31 Days Of Horror: Day 8: Christine

(This not only acts as my last entry in Radiator Heaven’s John Carpenter Week, but my first entry in what will become my Stephen King Week. I love King. I’ve read and damn near own, everything he’s ever written.

But Good Lord his books have turned into some truly fuck awful movies. And I’ll be wading right in. Classic and disaster alike.)




Though it doesn’t often get credited as such, Christine is one of Stephen King’s most complex novels.

Just hear me out here for a second.

Yes I know we’re talking about Christine, the one where the car kills people. But King has a whole hell of a lot up his sleeve. He makes the novel a microcosm of adolescent experience dividing the novel into “Teenage Car Songs” “Teenage Love Songs” and “Teenage Death Songs”. Capturing how the years of impotency and repressed rage can fester and then erupt into fury (wink wink) which presages with startling precision the proto Columbine mindset even moreso then Carrie and Rage.

And while there is plenty to like about it, Carpenter’s adaptation doesn’t quite capture it.

Christine is one of those textbook problematic book to film adaptations. It irons out all the subtext, speeds up the slow burn, telescopes the action so things no longer develop but just happen, and basically removes all the interesting wrinkles from the book for the sake of expediency.

Still let’s face it, most aren’t watching Christine for it’s nuanced take on the adolescent psyche. Most are watching Christine to see a possessed hunk of unholy metal mow down "shitters".

But even this is surprisingly underwhelming. Aside from the suitably OTT finale; which features a bulldozer duel, and a sequence in which the Car drives around while on fire (something impossible not to make look badass and metal as hell) most of the crash sequences are strangely underwhelming. For a movie that features cars running into things the stalk sequences are surprisingly “low impact” (sorry I was possessed by the ghost of Peter Travers). Most of the time, people run screaming from the car, the car corners them, and we cut away. Death Proof this is not.

The cast does a decent job, particularly Keith Gordon, who does his best with Artie, even if the screenplay basically has him turn from guy getting sand kicked in his face to swaggering hood more or less off screen.

Christine as a movie just isn’t as tight as the typical Carpenter fair. It’s filled with odd stylistic tics. Like the true crime style date subtitles that occasionally pop up, and narrative dead ends. Like Harry Dean Stanton’s perfunctory role, as a detective who shows up to harass Arnie in a few scenes, disappears, and then randomly appears in the last scene to solemnly inform our two leads that they are heroes, having never once appeared in the same scene with them prior to this event. One keeps waiting for one of heroes to turn to him and ask "And who the hell are you?" Obviously his role was cut down, and I’m never particularly sorry to see Harry Dean Stanton. But it's weird sloppy details like that which keep Christine lodged firmly in Carpenter’s second tier.

31 Days Of Horror: Day 7: The Thing

(This is of course part of Radiator Heaven's Excellent John Carpenter Blogothon).




The Thing is one of those movies that’s so well made that its difficult to know just where to begin. Does one start by praising its expert command of tone and tension? The casual brilliance of its screenplay a master class in plot and character, aided by the likes of James Cromwell, Keith David, Wilford Brimley (insert Diabetes joke here) and of Course Kurt Russell, one of the best casts Carpenter has ever had to play with? The sheer brilliance of its mise en scene? The mind blowing designs courtesy of Rob Bottin? The palatableness of it’s dread before the monster reveals itself? The sheer relentlessness of the film afterwards?

Is it expectable to just write, “Everything about this movie is amazing.” And then just move on.

No. But it is mighty tempting.

Considering the film is beating every other Carpenter film at the poll right now two to one, I’m clearly not the only one who thinks this way. But just what is it about the film that gives it such an edge? I mean aside from all that stuff I just mentioned.

Personally, I admire it just for its economy. The script by Bill Lancaster (Of this and The Bad News Bears and that’s about it. Also Burt Lanchester's son. Kind of an achievement in and of itself) is a thing of beauty. Take the first scene we get with MacReady, drinking alone in his shed, playing chess against his computer badly, and in a fantastically daft moment of pique ends up dumping his whiskey bottle into the motherboard. Thus depriving himself of both his only sources of entertainment. Not only does this tell us everything we need to know about the character, while breaking out of the stereotypical “quite cool loner box” it both foreshadows and acts as a microcosm of the climax of the film. Not bad for what’s basically a throwaway gag.

But give Carpenter the credit for knowing how to mine that for all it’s worth. Take the opening scene, of the “dog” running from the Norwegian helicopter. Shot with such a desperation, such a complete sense of… well underdogness that I’ll bet money that no matter how many times you’ve seen this damn movie. No matter how completely you know what you know, you STILL end up rooting for that dog to get away. You just can’t help it.

No matter how justifiably praised Rob Bottin’s designs on the creature are I still don’t think you can quite over estimated just how unique they are. Probably the only creature design in the last thirty years not completely beholden to HR Giger’s work in Alien. There is such a malevolent logic to Bottin’s work, and such a life to its practical side, that when I say I consider it the apex of practical effects, I’m not exaggerating.

If I have one complaint about The Thing (and I suppose I must before I simply start hemorrhaging compliments) it’s that since watching it on the big screen it has never worked quite the same way on the small. Viewed on the proper screen with the proper audience the temperature in the theater just drops.

Still that’s hardly the film’s fault. I consider The Thing to be one of the best monster movies ever made. And I still think that underrates it.

31 Days Of Horror: Day 6: Cigarette Burns

(This is of course part of Radiator Heaven's Excellent John Carpenter Blogothon).




I would hardly be the first person to note that film is a drug. Neither for that matter would Cigarette Burns. But rarely have I seen a film, that articulated the idea quite so well as Cigarette Burns. That understands that junkie’s quest, the way a film that’s just out of reach can dance around the backend of your subconscious, the way the hunt becomes just as much a part of the experience of the film itself. In the bit torrents era this isn’t quite the same anymore, but for those who remember the experience of hunting down that last elusive film in a director’s run, Or a film like The Holy Mountain, or Salo in The VHS era, the film will ring true.

And the hook, oh man what a hook. The idea that out there is a film, that will provide both the ultimate film going experience, and the end of all film going experiences. Can any of us who have devoted a good chunk of our lives to film going honestly say that we wouldn’t at least consider looking? I know I for one would be sorely tempted. To stand before something that is truly unlike anything else ever made, the rumored ultimate form of the art… could you just walk away? Leave without ever knowing what was hiding in those reels, waiting for the light to bring out. After all, you know how terrible the price is, but not how wonderful the rewards could be.

And yes, I know that to even consider watching such a film, is stupid, dangerous, and borderline insane. To which I can only reply, that is the nature of addictions.

As disinterested as Carpenter seemed in his post In The Mouth Of Madness films (I may not like that title but he is trying.) is how engaged he seems by Cigarette Burns. Though the film’s scale is small, it wrings the maximum amount of tension from its set ups, and through it’s subtle use of location (including somewhat brilliantly shooting Vancouver as Vancouver), manages to give the production a much larger sense of scale then it actually has.

The small scale also helps drive up the tension. There’s no room for a big climax of The Thing style showdown. But what Carpenter can do, is put you in the frame of mind for something like the infamous snuff sequence, that anything can happen, a skill he’s always had. You’re never safe in this film.

The cast is equally engaged, even the usually unappealing Norman Reedus. Udo Kier in particular makes the most out of his small role as Bellinger, the man behind the madness.

Any horror film can make scare you, the best horror films scare you because of their ideas, and what’s more, your reaction to those ideas.

For cinephiles I would argue that Cigarette Burns is among the best of horror films. Where the scariest thing about it, is despite the dark places in which it treads, it remains unabashedly, a twisted sort of valentine.

BONUS FEATURE:

(For my Senior Project In College I had the opportunity to talk to Drew McWeeny (Writer of Burns) for a documentary I made about Fandom. As a great admirer of both his films and his criticism (I would certainly count him, along with Roger Ebert, and Nathin Rabin as my most formative influences as both a critic and filmgoer) it was quite a treat. I found Mr. McWeeny to be a personable and generous, and we ended up having quite a long conversation. And I ended up with more footage then I could use.

So when I decided to write about Cigarette Burns, I thought I’d edit some of the Cigarette Burns and John Carpenter related outtakes together for this. Hope you enjoy:)

31 Days Of Horror: Day 5: Vampires

I’d written off Vampires without seeing it. It’s no secret that post They Live Carpenter is spotty, if you want to be polite about it (Cigarette Burns, and hopefully The Ward, excluded). Vampire’s promised to be no exception.

Well, I’m glad I did see it. Vampire’s isn’t great, but it’s not the full born travesty that Ghosts On Mars and Children Of The Damned is either. It’s fun enough. If I had to compare it to one film in Carpenter’s oeuvre, it’d be Prince Of Darkness. It’s a film that tries for some interesting stuff, but has a lot more to offer in potential then in practice. A film that is perhaps half of what it should be. But at least it has a kick ass John Carpenter score to its credit.

James Woods stars as the leader of a crew of Fearless Vampire Killers, hired by the Vatican who ends up on the business end of a very pissed off Original vampire. These being pre Twilight Vampire’s, they enjoy ripping the throats out of people and drinking their still steaming blood, rather then sparkling and serving as abstinence metaphors. In short order Wood’s finds himself on the receiving end of a Vampiric Beat down stick, with an unreliable ally in his Vatican Bosses, and what little remains on his of his old team quickly turning equally unreliable.

In true Carpenter fashion only his righteous badassedness can save him.

The film begins promisingly enough, with a team of vampire hunters methodically taking apart a nest of vamps, in a tense well put together set piece. It’s followed immediately by a full on retaliatory massacre by the head vamp, which features some tremendous pre CGI gore effects.

That’s when the movie just kind of stops.

We get about a half hour of skullduggery and hugger mugger. Followed by Mythology and subplots that are just powerfully uncompelling. Things do pick up a bit at the end. Including a pretty decent set piece in which our remaining vampire hunters attempt to lure the pack out of their stronghold.

James Woods brings the full brunt of his skeevy charm to the role of Jack Crow, vampire hunter extraordinaire. But he’s dragged down by his partner, played by one of the lesser Baldwins, who’s what we refer to as a drag on the ticket. And Sheryl Lee who spends the majority of her time looking utterly befuddled. Together, they participate in one of the least engaging perfunctory romances in recent memory. They stop the film dead whenever they appear onscreen. Which is with unfortunate regularity. Things aren't helped by a villain who is closer to the Big Daddy Martian Zombie end of the spectrum then Lo Pan.

Unfortunately they’re responsible for most of the film’s boring ass middle section. And while things do pick up for a good final set piece, the final part of the finale is one of the most egregious anticlimaxes this side of Desperado.

On the whole Vampires isn’t a disaster, just kind of a disappointment. Don’t get me wrong it definitely has its moments. But it’s even more frustrating because of the flashes of brilliance it shows.

31 Days Of Horror: Day 3: They Live

This review is my first (but trust me not last) entry to JD's of Radiator Heaven's John Carpenter Blogothon. It's started off great and it's just going to get better.

They Live is not subtle. Neither is a Molotov cocktail through the window. But it’s mighty effective.

They Live is a satire that doesn’t want you to miss a single point it’s making. And that’s OK, as far as I’m concerned. I mean sure the coded messages Piper finds under the world's advertising, sending base messages of Obedience and consumption for consumptions sake, may be blunt. But can you say they're not true to life?

In the giddy world of making believe, the American economy is in a freefall, as the middle class is destroyed by corporate maneuvering; while the media is used to keep them pacified and powerful forces misdirect populist anger. I know it’s far fetched right?

Don’t worry though, it’s not David Koch, it’s a race of aliens, who are helping dismantle the government with the help of Earth’s parasitical elite. Phew.

You know I’m going to stop pointing to parallels now, before the aneurysm kicks in.

It’s all fairly in tune with what Carpenter’s always done. There’s a damn good thesis to be written about the use of the disenfranchised as a subject of horror. It focuses on another of Carpenter’s solidly blue collar action heroes. This time a hard working man out of work™. Whose living at a hobo camp when he notices a sharp increase in the rise of both Jack Booted Thuggery and strange Television commercials. Sensing a correlation between the two he sneaks into the basement of a local church where he finds…

C’mon seriously. Do I really need to tell you? More so then any of his films aside from Halloween, They Live has crossed over. It’s one of those movies everyone knows, even those who haven’t seen it. And while that isn’t solely because of the film alone (Shepard Fairey owes John Carpenter a fucking Coke that’s all I’m saying) that doesn’t change the fact that They Live is a film that relentlessly, primally works.

Into the chaos strides Rowdy Roddy Piper, AKA “I’m not Kurt Russell, though clearly I was intended to be.” Piper actually does turn in a pretty solid performance. He delivers the immortal “Kick Ass and Chew Bubblegum” line with conviction and certainly knows how to deliver a pile driver. He’s just not Kurt Russell. Still he is partnered with Keith David, who can generate enough charisma for ten men.

Carpenter would never get away with making They Live, the way it is now. And I’m not even talking about the subversive content. It keeps it’s hero in the dark for over a half an hour, more then a third of its runtime. No way any film today would be allowed to bury their hook so deep. Especially not one so insanely catchy as the one that power’s They Live.

The film does have it’s flaws, it carries the pacing goes slack at times, with a distinct whiff of filler, even in the famous “Put the glasses on!” scene, glorious expenditure of testosterone that it is. And though I can’t call something a flaw that I love so dearly, it has always struck me as odd that Carpenter seemed to consciously try to end They Live on the least classy note possible. The last shot of They Live is like one of those crazy ideas you would always hear Sam Fuller wistfully talk about that a horrified studio would never let him make (look up his plans for the opening of Underwold USA sometime). It gets the idea across in the most horrifically direct way possible.

And it’s that sheer heat of the movie carries it through. Sure we come for the kicking ass and the chewing bubblegum, Roddy Rowdy Piper laying some Space Skeleton’s low. But it’s impossible to watch a scene like the one set in the stockholder’s meeting, in which a smiling upper class blithely sells out the future of their species for their own personal gain, without tapping into the well of populist anger that flows through the film at all times. And makes it impossible to forget once seen.

The Unseen #26: Prince Of Darkness

Yes its time yet again for yet another installment of Thing's That Don't Suck's most neglected column, THE UNSEEN (Lightening crash)

(The Poster Is Awesome The Movie Not So Much)

Why’d I Buy It?: John Carpenter. Hollywood Video closing. The Math isn’t hard.

Why Haven’t I Watched It?: The film has the reputation of being John Carpenter’s first major misfire. The first downhill coast on the long sad slope that led to Ghosts On Mars. Sure it has its passionate defenders, but so does In The Mouth Of Madness. A movie which a few effective moments aside is dreadful. I wasn’t looking forward to it.

How Was It?: Not as bad as it could have been and not as good as it should be. While this is certainly more of a film by the John Carpenter who made the films I love, like The Thing (Intruders hiding in the skin of friends), Assault On Precient 13 (Urban Paranoia) and especially They Live (Stylistically, philosophically, and iconagrophy) its still Carpenter’s first slip up. The fact that he was eventually able to get close enough to the finish line for a conditional field goal, does not change the fact that he fumbled the ball quite badly.

The problem of Prince Of Darkness is that it never capitalizes on its potential. As Roger Ebert pointed out in his review, you can’t make a movie that purports to be about the metaphysical nature of evil and then have most of its runtime feature people in pancake makeup hitting each other with planks. It’s not bad but its sadly the first time that Carpenter’s reach exceeded his grasp. The first time the potential outclasses the execution.

The film follows a group of grad students who are charged with monitering a force in an abandoned church, that seems to be the physical manifestaion of evil, and identifies itself as Satan himself. Its an intriguing concept with all sorts of juicy conflicts between religion and reason, faith and skeptisism, homeless people made of bugs and helpless coeds. With enough high falutin talk about Quantum Physics for a new What The Bleep Do We Know? But its all kind of terribly inert.

This is one of those movies that’s just not well thought through. Take Donald Pleasance’s character, as the priest who is confronted with the fact that everything he believes in is a lie. Lest you think that my religion is getting in the way, I’m not offended by the concepts but by the lazy writing. When Pleasance is forced to face this (after giving impassioned speeches about the limits of reason for most of the move) does he struggle? No. He hears a speech that’s half baked by Dan Brown standards, and gives a philosophical seemingly drunken monolouge that can basically be summed up as “Whelp I’ve devoted my life to a lie. Whoopsie Daisy!!! Wackedy Smackedy DooooooOooo!” And has about the same amount of depth.

There is some things to recommend about Prince Of Darkness. Carpenter has some effecting imagery. Using some simple tricks to show the laws of physics being blasely defied. He also uses a crowd of street people who are being effected by the evil to great effect. Never quite tipping his hands to when they go from “normal” to possessed. There is a great paper to be written about John Carpenter’s use of the disenfranchised as figures of horror. Time and time again he returns to that theme and image, Escape From New York, Assault On Precient 13, and They Live, and he never makes it anything less then some truly creepy and thought provoking stuff. Disturbing on more then one level.

The actors are also thoroughly invested, including Dennis Dunn and Victor Wong returning from Big Trouble In Little China, Donald Pleasance who always does strong work with Carpenter even when the script lets him down here. And a guy who looks disconcertingly like Tom Atkins. And even though the film does not quite achieve its ambitions one cannot fault the film for having them.

Still this film arouses nothing so much as the fervent desire that it was better.

The 25: Part 3: Big Trouble In Little China

(The twenty five is an examination of the twenty five films that made me a cinephile. These aren’t necessarily what I consider best movies, nor are they necessarily my favorite. Though in some cases they are both. Instead these are the films that made the biggest most indenialable impression on me. Films that if they hadn’t hit a certain way at a certain time I would not be the same film goer that I am today. They’re the twenty five.)



So, now that I understood that movies where made and a director made them (I know this is simplified, trust me, but I remain a staunch auteurist so just work with me here) It was only a matter of time before I became a fan of one. I suppose you could argue that I was a fan of Hitchcock first, and that Man Who Knew Too Much/Birds double feature certainly led me to viewing many of the master’s films, there are two things wrong with this.

1) Hitchcock was foisted on me, I saw a documentary about him first, then saw his films. In other words I was prepped. Carpenter I had to discover independently.

2) Then as now I almost thought of Hitchcock in terms of a genre rather then a director. When I went to the video store there were Western’s, war movies, and Hitchcock pictures. I wasn’t really consciencely exploring an artist’s work yet. Just wondering what I should grab for the night.

Carpenter is a filmmaker who seems to be going through a mini backlash right now, with younger film fans especially wondering what all the fuss is about. I’ve got to call shennanigins on this, Carpenter’s not a perfect filmmaker. Indeed just as he was the first filmmaker I ever really loved, he was also the first to let me down. By the time I was old enough to see John Carpenter movies in the theater they weren’t worth seeing (Though in all fairness, I’m really hoping The Ward knocks my ass out, and Cigarette Burns is just as good as his eighties work (Pro Life not so much). But he is a great one. True he make his films with the confident sturdy steps of a craftsmen rather then the flailing of a virtuoso. But just because he isn’t showy doesn’t mean he’s not an intelligent valuable filmmaker.

Take Big Trouble In Little China. Certainly it’s a movie that’s regarded fondly, both by the general public and cineastes as the pinnacle of a certain kind of 80’s excess filmmaking. And while it certainly is that, though in terms of wit and imagination it puts many of its fellows to shame. As dated as Batman feels Big Trouble is fresh you could put it in the theater today and it would still play, though everyone would be confused by lack of shitty CGI and the fact that the movie has an actual color palate beyond the grey of most genre films.

And that’s still not doing justice to what a smart innovated film Big Trouble really is. It’s a mash up film, a full generation before that was supposed to happen, beating Kill Bill to the punch by twenty odd years. Mixing old serials, The Yellow Peril pulps, Five Fingers Of Death, The Shogun Assassin and Howard Hawk’s and mixing them into a frothy exhilarating brew. Taking imagery and recontextualizing it for its own nefarious ends.


It is in short, a complete fucking blast.

But that’s not all. Few give credit for just how narratively clever Big Trouble is, without once drawing attention to itself. It is after all a movie told completely from the perspective of the sidekick. After all it’s Dennis Dung’s Wang who gets the girl, fights the big bad, and saves the day. Russell’s Jack Burton, gets his ass kicked, complains, and looks goofy.


It’s a keen bit of postmodernism, that far from being clever for its own sake, serves the story and subtly comments on the ethno centricism inherent in pulps. For all the talk about it just being a dumb cheesy pleasure Big Trouble In Little China has a lot on its mind. Lets see Raiders Of The Lost Ark top that.

Of course this wasn’t on my mind at the time. At ten I can pretty much say without a doubt the thoughts this movie brought up weren’t “My that’s a clever deconstruction on narrative convention and racial politics in genre fiction.” It was probably somewhere more along the lines of “OhmyGodKurtRussellisthecoolestanddidyouseethepartwheretheguywiththehatexplodedandIthinkyoucanseeboobsinthebackgroundofthatonescene.”

My point is that Carpenter is able to layer things so well into his films, that he often misses out on the credit. If you can catch the nuances in his work great, but he’s not going to lead you by the hand and place them front and center. The story always comes first.

And that’s why I started to follow Carpenter, from Big Trouble, to Escape, to The Fog, to The Thing. He is like I said, the first filmmaker I was ever consciencely a fan of. I've been one now for about fifteen years, and I’ve loved every minute of it. So thank you Mr. Carpenter. Thank you very much.


SIDENOTE:

Conventional wisdom says you should never meet your heroes. I’ve been lucky so far. As everyone who I’ve met who I’ve admired has been at least cordial, and sometimes truly wonderful. So I thought I’d go ahead and relate a time when meeting one of my heroes kicked ass.

Carpenter was having a tribute to him at The Aero Theater in Santa Monica (Which is truly an amazing cinema. If you ever get a chance to go. I don’t know if I can quite rank it over the New Beverly, but trust me, if its not the best theater in LA, its certainly the second best.) I was trying to make it to the double feature of The Fog and Christine, but tickets where sold long before I got there. I picked up tickets to the next days Escape Double Feature, and decided since I’d driven all the way out to Santa Monica I might as well enjoy.

I walked down to the beach and about an hour later as I was coming back, I noticed about a half dozen people gathering around a black town car outside the theater. Talk about timing. Carpenter comes out, with a gruff pitch perfect “What do you assholes want?” as soon as someone had the balls to mention signing, he smiled and said he’d be happy to, adding only a “One per customer guys I’ve got to get inside.” I had Big Trouble In Little China and Assault On Precint 13. I went with Assault as I figured he saw it less. I shook his hand told him my name He was nice enough to personalize my copy. I asked half jokingly, if he needed an intern and he gave me a smile and a “You and everybody else kid.” Then moved onto the next guy.

I hung around just happy to be hanging with the guy. He was charming and personable with all his fans and as it began to thin out I mustered up the balls to ask him to sign Big Trouble too. Not unfriendly he asked “Why should I kid?” To which I responded, it was my favorite movie he ever made. He stopped considered, and said, “Well that’s a pretty good reason.” And signed Big Trouble as well.

If that had been the end of it, I would have been more then happy. But it wasn’t.

When Carpenter really impressed me was the next night. I came for The Escape double feature. After a great Q&A I went out for a cigarette and saw Carpenter getting MOBBED. If you’ve never been to The Aero, it has this kind of outdoor lobby, its basically the theater at the back of you, then two long walls and an open entrance to the street. Carpenter was in the middle. And the entire thing was filled with fans trying to get at him. Dozens if not a couple hundred people all pushing and shoving trying to get their stuff signed.

It looked kind of like this.



I’m mildly claustrophobic and just looking at the crowd nearly gave me a case of the screaming memes. But to Carpenter’s ever lasting credit far from losing his shit and screaming for everyone to get the fuck away from him. Which I almost certainly would have done. He calmly waited it out, signed something for everyone in the crowd, and was never anything less then gracious.

So here’s to Carpenter, a great filmmaker and a true class act. Like I said before, he was my first favorite director, I doubt I could have picked a better one.

THE RETURN OF 31 DAYS OF HORROR: #1 The Fog

Horror fans take a lot of shit. Most people who aren’t movie fans, and even a surprising amount who are, simply can’t wrap their minds around the appeal. Watching horror movies is something that people expect you to be embarrassed about, it’s seen as adolescent, and immature if not down right harmful. Many view watching a horror movie to be akin to watching simulated snuff.

And it’s hard to defend the genre against these people. Oh sure I can talk about technique and style, and the way you can use horror films to reflect societies fears. You can even get a little less sophisticated and talk about the simple joy of watching someone like Tom Savini, Rob Bottin, or KNB pull off what equates to one great grue soaked magic trick. And that’s all the truth. But not the whole truth.

So why do it? Why watch images of people being killed? Why wallow in the worst your subconscious can bring up? Why do I enjoy sitting in the dark and watching terrible things happen? The truth is if you’re like me, you don’t quite know why you watch horror movies. The above paragraph, that’s all stuff you enjoy about it, but its not why. You watch them because, because there is something different about you (And that’s not bad, here’s a nice ego stroke after all the tough questions). Something that responds to the monsters, and creeps, and slashers and deadites.

Something that has a pure love for sitting in the dark and having the ever living shit scared out of you. Some part that gets psyched for the worse possible scenario. For the monster just once to be as bad as it is on the poster. For the movie to be, just once, as bad as all the parents groups are saying.

And what I really love about The Fog, is it comes the closer to capturing that feeling, then any other movie I’ve seen. In it’s masterful opening scene a grizzled old fisherman tells a story to a terrified group of young campers, with no further purpose then to traumatize them with a tale of murderous leper ghost pirates, who are surely about to murder them in their beds. It doesn’t get to the heart of the why. But every time the movie starts and I see those wide eyed boy scouts shuddering in fear, I can’t help but give a smile and nod of recognition.

Of course that’s not the only pleasure the scene captures. It’s also about the pleasures of storytelling. It’s the other reason I love this movie, more so then anything else in John Carpenter’s filmography, with the exception of Big Trouble In Little China, it a film where you can see Carpenter enjoying the hell out of the yarn he gets to spin. Murderous Ghost Leper Pirates! Hidden Shameful Secrets! Battle For Survival Atop A Lighthouse! And Fog! Dear Sweet Jesus The FOG!!!

The Fog tells the story of the quaint little town of Antonio Bay. A nice little town that had the misfortune to begin it’s history with the murder of a bunch of lepers. Now a hundred years later the understandably peeved ghosts are back for revenge, and they have the meat hooks to do it. They travel in an ominous Fog which shrouds the townsfolk. Who include the great Adrienne Barbeau as a single mother/DJ who tries to warn the townsfolk while fending off a siege of the living dead from her lighthouse station, Janet Leigh as the town’s mayor, and Hal Holbrook as Father Whiskey Bottle, who discover the towns dreadful secret just in time to ignore it. And Jamie Lee Curtis who rolls into town and shacks up with Tom Atkins (If she yelled “Thrill Me” During Their Sex Scene this would officially be the greatest movie ever.) just before the storm, proving that she’s got the absolute worst luck as far as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The idea of
Her as a drifter terrifies me, as it means she has undoubtedly left a trailer of murderers, forest fires, earthquakes, and locust infestations at each town she was unlucky enough to visit.

Carpenter shoots the film quite well, gaining quite a lot of mileage from the ominous fog. It’s a cheap but effective tool for shrouding his Ghost Pirates. A good example of a director using the power of suggestion without failing to give a pay off. Their numbers, and natures are never truly revealed (though as leperous water logged ghosts they can’t be looking great). And he’s able to provide some genuine chills.

And yeah it’s not perfect, it doesn’t work with focused merciless clockwork that his best films do (Halloween, The Thing) and it doesn’t have the epic scope of say Escape From New York, or Big Trouble In Little China. It’s a bit of a shaggy dog story, in all honesty, all disjointed, never sure whose story it’s telling. And It plays pretty fast and loose with it’s rules, something that always bothers me.

But for some reason, it doesn't really matter. Despite some sloppiness The Fog always retains that simple pleasure of a good horror story well told.