniseries kept that when it's pretty silly. In the book, you at least picture the animal-shaped bushes being several feet tall, while in the miniseries, they're small CGI creatures. Although, the icicle fangs in the animal bushes were a neat touch by the miniseries.) "Here's Johnny," another classic bit, was an ad-lib of Nicholson's, which you should have figured out, since it was humorous, and Kubrick's film lacks a sense of humor. (One difference I really can't stand about Kubrick's movie -- the killing of Hallorann! Why even have that character, when he treks cross country to save Danny, only to be immediately murdered by Jack once he reached the Overlook? An awful decision.)

So, as is nearly always the case, the novel wins. And even though I'm not a fan of it, I've got to give credit to Kubrick's movie for all of those classic scenes, for having the better cast, and for having the creepier, more looming Overlook. I feel like it could be ripe for another remake, though -- if you could cross the style of Kubrick's with the attempts at characterization of the miniseries, you might have the ultimate version of this story.

And I read the novel just in time since King's sequel, "Doctor Sleep," comes out in a couple of months. What little is known of the plot sounds like it might be a little more fanciful than the first one, but I really like the idea of the now-adult Danny Torrance in the Hallorann role, putting his shining abilities to use to help a kid with the shining who's in trouble.

The Detective in the Dark

Clive Barker always seems like he has good intentions and wants to do new things with horror films -- from wanting Julia to be the star of Hellraiser, giving slasher movies its first main female antagonist, to having a starring monster played by an actor of color, who represents urban legends, to trying to create a horror/fantasy hybrid described as the Star Wars of horror to creating a franchise around a horror hero rather than villain and so on. In the case of Julia, Pinhead stole her spotlight. Candyman had some success, but died a sadly quick death in direct-to-video land. The "Star Wars of horror," Nightbreed, was butchered by the studios until everything that was unique about it was gone. And the horror hero? Was introduced in a bizarre movie that people couldn't make heads or tails of. It's the horror hero I want to talk about here, the private detective Harry D'Amour.

Harry has appeared in a handful of Barker's stories -- his first appearance was in the short story "The Last Illusion," from The Book of Blood series; it was this short story that Clive chose to turn into the character's first feature film debut, "Lord of Illusions." One of the things I find most interesting about the idea of the Harry character and his world is how Clive's idea was to mash up horror and film noir; Harry's a hardboiled private-detective who always gets mixed up in terrifying supernatural cases because, to use a favorite phrase of Clive's, Harry is "paying off a karmic debt." Harry's a magnet for darkness and he doesn't know why -- all he knows is he doesn't like it. He's remarked about how much he misses mundane cases like tailing cheating spouses and investigating insurance fraud. Now, I'm a fan of hardboiled police stories, so I find this combination with horror pretty cool. Harry shares a lot of the common traits of the typical hardboiled P.I. -- the cynicism, the isolation, being burned out, being a damaged loner, haunted by cases gone bad -- but the horror elements gives him an additional weight and casts a unique light on him. He can literally be haunted by cases, and he mainly tries to distance himself from people not out of misanthropy, but because he doesn't want anyone to be affected by the things that target him. Harry seems more caring than a lot of the typical hardboiled detectives -- he's spiritually sensitive and fears for people, but he also fears for himself. Harry's tattooed with protection symbols and is religious, wearing a crucifix, crossing himself and saying prayers to victims he finds. (He's also open minded about religions other than Christianity, stating that one "can't have too many saviors.")

While I enjoy the movie "Lord of Illusions," I think it's very flawed, and not necessarily the scariest story that could have been told. (I find it goes more for being unsettling rather than going for scares.) Other than a brief scene introducing Harry early in the movie, in his home turf of NYC, it doesn't quite have the hardboiled or noirish feel, and I think it's overall inferior to the story it's based on, "The Last Illusion." Clive adapted his own story and directed the movie, so why would he change it around so much? The short story has the same model of a lot of hardboiled books, where Harry's assigned an odd, but seemingly small case that just spirals out of control, getting worse and worse. In the story, he's hired to stand guard over a magician's body until it's able to be cremated. Why is that important? Well, it turns out that the magician acquired his powers through demonic entities and, not liking the way he put those powers to use, demons are sent to claim his body. Harry's supposed to make sure the body is kept safe until it can be cremated so that the magician will be spared the eternal torments of the demons. The magician's widow found out about Harry based on news reports she saw of him, an exorcism he was involved in that went bad and generated bad publicity -- he still hasn't gotten over it and he hates to talk about what all went down with that case, which is a mystery that Clive gradually unfolds over the course of a few stories.

Now, other than Harry's character and the names of supporting characters, pretty much everything is changed for the movie! The movie's plot is the magician's wife hiring Harry to look out for her husband, who has ties to a cult leader who is trying to be revived by his remaining followers. The movie has its moments, and I think the casting is pretty good, but I thought the short story was just more interesting and more in line with the intention of the world Clive wanted to create for this character. The movie doesn't quite match up with his intentions, it's a bit odd and doesn't quite gel, and I wouldn't say it was the best way to try to kickstart a franchise. But I think there's just so much potential with the Harry character, I really like the idea of the character, so that potential is what I like about the movie. I know some people have questioned Scott Bakula's casting as Harry, not thinking he fits the role of a hardboiled tough guy, but like I said, Harry's not quite of the typical hardboiled mold. He's seen shit that would turn Mike Hammer white! Harry can beat the shit out of some two-bit thug with the best of them, but his encounters with supernatural cases have brought him a kind of weariness and -- this is important -- compassion. He doesn't like his fate, but he wants to do what he can to protect people and balance the good. So, I think Bakula works, and I like him in the role. I just think a lot of the problem is that it feels like the movie doesn't focus enough on Harry as a person, just his investigation. (It would have probably been wiser to have his film debut center on the exorcism case that's crucial to shaping the character.) Clive seemed to really like Bakula's casting, even making remarks that he's since envisioned Bakula when writing the character, and Clive doesn't BS. So, Bakula was good to base a figure of Harry of off...

Generally, horror fans don't speak well of Lord of Illusions. So...I can't imagine a company ever, ever making a Harry D'Amour figure. You think a Laurie Strode figure is impossible? No, a Harry D'Amour figure would be even less likely. You'll probably see a a box-set of Ethel and Junior from Friday the 13th Part V before a Harry D'Amour figure. Now, I'm no toy customizer. There are people out there who can do crazy-awesome stuff -- sculpt, repaint. My approach is much lazier. Luckily, thanks to Star Trek, there are figures of Bakula out there. But Harry never wears a crazy space suit, so...I looked and looked for a figure, matching the same scale, that best resembled something like Harry -- or at least a private-eye -- would wear. A simple head swap, and this is the result...

I think the character has such potential, I could easily see him being the center of a HBO or Showtime-styled series, a 10/12-episode long season, with a serialized storyline, one major case to serve as an ongoing arc per season. What also sounds interesting, though, is that Clive's been working for several years on a novel in which Harry is hired to retrieve a person who solved Lemarchand's puzzle box -- meaning Harry would be facing off against Pinhead! Some fans question whether Barker will ever finish it since he's been working on it for so long, but a lot of fans are interested in what Barker has said will be Pinhead's last appearance (as far as he's concerned). I'd also like to point out how I think Harry's a bit similar to John Constantine, and both characters were created around the same time, so I wonder which came first. (I prefer Harry more, to be honest. I've read several Hellblazer comics and enjoyed them, but Constantine can come off as a little too self-righteous. Harry's a regular guy, just tryin' his best. Harry's flawed and damaged, but does manage to have a sense of humor.)

The Sleeping Beauty

Companies like McFarlane and NECA have made a lot of cool figures and collectibles of various horror movie characters, but one area they've constantly overlooked is the protagonists of these movies. A lot of fans are just as interested in figures of characters like Nancy Thompson or Laurie Strode to add to their collection as they are in Freddy Kruger or Michael Myers, but the general consensus is that these companies are afraid to make a figure of a character that's not a for certain seller the way the monster of the movie is. So, until that mindset changes, that leaves no choice for fans but to make customs.

As I've said, the Nightmare on Elm Street series is my favorite horror franchise, and they've released a figure for just about every single one of Freddy's appearances and all of the cute little cosplays he likes to do in his movies. But unlike some other slasher movies, the protagonists of the NOES movies are important, they're made to be pivotal characters and not just essentially cannon fodder for our monster. I think it would be cool if some love was shown to the heroes and heroines of horror. (The only one who's ever got much love in terms of merchandising is the Evil Dead's Ash.) Granted, horror films have the silly rule that a returning character must die in a sequel, so a lot of the protagonists are limited to just two appearances as opposed to the villain's having been in all 17 movies, so awareness of that character could be low to the general public, but these collectibles are already aimed at a group who would be familiar with those characters, so...I don't understand it.

Anyway, I find it unlikely that they'll ever get around to releasing a figure of A Nightmare on Elm Street's Nancy Thompson (I seriously wouldn't be surprised if NECA released a Wicked Witch Freddy figure from Freddy's Dead, or creepy Robert Englund in drag nurse from Dream Master), so I commissioned someone to make a custom. While I would have preferred an action figure sized Nancy, I know customizing action figures is brutal and costly and I imagine that there's not many options available in terms of female characters you could base your custom off of. The person I used makes custom Barbies of a wide range of genre characters and video game characters. Now, I was a little unsure of how a Barbie would turn out, but I figured there could be a lot of leeway since Mattel does release Barbies based on movies and TV shows (there have been Star Trek, X-Files and Mad Men Barbies, for example) and the priority isn't really to get an exact likeness of the actor. (Nevertheless, I was really surprised by the doll the customizer chose -- it doesn't look like a Barbie, and I do think you can see a resemblance to Heather Langenkamp.) I chose the pictures and accessories -- I wanted it based on Nancy's appearance in the first movie (in the pajamas she wears in her last battle with Freddy, and because considering the theme of the movie is sleep, so...) and I wanted her to have the Stay Awake, coffee pot and picture of her friends as accessories, the bandaged arm, the grey hair. If packaging could be done, I knew I wanted to use that European poster.

Nancy Thompson is my favorite horror heroine. While she's a good person with a lot of heart, she has an edge and an attitude about her that helps her stand out from the usual slasher leads. She herself is tormented by nightmares and on no sleep, but she still goes out of her way to try and solve the mystery of Freddy Krueger and help her friends. She has the courage to face Freddy and uses her experience in the first film to come back in the third one to help out more teens in need. I always thought it was interesting how she returns in a position of power in Dream Warriors -- she's been damaged by her experience, but she's an authority, she's grown and advanced, so it's not the typical horror sequel of the monster returns to torment her; she's learned, she's prepared, she puts together the Dream Warriors! And being the first person to really outwit and defeat Freddy, it's awesome how super-pissed Freddy is when he first sees her. No jokes, no puns -- the sight of Nancy really pisses him off.

While a lot of credit obviously goes to Wes Craven for creating the character, a humongous portion of credit goes to Heather Langenkamp for how she played the character, giving her that attitude, making Nancy stand out. (Craven essentially gives Langenkamp credit in New Nightmare, by making the story that the demon who takes shape as Freddy can only be stopped by Heather because she was the one who gave Nancy her strength.) And while it's not exactly canon, I like how the comic books from Innovation pick up on Kristen's line in Dream Warriors (using her powers to place Nancy in a "beautiful dream"), which gives Nancy a certain immortality in that she has power over dreams the way Freddy has powers over nightmares, cementing Nancy as Freddy's ultimate opponent.

Doesn't any of this warrant an official Nancy Thompson action figure?! Why, of all horror heroines, does Jessica Biel's character from the Texas Chainsaw remake get a figure, but not someone like Nancy?

Entertainment Weekly to The Exorcist: "Go to hell!"

Well, Entertainment Weekly decided it deserved time off and devoted its latest (double) issue to the Top 100 of all things pop-culture -- top 100 movies, top 100 shows, top 100 albums, etc. They had sidebars ranking the Top 10 different genres of movies or shows, including the Top 10 Horror Movies, which I'll post below. I know lists like these don't amount to much in the end, but I found the issue to be a little infuriating, as it tried too hard to pick "unobvious" or "intellectual" choices. (Meaning Scorsese's Mean Streets was ranked ahead of his other, better known films, while Bill Murray's apparently only worth anything if he's in a Wes Anderson movie -- Ghostbusters failed to make the list at all, not Top 100 nor Top 10 of Comedy -- at least AFI recognizes it.)

EW's picks for the Top 10 Horror Movies:

1) Psycho
2) King Kong (1933)
3) Rosemary's Baby
4) Frankenstein (1931)
5) The Silence of the Lambs
6) The Shining
7) The Night of the Living Dead
8) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
9) Carrie
10) Alien

I disagree with about half of that list, and certainly with the ranking. What really, really pissed me off is The Exorcist being excluded -- not only from the Top 10 Horror list, but it didn't make the Top 100 movies either. And I know damn well that EW used to rank The Exorcist in lists like these, but I guess because Mad Men kept referencing Rosemary's Baby this season, they decided that would be the "cooler" pick.

But The Exorcist -- come on! How many movies on that list caused people to faint in the theater? Do you think King Kong did? The Exorcist caused pandemonium! Rosemary's Baby was described by EW as being "more artful" than The Exorcist, but how many Oscar nods did the latter have compared to the former? The Exorcist got mostly good reviews, scared the pants off of audiences, is a well-crafted, well-acted film that was a genuine phenomenon. Not only that, but the movie still holds up. Even when Friedkin did the unthinkable -- unnecessarily tinkering with the movie, George Lucas-style -- he didn't manage to mess it up, its power wasn't diminished, he even found room for MORE scares. The Exorcist has such a unique atmosphere, (literally) painstakingly created by Friedkin, and fills the viewer with dread from the first frame to the last, the film staying with the viewer long after its over. Does Psycho do that? As far as I'm concerned, Psycho lost a lot of its cred with the terrible Gus Van Sant remake -- contrary to belief, remakes *can* negatively influence perception of the original, and for all of its acting and technical achievements, it's hard to shake the bad memories of the ill-conceived shot-for-shot remake while watching the original. I recognize its importance to the genre and I'm not saying it *shouldn't* be on the list, but...number 1? And it's also the fifth best of the Top 100, EW calling it the "most profound" horror movie. OK...

(Some may think it's preposterous, but I also think the first A Nightmare on Elm Street should have made the Top 10 Horror films. My bias for that franchise would like for it to be in the top half of the list, but realistically, I know it would be more appropriate for it to be in the bottom half of the Top 10. The concept is ingenious and actually terrifying when compared to what other horror movies were doing at the time. I guess we can thank the comedic and inferior sequels for smearing such a negative perception onto the original. I know diehard horror fans would take issue with the omission of John Carpenter's Halloween, so I suppose slashers were overlooked, likely dismissed as exploitational junk. But one could argue that Carrie is exploitational. Not to mention the fact that horror would have been dead for two decades without the slashers of the '70s and '80s.)

ANOES and The Exorcist have something in common that I think can be a rarity in horror: they both can keep you terrorized hours and days after you've finished watching the movie, in a very real-time and real life way. Four hours after watching ANOES, when you settled into bed, did you not tremble a bit at surrendering consciousness to possible unknown forces in the dream world? Later the same evening after rewatching The Exorcist on Halloween, would a flickering light bulb in a church window not cause your heart to race?

The stories and themes of these two horror films stay with you. They are grounded in a sense of reality, of a feeling of "what if it could really happen" that keeps the scares coming well after the credits have rolled.

I think discrediting The Exorcist is an appalling oversight by EW. Was it simply too obvious of a choice for them? Well, it's not like Citizen Kane isn't a predictable choice for the number one spot.

Introductions

I've always been a horror fan. And being a kid in the '80s was a great time for a horror fan's development -- you had the slasher craze holding the box office in a headlock, you had VHS taking over homes and bringing easy access to a variety of movies, you had directors and writers in Hollywood like Spielberg, John Landis, Richard Donner, Joe Dante who grew up loving monster movies and would find ways to spice up their own films with dashes of horror, if not outright produce and make full on horror movies. One of the biggest things when I was a kid? Ghostbusters. It was a time when Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees ruled, and they could be merchandised, products of theirs greeting you at nearly every store's corner. When I think back to malls of the time, one of the things that comes immediately to mind is Freddy Krueger. All of the different Freddy products -- VCR tapes, shirts, posters, the glove, figurines, the stickers, the sticker book and on and on. A Nightmare on Elm Street is my favorite of the slasher franchises, and it's funny to me just how aware I was of Freddy before even seeing one of the movies.

Horror's in my blood -- my mom and one of her sisters were horror nuts and had a big influence on me. My mom likes all kinds of horror (her favorite is John Carpenter's Halloween), but one of the main things I credit her for is getting me into the Universal Monsters, which she had loved when she was a kid. I remember her taping things like the 1931 Frankenstein, buying me the awesome Imperial figures, buying the Remco figures, checking out those super cool Crestwood Monster Series books from the library, getting Pressman's Doorways to Horror VCR game that came with a tape full of clips from old horror movies... I also remember watching The Munsters, which not only got me into that show, but also furthered my liking for the Universal Monsters-styled look. Oh, and I used to really love Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein and even stuff that barely qualified like Transylvania 6-5000. So, I'm grateful for my mom getting me into the Universal Monsters, because I'm not sure I'd like and appreciate or even be into them as much without her introducing them to me. It sounds superficial, but I just love the look of those old monster movies, and I get a kick out of seeing the Universal Monsters on products around Halloween-time.

But my aunt, she was horror obsessed, and she's how I was introduced to a lot of the modern horror movies, like the slashers, she rented a lot 'em. Although I had been aware of Freddy, her house is where I first saw a full Freddy movie, the original Nightmare on Elm Street. A lot of the movies of the time I remember seeing at her house; the Creepshows, Christine, The Hitcher, The Blob remake, Waxwork, Chopping Mall. (Not all of those are gold, but they still made an impact.) My aunt and her daughters is how I first heard of Jason Voorhees -- I wasn't allowed to see those movies yet (nor the adventures of Leatherface; Hellraiser was A-OK, though!), but they were always talking about those movies, referencing them, they had the video tapes laying around. At Halloween, they'd have a home-fashioned stuffed Jason out in the yard. (My aunt also lived in an isolated, kind of boonies-type place, which is pretty reminiscent of the early Friday the 13ths.) My aunt had Stephen King and Clive Barker novels littering the place -- I associate a lot of Stephen King's works with her -- and a cardboard cutout of Pinhead in her basement! You could always talk the latest and greatest in horror with her, so it was disheartening when she abandoned all things horror as she got older.

I know a lot of fans in my age range have a story similar to mine, where thanks to the VCR, we were watching horror and action movies that some would argue we shouldn't have been watching. It's probably unimaginable to kids today, but the VCR's importance can't be overlooked. One of my favorite places when I was a kid was the video store, and I would pretty much always head to the horror section, which was often hidden in the corner. Just being surrounded by horror tapes, wondering what certain movies were about. (Sometimes picturing movies being scarier, judging from their artwork and still photos, than they ended up being.) It was fun, it was a thrill, as a kid, you felt rebellious standing in the horror section as other kids were checking out goofy comedies. Horror's a genre that's not always treated with respect, and people can still treat you funny if you're a horror fan, but I take my horror seriously. That's not to say I can't enjoy a movie that's dumb fun or poke fun at it, and heaven knows there's a lot of bad horror movies out there (it's a little sad that the genre is nothing more than a cash-grab for a lot of filmmakers), but I'm not one of those people like Alice Cooper who's all "Horrors are comedies, theater of the absurd." If that's your take, more power to you, but I've always...taken things too seriously, I guess.

So, basically, I'd like to think of this blog as a virtual recreation of standing in the horror aisle at a video store. I'd like to reminisce, provide an opinion on the highs and lows of the genre, discuss merchandising, the good old days -- talk the latest and greatest in horror. Do I think what I have to say is that important? I decline to answer that. Some topics I just don't feel comfortable clogging a forum with, but my brain will swell with a thought and it needs to bleed somewhere. Somewhere where I can do what I wanna do, say what I wanna say, live how I wanna live, play how I wanna play, dance how I wanna dance, kick and then slap a friend -- Horror-Fu.