Saturday, October 31, 2009

Top Ten Cases: Greatest horror movie villains


I hope everybody is having a nice Halloween. You know, sometimes I'm not quite sure how large my audience actually is. But earlier today, I saw some kid in a Masked Emotions costume, and it really put the enormity of this blog into perspective. Anyway, as promised in my last video, here's the return of Top Ten Cases, ranking my ten favorite horror movie villains. For the most part, I've limited this to "slasher flicks," so you won't see memorable killers like Hannibal Lecter (despite being a marvelous character).

Oh, and this list in part out of my appreciation for those who have filled out my quick blog survey. If you haven't participated yet, please take a moment and answer a few questions. They've been very enlightening so far:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Dn2gP3OIv0b6ObU_2bwb50Sg_3d_3d

Now, click the "Read More" link for the list!

10. Samara ("The Ring") - The thing I like about Samara (the creepy, watery TV killer from The Ring) is that she's painted in a sympathetic light -- yet she just continues to kill and kill. Near the end of the movie you're thinking, "Aw, poor thing." But then seconds later, she's killing the heroes' boyfriend and threatening her son. Part of me appreciates that sort of character complexity, in addition to the unwillingness to sacrifice the sense of danger for the sake of compassion. Plus, she was creepy as all hell in the psychiatric hospital scenes from the first movie.

9. "Mr. Ghost Face" ("Scream") - Sure, there's nothing supernatural about the killer in the Scream movies, but it was loads of fun trying to predict who was lurking behind that ghastly mask. The constant hints (bruises appearing on various characters' faces the night after an intense struggle) and teases ("That character is wearing the same shoes!") added a suspenseful level to the franchise. It wasn't simply a matter of who would survive. It was also a question of who was the killer. Along with that, the idea of a bunch of high school kids going out and buying some cheap costume (which actually existed years before the movie was released) and massacring people is pretty unsettling.

8. Leatherface ("The Texas Chainsaw Massacre") - As I noted in a previous edition of Top Ten Cases in which I ranked horror movies in general, the story of Leatherface and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is so powerful because you can genuinely feel the utter desperation expressed by the protagonist. No matter what they do, no matter who they turn to, it all brings them back to this grim fate. And wearing a mask made of human skin? It doesn't get much grizzlier than that.

7. Pennywise ("It") - Whether you call him "Pennywise" or simply "It," there's nothing creepier than a demonic, dancing clown with sharp fangs and long claws (and this is coming from somebody who doesn't suffer from coulrophobia). Sure, he was technically a shape-shifting entity, but if you ask anybody to describe the killer from Stephen King's "It," they're going to call him a clown. I suppose the greatest compliment I can pay this particular villain is that I barely remember the actual movie -- or even the premise -- but that clown is etched into my memory.

Besides, how awesome is Tim Curry?

6. Jack Torrance ("The Shining") - I have to admit that I don't recall actually ever seeing The Shining in its entirety, but even despite that I cannot deny the infamy of Jack Nicholson's psychotic character. Much like the other movies alluded to on this list, The Shining preys on the innate fear that your ordinary life can take an extraordinary turn, with disastrous results. Here you have a family that retreats to an isolated hotel, only for the father to go mad and attempt to kill his wife and kid. Incidentally, from what I understand, the novel in which the movie is based focuses far more on Jack's alcoholism, indicating that THAT might be the cause of his abusive behavior -- making his murderous descent even more disturbing.

And hey, Jack breaking a door down with an ax and peaking through while yelling, "Here's Johnny!" is one of the most famous scenes in cinema history.

5. Jason Voorhees ("Friday the 13th") - Fun Fact: I've camped at No-Be-Bo-Sco, the location used for Crystal Lake for a number of the Friday the 13th films. Anyway, I daresay that if you asked your average person to name three horror movie villains, Jason's making the list. And while his character steadily devolved to a one dimensional zombie, his original backstory is pretty interesting and overall sympathetic. Jason's a true icon in the horror movie franchise, but unfortunately, because of the deterioration of his character, I couldn't rank him much higher than this.

4. Michael Myers ("Halloween") - In a lot of ways, Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees are the same characters. Both are physically massive and inexplicably strong. Both have a penchant for wearing masks and coveralls. And both have severe issues with the females in their families. Oh, and neither of them talk or appear to enjoy moving at a speedy pace (until recently, anyway).

So why did I rank Mr. Myers higher? In a nutshell, the zombie aspect of his character is ever-so-slightly less explicit and offensive. Along with that, for the most part, the Halloween franchise has managed to stay pretty on target with the psychological aspect of the character. That is to say, Michael Myers' family issues were typically the driving force of the movie. As the Friday the 13th movies became more and more outlandish, the stories tended to drift away from Mrs. Voorhees impact on the Camp Crystal Lake killer.

But my main pet peeve with this character -- and the Halloween movies -- is that they attempt to portray him as a regular human being (just a very tall and strong one). Yet they still decide to kill him off in such a conclusive fashion, essentially destroying any sense of realism for the next installment (and they just KNOW it's coming).

3. Jigsaw ("Saw") - Something has to be said for a horror movie villain who never actually commits a murder (not directly, with his bare hands anyway). That being said, the "Jigsaw" I refer to here is John Kramer -- not any of his successors. Here you have a killer who preys on individuals who would hardly be considered "heroic." For my money, the original is still the best. There's just something claustrophobic and uncomfortable about having the lead characters stuck in a small room throughout the entire ordeal. That's far more unsettling -- even for the viewer -- than having a collection of people roaming through odd looking rooms. The first movie also captured the "what lengths would you go to survive?" mentality, as it focused on two characters, instead of one.

But anyway, I'm drifting a bit. Jigsaw himself is an interesting character. Unlike virtually everybody else on this list, who are driven by revenge or severe mental issues, Jigsaw's motives are surprisingly altruistic. He seemingly genuinely wants his victims to find a way to survive, with the hopes that they'd have a deeper appreciation for the life they had taken for granted. And if they do find a way to survive, he willingly lets them go. That's really unlike anybody else here. And hey, from a purely aesthetic view -- whether it's the dummy, the pig mask, or the black robe -- he's a creeper!

And while I commend the Saw series for killing off their villain and actually keeping him dead (at least I assume, I haven't seen the sixth installment) while continually coming up with clever ways to keep him in the franchise, it's been like four movies since he's been killed. Perhaps it's time to move on?

2. Norman Bates ("Psycho") - Perhaps it goes without saying, but I'm pretty much restricting this to the original Psycho, and not any of the sequels. And in its own right, the 1960 classic stands alone as the greatest moneymaking, by a large margin, of all of Hitchcock's films. I may sound like a broken record at this point, but once again, this is an example in which the audience's insecurities are taken advantage of. A seemingly nice man who appears to be helping some strange woman ends up being a psychotic killer. And it was doneso in such a disturbing manner that many claim they were afraid to take a shower afterwards (then again, it was the Sixties -- how often did people shower to begin with?) And it's also worth mentioning that this particular twist ended has transcended genres -- its constantly alluded to!

As a sidenote, part of what made Norman Bates so great was his diminutive stature, which really makes you realize how much Gus Van Sant dropped the ball by casting 6'5" Vince Vaughn in the direct shot-for-shot remake in 1998. I mean, c'mon, we're supposed to believe that this guy could disguise himself as his own feeble mother. You don't think people would turn heads if they saw a 6'5" elderly woman?

1. Freddy Krueger ("A Nightmare on Elm Street") - Sure, near the end Freddy got a little campy, but when he was first introduced (and I daresay, even in Freddy vs. Jason) he was one twisted dude. Here was a child killer who was essentially executed by a group of vigilant parents. Even without the supernatural stuff that made the character famous, that's some pretty disturbing stuff. But what sets Freddy apart? What makes him stand above the rest as #1? Quite simply, EVERYTHING about this character is so iconic and immediately recognizable. From the charred face to the fedora to the striped sweater to the clawed glove -- you see some article of the Freddy Krueger look and you IMMEDIATELY know who it represents. Like I said above, if you see an extra large, dirty coverall, you may have to think twice before deciding if it belongs to Jason or Michael Myers. You see a bloody knife, and there's a plethora of murderers that belongs to. Practically everything about Freddy is unique and sets him apart from everybody else. Even the way he kills people is out of the ordinary.

I'm excited that the character is making a return -- with its original dark outlook -- but it's a travesty it's being done without Robert Englund.



Bookmark and Share



A CASE OF THE BLOG VISITORS: PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO FILL OUT THIS QUICK SURVEY!!

Read more!

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Monday, October 26, 2009

A Case of the.... Heroes - Episode 4-7

If there was ever a “filler” episode of Heroes, this was it. However, “filler” is decidedly different from “stalling,” so I’ll chalk this up as the lesser of two evils. Normally episodes such as these are a necessary evil when it comes to properly pacing the season, however with such a large cast with so many stories going on, it’s admittedly a bit tough to defend.

http://tv.insidepulse.com/2009/10/27/heroes-episode-4-7-review/



Bookmark and Share



A CASE OF THE BLOG VISITORS: PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO FILL OUT THIS QUICK SURVEY!!

Read more!

Sunday, October 25, 2009

A Case of the.... Smallville - Episode 9-5

While it’s no longer the hot topic sparking debate within my columns, I did want to briefly revisit the point I made a few weeks ago, about how I believe the natural conclusion to Chloe’s current story arc is for her to leave Smallville (the show and the town). Incidentally, my feelings on the matter have tweaked somewhat following this past episode, but an excellent comparison sprung to mind that I think may assist me in more eloquently making this point. Take Prison Break, for instance. C-Note’s character was written out of the series (essentially) relatively early on. His character received a pardon and he was able to live happily ever after with his wife and daughter, no longer forced to live a life on the run without his family. His character had pretty much reached a point where he either received that happy ending, or was needlessly forced to stay on the show because he was popular, even though it deprived the character of his happiness. On the other side of the coin, consider T-Bag. Here’s a guy who was kept on the series throughout its entire run, no matter how much it defied logic, and constantly avoided his comeuppance. His consistent presence – and the fact that he was continually forced to team with the protagonists – really made it difficult to root for our heroes at times. Sure, Lincoln was framed and Michael was merely trying to save his brother, but their antics resulted in a convicted killer and rapist attaining his freedom. And over the course of the series, their actions only ensured that T-Bag remain a free man. Sure, T-Bag was a fun character, but in my opinion the fact that he remained on the show for so long tarnished the intent of the central story.

Of course, this isn’t a perfect example. It’s just to show what can happen when you don’t take advantage of a natural exit because the character is still popular.


Bookmark and Share


Read more!

Nothing to Brag about?

So tonight is the next "theme" PPV presented by WWE, the aptly titled Bragging Rights, where the main event features seven Smackdown guys competing against seven Raw guys. Before anything else, I'm going to bring up the obvious point made by several others: Why do such a match just weeks before Survivor Series -- the originator of the specialty-match-centric Pay-Per-View? It'll only make me even more disappointed if the WWE, once again, abandons the elimination match formula for the traditional November event.

Anyway, this past Friday, practically the entire Smackdown team was overhauled. Normally I would criticize such a dramatic change happening two days before the big show, but in this case I think it was the right decision. My initial reaction to Team Smackdown was that I never really identified any of the Superstars as "Smackdown Superstars." Kane changes shows pretty much every year, so I don't really solidly classify him with any particular brand. Cryme Tyme has spent more time on Raw than they have Smackdown. Drew McIntyre and Eric Escobar have only competed in a handful of official matches, so they're far too fresh to represent the brand. And while Dolph Ziggler is getting the biggest push of his career on the blue show, since he was initially introduced to the company as a Raw guy, I think a lot of people still identify him with that program. And although Chris Jericho has been pro-Smackdown since being drafted, he still appears on Raw each and every week. In fact, out of the original 14 guys participating in the match, DX is really the only ones I solidly identify with their show. And Cody Rhodes too, I guess.

I was beginning to think WWE should have just gone all out with this match, and had guys like Cena on the Raw team and Superstars like Batista and Rey Mysterio on the Smackdown team. It would have at least given us a reprieve of the same title matches we've seen all year.

But anyway, I think this Smackdown team shift was a smart move. While guys like Matt Hardy and Finlay have switched shows a few times, I honestly do consider both "Smackdown" guys. And it's great to see the Hart Dynasty get some of the spotlight. I'm actually majorly intrigued with seeing them compete against DX.

In the end, though, I think the rumored original concept of the show was superior. A night full of triple threat matches (one guy/team from each brand), with the winners of each match competing in a brand supremacy multi-person tag match. Sure, it would get a little clunky with a big three way at the end, and the uneven roster sizes, but it at least would have guaranteed fresh matches, and some of the ECW guys that never see the light of PPV day could have gotten a nice payday opportunity. Plus Undertaker vs. Orton vs. Christian could have been a nice, fun change.

Anyway, ultimately, I see Raw winning because it seems like they're being pushed as the faces in this war. Then again, I think it could also be interesting seeing Big Show turn on his team to help Jericho and Smackdown win.

In related news, yesterday I picked up Smackdown vs. Raw 2010 for Wii, and I must say, I am majorly disappointed. A HUGE reason why I bought the game was because of the Superstar Threads feature, which allows you to alter the attire of the Superstars who appear in the game. This is one of my favorite aspects of the hugely popular No Mercy for N64. In fact, I still go back to that game and update certain appearances. As it turns out, that feature is only available for XBox and PS3. Yet WWE.com and WWE Magazine BOTH go on and on and on about this feature, never once mentioning the exclusivity of it (the game's official site makes one reference to it, from what I can tell).

Along with that, the appearance of some Superstars haven't even been updated since the last game. Shawn Michaels, for instance, is in that same pair of black and red pants that he's been seen in since WrestleMania 21. And he's minus the beard, which he's been sporting for two years now. And Finlay, who's typically in green tights and orange boots, is in his old black tights and white boots. And Edge is in a very early incarnation of his Rated R Superstar tights. Sure, certain guys who have gone through dramatic physical changes have been updated (like Matt and Jeff Hardy), but for the most part the character models shown on WWE.com are not what I've seen on my game.

The game play is fine and there are a lot of fun new features, but overall I feel a little misled, which has taken a lot of the fun out of it for me.



Bookmark and Share


A CASE OF THE BLOG VISITORS: PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO FILL OUT THIS QUICK SURVEY!!

Read more!

Friday, October 23, 2009

Wait....really????

What in the blue hell? This actually exists?

http://www.peeandpoo.com/eng/flasheng.asp

What the heck is going on in Sweden?



Bookmark and Share



A CASE OF THE BLOG VISITORS: PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO FILL OUT THIS QUICK SURVEY!!

Read more!

Thursday, October 22, 2009

True Hero


With Heroes seemingly becoming my own personal Trending Topic this week, I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss something I've felt since the end of this past summer: That the once acclaimed NBC series should take a page from the latest season of True Blood.

The critically praised second season of True Blood was unique in the sense that much of the cast was kept separated for virtually the entire season. Sookie and Bill were in Dallas, most of the time with Eric, dealing with bureaucratic vampire matters (yes, you read that right). Jason was with his church group (yes, you read that right too), Lafayette had a separate arc with Eric, and Sam, Tara, and Andy had generally unrelated story arcs revolving around Maryann. About three quarters of the way through the season, Jason was united with Bill and Sookie, and Sam and Andy's stories intertwined. The episodes leading to the finale were almost like a Seinfeld episode as all of the individual characters and their misadventures came together. Everybody was back in Bon Temps and attempting to control the chaos that had gradually erupted throughout the season.

And while the finale itself didn't quite feel like the climax I was expecting, the season as a whole was marvelous. It was actually very reminiscent of the first season of Heroes (the finest one of them all, according to most fans). The relatively large cast were mostly set apart into pairings (Claire and HRG, Nathan and Peter, Hiro and Ando, Niki and Micah, etc.), with these couples eventually merging with others to create smaller groups (Bennets and Petrellis, Nathan, Niki/Jessica, and Linderman, Hiro, Ando, and Isaac, etc.) And, much like the instance referenced above, by the end of the season the stories converged for a climatic battle.

This season of True Blood was 12 episodes. If Heroes continues the model they followed last year (with one season equaling two Volumes), then this is certainly a fair comparison, and not an apple and oranges situation.

Of course, I'm not one of the people who feel like Heroes needs to copy what they did when they were at their peak -- they just need to recapture that magic. Despite their faults, at the moment they seem to be doing a relatively good job at that (thus far, the central stories are more or less independent, but are beginning to intermingle).

And for what it's worth, I think season one was so successful because people genuinely cared about the characters. Much of that is lost, due in large part to the uneven writing and sometimes inconsistent character behavior. Yet this season of True Blood made me like virtually every character significantly more than I had before. Being separated from Sookie did wonders for Sam's character, in my opinion. Instead of being a lovesick puppy (pun intended), he was a supremely loyal, kind hearted and heroic man. Set apart from everybody else and forced to find himself, Jason grew astronomically from the intolerant sex fiend he was portrayed as during season one. And Eric -- who managed to pop up at least once in the stories of Sookie/Bill, Sam, Jason, AND Lafayette -- proved to be the real highlight of the season.

Is it too late for Heroes to rediscover that spark that made it so successful? I certainly hope not, but if they're open minded enough to realize they might need a little inspiration, might I suggest checking out HBO's On Demand station?



Read more!

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Message from an adoring fan....

The following comment was left under my Heroes review over at Inside Pulse by a reader named "CoolerThanYou" (which is actually rather convenient, because now I know where we each stand on the social ladder):

you are so stupid, your review sucks. heroes is going way down hill and you obviously haven't watched many episode of previous seasons because you aren't comparing it properly. previous seasons were much better and to spin the show in such an upright manner making it sound good still with lame story lines like saving hiro and will peter petrelli lose his healing power if he touches someone is just downright retarded. anyone who reads your review and takes your opinion with any credibility is a dumbass. and who the fuck is HRG? his name is Noah Bennet, get with it!

Geez, tell me how you really feel.

First and foremost, I write my reviews while sitting down, typically in a lounging position. So I'm not doing anything in an "upright manner." Got it?

Second, I have to wonder why somebody with such obvious disdain for the show not only bothers to spend an hour of his night watching the show, but then proceeds to go out of his way to read a review.

Those observations aside, I don't recall ever stating that Heroes hasn't gone downhill. Sure, I try to remain positive, but anybody who reads my reviews should recognize that I usually spend about half of them criticizing some aspect of the episode. I certainly don't give the show a free pass. Along with that, I figure that most people who read my column enjoy the show. If you're a fan of the show, why would you want to read a review that does nothing but rip it apart? So, basically, I'm writing for the people who actually enjoy the show -- not the obnoxious jerk who thinks the show is "retarded."

Also, while I've seen every single episode of Heroes, I'm not comparing this episode to past ones (for that matter, I didn't realize there was a proper way to make comparisons). I also believe that many people are remembering past seasons with rose-colored glasses. The writing was NEVER that great, even in the first season. Consider the fact that Mohinder traveled around the world on the whim that people might have abilities, and even tracked down people he believed possessed some powers. When he's confronted with his first sign of proof, suddenly he's super skeptical and inexplicably decides to return to India. And how about all the stalling with Hiro, where he lost his powers for no identifiable reason just so that the big climax wouldn't occur until the finale? Or the incredibly slow Niki/Jessica story arc? The first season was not without its flaws.

Actually, I'd probably say that season two was the worst season of them all, and that this current season is an improvement over that. But hey, you're free to have your own opinions.

Oh, and I'll call HRG whatever the hell I want. Live with it!


Bookmark and Share


A CASE OF THE BLOG VISITORS: PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO FILL OUT THIS QUICK SURVEY!!

Read more!

Monday, October 19, 2009

A Case of the.... Heroes - Episode 4-6

Even though there’s a decidedly snide tone to my reviews – and I do criticize the show a fair amount – I truly do enjoy Heroes. It’s not a flawless show, and the flaws tend to really get under my skin (mostly because many of them could be fixed so easily), but at the end of the day there are several characters I really like, and it’s an hour that doesn’t drag. Admittedly, I don’t have that “I can’t wait until next Monday!” feeling, but I would be legitimately disappointed if this was one of the shows impacted by the Leno Effect.


I also felt that this was one of the stronger episodes of the season, mostly because it primarily featured three characters I have a soft spot for (HRG, Claire, and Peter) – who, incidentally, also bring out the best in each other, scene-wise – and while I tend to tire of the utterly redundant Sylar and Hiro, I felt they were, for the most part, harmless this episode.


Bookmark and Share


Read more!