Review: Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Before I start this review, let me address the elephant in the room when it comes to today's trend in horror movies: the remake. I grew up watching the staples of the horror genre: A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Hellraiser, and of course the gaggle of sequels churned out by each franchise. So to have to sit and watch Michael "Make Things Go Boom" Bay gobble up all of the rights to these movies just so he can profit off of the name is pretty heart-wrenching. You know damn well the movies won't be as good as the original, but the name has the power to make us buy a ticket even though we will probably walk away disappointed. And here is where I think Michael Bay has horror fans of my generation by the balls. Being born in 1984, I wasn't even alive for the premiere of most of these movies, and I was way too young to go have my parents take me to the theater to see any of the sequels. So, I had to make do either waiting for them to come out on TV or by renting them on video. I never really got to experience the event of going out, cheerily buying overpriced popcorn, and seeing these icons on the big screen. The remakes coming out today give us a chance to do so.

Now when it comes specifically to remaking A Nightmare on Elm Street, there were a couple of other factors that intrigued me. Firstly, modern special effects would allow for more creativity when playing with the dream sequences in the movie. Even though the effects in the original movie were pretty damn creative for their day, I could see a case for improved visuals with updated technology and I wanted to see if director Samuel Bayer could utilize them well. After watching the movie, I can say that in some ways he did, and in some ways he really, reeeeeeally didn't. When it came to developing a frightening atmosphere, the effects were right on the mark. We see a classroom full of students disintegrate into ash as one of the teens (I really don't feel like remembering who was who) falls asleep during school. We watch blood burst in a torrent from the ceiling (a nod to the blood volcano from the original, perhaps?). And the line between reality and dream is constantly blurring in a way that just wasn't possible when the original movie was produced. However, as often happens in horror movies nowadays, computer-generated imagery (CGI) was very overused. The drawback to CGI is that 9 times out of 10, I can tell that it's CGI. Freddy's make up is the prime example for this movie. I read that they were going for a look that more closely resembled the effects of being badly burned which I supposed they needed to do through CGI, but if you know that's what you're looking at then it's that much harder to pretend it's real and get lost in the movie.

This shit is seamless...as long as I don't move or speak.

Speaking of Freddy, the other thing that interested me about the new Nightmare was the choice of Jackie Earle Haley as the new Freddy Krueger. Now, for most fans of the original movies, casting someone other than Robert Englund as Freddy automatically counts for strikes one, two, and three. But if they were going to recast the role, I really can't think of anyone better than Jackie Earle Haley. I was as surprised as anyone when they cast Kelly Leak from the Bad News Bears as Rorshach for the recent film adaptation of The Watchmen, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone else who could turn a small, skinny redhead into such a believable badass. So why couldn't he do the same for Freddy? Unfortunately, his role was usually just a Robert Englund impression of hammy one-liners. Haley does alright with this but it seems a bit forced. He really shines through, however, when Freddy's rage boils over. Just as with Rorshach, a pissed off Jackie Earle Haley is a terrifying Jackie Earle Haley. But Freddy rarely reaches that point, so Haley's abilities were squandered.

***Spoiler Alert*** The writers also waste what appears to be a good opportunity to make their own unique vision of Freddy Krueger. In the original films, Freddy was a evil child killer before and after he was killed by the parents of Springwood. In the updated version, more emphasis is put on Freddy as a pedophile rather than a murderer, and throughout the movie they toy with the idea that maybe Kruger was innocent and wrongly accused and murdered by overanxious parents. This idea is dropped, however, when we learn that Freddy was indeed guilty and deserved whatever he got. But I can't help wonder if it wouldn't have been more interesting had they made the movie their own by making the human incarnation of Freddy be innocent. Now, the Freddy that haunts our dreams should not be a sympathetic character. We all know and love Freddy as a sadistic demon who will psychologically and physically torture his victims. But what of this demon was created not by the inherent evil of a man, but by the actions of those who thought he was evil. I don't know, it's just a thought. ***End Spoiler***

Now, as remakes go, this one wasn't terrible. The obligatory twenty-something actors playing teenagers were all passable, I had a good time with the various surprise scares, the gore left me satisfied, and honestly I just enjoyed the nostalgic value of bringing back something fun from my childhood (screw you normal people and your Sesame Street). If you can put aside the fact that Michael Bay probably had no business making the movie in the first place, you can probably get some entertainment out of it. If you don't need to make an event out if it like I did, however, you might just want to wait for it to come out on DVD. Grade: C+

Recommendation: Phantasm

Today I just feeling like taking the chance to talk about one of my favorite horror movies, the super low-budget but still awesome Phantasm. I'd mention that it was directed by Don Coscarelli and starred Michael Baldwin, Bill Thornbury, and Reggie Bannister but if you've never seen Phantasm those names probably mean absolutely nothing to you. In fact, if you've heard of Phantasm at all, it's probably because of...

the killer balls that fly through the air and drill into people's heads. I'm guessing this is probably the point where I lose most of you because the concept either seems disgusting, lame, or a combination of both. However, if you dig under that layer of B-Movie cheese, Phantasm really is an effective horror movie.


I think the big mistake that people who don't like horror movies make is to compare them with other genres in terms of what makes for a good movie. If you're not willing to completely suspend disbelief for two hours, then you'll be disappointed. Take Phantasm's basic premise: an evil being from another dimension is robbing graves to turn the dead into zombie dwarfs to be enslaved on his home world. Obviously, there is no way to approach that without it sounding pretty dumb. But here's the thing: conventionally well-written scripts and plot structure does not make a good horror movie. So why watch at all? Well, let's take a look at what makes Phantasm a worthy horror film.

Of course, one of the most important elements of any good horror movie is a memorable villain, and Phantasm boasts one of the scariest senior citizens in the history of film, The Tall Man. The Tall Man is the undertaker at the Morningside Funeral Home, which gives him ample opportunity for the aforementioned grave robbing. What makes The Tall Man such a great villain is his presence. Actor Angus Scrimm takes a very minimalist approach, having literally only about a dozen words worth of lines in the whole movie. But he really doesn't need to say anything. Take one look at that twisted scowl and you know that he's got some bad intentions. He freaks you out, gets your adrenaline pumping, and his is a face that stays with you long after the movie ends. That, my friends, is one of the things you look for in a good horror film.

Now, there are two schools of thought when it comes to the protagonists of a horror movie. In slasher films like Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, it's OK if the characters are likable but really their only purpose is to serve as cannon fodder for the anti-heroes like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger. Their characterizations rarely get beyond that of "jock" or "slut" because we know they won't be around long enough for anyone to really give a shit about them anyway. In a movie like Phantasm, however, we're not really expected to root for the villain, so you have to make the good guys important enough to the audience for them to actually care if they live or die. Considering there are no name actors in the movie, I think they really do a good job at making the audience care. Bill Thornbury and Michael Baldwin play brothers Jody and Mike, respectively, and I had no trouble buying them as a family with their own history that carries into the movie. As they get taken through the ringer while facing off with the Tall Man I really found myself hoping they would both make it through the movie. Then there's Reggie Bannister playing Reggie, the local "hot as love" ice cream man. I know that he sounds like a schmuck, but I guarantee he makes it work, and again by making you like him there is more suspense when he's put in harm's way.

And if you're going to have anyone harmed in a horror movie, you better do it well. Special effects can make or break any horror movie, and I'm not going to bother trying to explain it. I'm just going to show you the following clip from the movie Shark Attack 3.



Granted, I don't think special effects were the only thing holding back Shark Attack 3 from being a masterpiece, but if we're being asked to put what we know about reality on the shelf for a little while, there should be at least a little effort to fool us. In Phantasm's case, director Don Coscarelli does very nice work with minimal budget. He uses clever editing and camera angles to toy with the viewer's sense of reality, and there are some very good practical effects for some gnarly gore scenes. Granted, he misses the mark a few times, like with a killer bug that appears to be controlled by fishing line, or zombie dwarfs that come of as kind of silly, but for the most part he does what he needs to do to keep the audience involved rather than pointing out sub par effects.

A last thing that gives Phantasm a final push into being a quality horror film is the soundtrack. If the soundtrack sucks, especially in a horror movie, then it can bring the whole movie down with it. But if it's done right, a soundtrack can set the tone for the entire movie. It doesn't need to be an elaborate symphony, either. John Carpenter did his own music when he made Halloween, but even people who don't watch horror movies recognize that frantic piano melody that seems to follow Michael Myers around wherever he goes. And as much as I love the soundtrack to Halloween, I actually like Phantasm's even more. It's got a very spooky vibe, but at the same time there is a haunting soothing sensation that comes from it. It's just hard to forget, which in turn makes the movie hard to forget.

Now, I'm really not expecting to change anyone's mind when it comes to horror movies. In most cases either people like them or they don't. But hopefully people who look down their noses at horror movies will realize that us horror fans aren't demented idiots just because we like movies that critics crap all over on a regular basis. Horror movies do have something to add to the world of cinema, even if it is just as an entertaining way to kill some time. Phantasm in particular is really great for what it is: a creepy movie made by a group of people with almost no budget who wanted to give people some good scares. Take a gander at the trailer below, and if you ever come across the movie give it a chance. It may surprise you.

Author Recommendation: Jonathan Maberry

Well, I've been doing this segment for a few weeks now, and so far I've covered music, food, TV, and movies as a source of distraction for the increasingly irritating world that we live in. I realize, however, that I haven't talked about anything to do with reading. So this week I'd like to prove that I'm not illiterate by introducing you to one of my favorite authors, Jonathan Maberry.

I stumbled on Maberry's work by blind luck one day at Border's horror section. I was looking for something new without having much of a plan, so I utilized my fool-proof technique of looking for a book with an interesting cover. Screw reading book reviews or getting recommendations from friends. That's for weak-minded people who are too afraid to take things at face value (I came this close to using "judge a book by its cover," but I just couldn't bring myself to do it). In the case of Maberry's novel Bad Moon Rising, I distinctly remember the first thing that attracted me to it was that the cover was red. I know, I have quite the analytical mind.

As someone who grew up surrounded by farmland in Lancaster, PA, the house on the cover was both creepy and familiar, which piqued my interest. Then when I found out on the back cover that the story actually takes place in Pennsylvania, I knew that this was the book for me... but not quite yet. This was actually the third book of what's become known as the Pine Deep trilogy, a story that follows the survivors of an evil werewolf only to have to face his resurrection 30 years later. So, I picked up the first book of the trilogy, Ghost Road Blues, and started what has become the best series of books that I've ever read.

Before we go any further, I should warn you that if you are looking for a life-changing experience out of this read, you've come to the wrong place. Dostoevski this is not. It is a perfect read for people who, like me, love the horror of the 80s. This is a world of vampires and werewolves, and unlike other book series that rhyme with Schwilight, these vampires and werewolves are actually threatening. They provide plenty of action and even more gore, and Maberry weaves a mythology that interweaves their existence in a very interesting way.

Maberry also has a talent for is writing a very likeable hero. Malcom Crow is the perfect balance between vulnerable everyman and certifiable badass. As a former cop turned store owner/haunted hayride manager, he's basically what you would get if everyone's favorite, unassuming neighbor was actually dealing with the psychological effects of being attacked by a werewolf as a child and had the ability to break both of your legs with his bare hands.

And that's another thing: Jonathan Maberry depicts a fight scene better than anyone I've ever read. According to his Wikipedia page, Maberry is an 8th degree black belt in Shinowara-ryu Jujitsu and his official website lists several books that he's written on martial arts. This experience really comes through in his writing, as he takes the reader through the mind of each fighter and realistically (or at least as realistically as can be expected in a book with vampires and werewolves) describes each blow's intention and consequence in a way that is easy to visualize.

Maberry actually does a great job of helping the reader visualize everything in the world he's created. As someone who has pretty much killed is sense of imagination by relying on movies and TV to provide one for me, I often find myself lost in the gobbledy gook of description in a novel. Maberry, however, had me visualizing everything as if I were in fact watching a movie. Now, this could be because the story takes place in a fictional Pennsylvania town that I imagine to look very much like the places I've lived, but I think more of it has to do with Maberry's ability to describe a scene without trying to be too clever and therefore getting his head stuck in his ass. He's efficient in his descriptions, and that makes me as a reader get lost in the novel very easily.

My one and only complaint in Maberry's writing is that he sometimes makes references that will inherently date his material. Maybe it's just me, but it feels weird having someone refer to a character in a novel use an iPod. I realize the iPod probably isn't going anywhere so people reading Maberry's stuff in the future will know what he's talking about, but something about his references feel like he just thought of something popular off the top of his head without giving it much significance. This is especially true in contrast to the blues songs that he quotes throughout the book, that have an important relevance to the narration.

Nonsensical nitpicking aside, the Pine Deep trilogy only took me a month or
two to read, which for someone like me is a lightening fast pace (hm, maybe I am illiterate). It was one of those reads that I knew I was going to love within one page, and it's stayed with me ever since. His next trilogy based on a new character, Joe Ledger, starts off on the right foot with Patient Zero, a book that delves into the world of terrorists and zombies. Honestly, I don't think I should have to say anything more about that. Terrorists! Zombies! And trust me, I've read it and it's as awesome as it sounds. So, as with everything else I recommend, get off your ass right now and give Jonathan Maberry a try. My plan is to head out ASAP to pick up his newest Joe Ledger novel, The Dragon Factory.

Book Review: Breathers, A Zombie's Lament

I recently found a website from up in Canada called CinemaObsessed.com (actually this isn't the first Canadian site that's caught my eye...I'm fascinated by our neighbors from the north). I guess it's a bit ironic that the first recommendation I've taken from a website devoted to cinema is actually for a book. It's called Breathers: A Zombie's Lament, written by S.G. Browne. Granted, the recommendation is kind of roundabout, as I found out about it through their post about a movie being made based on the book, but without their post on the movie I never would have known about the book. That could have been more clear. Whatever, I'm not getting paid for this.

Anyway, I picked up Breathers on my last trip to the library because I really dug the premise. The story centers on Andy, a recently reanimated zombie who has to deal with the ramifications of being undead in a society that treats the undead in a similar fashion as women in the late 1800s, black people in the 1950s-60s, or gay people at around 10 this morning. He spends his days trying to deal with the emotional strain of losing his old life and the physical strain of having a decomposing body that's been mutilated by the car wreck that killed him. The latter he finds can be helped by eating the venison given to him by another zombie (spoiler alert: it's not venison), and the former is dulled by a budding relationship with fellow zombie support group attendee, Rita.

There is a lot going on in this book, and that winds up being a bit of a setback. Browne can't seem to make up his mind on whether he's shooting for a black comedy, a quirky zom-rom-com, or an allegory about societal intolerance. He may very well have been going for all of the above, but it makes the story a bit too schizophrenic. Plus, the allegory is a little too forced. Browne actually references the history that he alludes to, which is kind of insulting to me as the reader since he wasn't exactly being subtle about it in the first place. The zombies have no rights, no possessions, and are often lynched by fraternity members (aka upper-middle class white guys). I think we can all guess where he's going with this.

Now, while the book isn't perfect, it does have some good things going for it, both for horror fans and rom-com fans. I love a story that puts some time and effort into creating its own mythology, and even working with the familiar territory of zombies, Browne does a really good job adding to the physiological workings of being a member of the living dead. This is interesting both because it adds depth to the story, and it provides for some really disgusting imagery.

And I'm going to be honest, I dug the love story between Andy and Rita. I liked the way he played with Andy's guilt over moving on from his dead wife Rachel, who died in the same car accident that killed him (but obviously was not reanimated), while coming to terms with the new feelings he's having for Rita. Unfortunately, this seemed to be rushed through in the last act, where the allegorical theme kicks into high gear and kind of ruins things, but until then it's a neat little romance.

I think the best news about this book that it seems to lend itself well to film. Some of the areas that dragged in the book, such as the repetitive descriptions of Andy being pelted with food and insulted by passers by, would actually work better as quick segue shots in a movie. Plus, as a gorehound, I'd like to see how some of these visuals pan out on the big screen. And, as I said before, the whole reason I found out about Breathers is that they're making a movie out of it, so it looks like I won't be waiting too long to find out if it does make for a good watch out of a book with some unrealized potential.

Grade: B-

Book Review: Rot And Ruin

Well it's another winter storm here in Philadelphia, and I find myself "working from home." In other words: SNOW DAY! Both my wife and I decided it would be safer (a.k.a. more convenient) to not drive in this frightful weather, so I have some time to write the book review I've been meaning to get to for a little over a week.

The book is called Rot and Ruin, and it's another novel from one of my favorite authors, Jonathan Maberry. Originally a short story called "The Family Business," Rot and Ruin tells the tale of brothers Benny and Tom Imura. They live in Mountainside, one of the few walled towns that serve as a safe haven from zombies, who have taken over much of the world after they first started to appear 14 years before the beginning of the story.

While zombies obviously play a large role in the plot, I think the story concentrates more on the ways in which people cope with the catastrophe as opposed to the catastrophe itself. This is nothing new, as we see this approach in a lot of zombie stories, even as recently as the TV show The Walking Dead. Since it's not fresh territory, a story like this lives or dies based on whether or not you actually care for the characters enough to give a crap about how they are coping.

As usual, Maberry succeeds to this end. I enjoyed reading the developing relationship between Benny, the story's narrator, and his brother Tom. I do need to note that Benny is only fifteen years old, which is important because you're constantly reminded through his opinions and actions that he is a teenager, and that teenagers are sometimes really stupid. Even though the story is told through his eyes, you figure out pretty quickly that he has a somewhat skewed image of his brother Tom, a well-known zombie hunter for the town.

According to Benny, Tom is weak and even something of a coward. His first "memory" is of Tom running away with Benny and leaving their mother to the zombies. And even as a zombie hunter, Benny doesn't see in Tom the cocky swagger of other zombie hunters like "Pink-Eye" Charlie Matthias, Benny's idol in the beginning of the book. Pink-Eye is a large albino who regales the town with stories of his conquests out in the unprotected area outside the city. But let's face it. As a large, ugly albino, there was little chance that he was ever going to be the good guy of the story. As a matter of face, like in any good zombie story, he turns out to be more of a villain than the zombies themselves.

But this is the type of message that you have to write on a shovel and hit Benny in the head with to make it sink in. As the reader, we can figure out rather quickly that Tom's philosophical approach to his work hides a natural ability to kick ass. The indications of said ass-kicking ability aren't really subtle at all, but I think that stems from the fact that this book is geared towards teenagers. I actually found it in the "Teen" section of the library. Before anyone starts giving me shit, I should remind you that there were plenty of adults waiting in line for the midnight release of the last Harry Potter book. My point is that in a story narrated by and, presumably, read by a teenager, sometimes subtlety is passed up for melodrama.

Realism, unfortunately, has to take a backseat at times as well. Much of the language, for example, has been sanitized for the sake of the book's younger audience. And I don't mean to say that a book is bad if you don't curse as much as possible. But at the same time, if you're a 15-year-old being chased by zombies, I can't help but think that you might say the word "fuck" a couple of times.

But don't worry, while the language might be a tad watered-down, the fun zombie gore is still intact. With Tom's weapon-of-choice being a katana, you get all kinds of hacked limbs and blood splatter. Not to mention that it's hard to even describe a zombie without some macabre imagery. And what's important is that all of this gory gravy covers the meat and potatoes of a story about characters that I did in fact care about, even if they weren't terribly nuanced.

Grade: B

Get To Know A Horror Classic: Dressed To Kill

Dressed To Kill (1980)

Starring: Michael Caine, Angie Dickenson, Nancy Allen, Keith Gordon

Director: Brian De Palma

I'm not positive that this technically counts as a horror movie, and the fact that I'd never even heard of it until recently makes me question whether or not it could be considered a classic. But it was another movie mentioned in Jason Zinoman's Shock Value, and more importantly, it was free on Netflix, so here we are.

Before I go any farther, let me go ahead and roll out a blanket spoiler alert for this segment, because most of what I have to say revolves around the movie's big plot twist. So if you haven't seen it (you've had 31 years to do so) and you don't want the ending to be ruined, proceed not. Thou have been warned.

Now, when I read about this movie in Shock Value, author Jason Zinoman focused on the feelings of loneliness and insecurity that lead Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) to the bed of a stranger who would apparently go on to murder her. He compares her relationship with her son, Peter (Keith Gordon) with that of Brian De Palma's relationship with his own mother. Peter is forced to become a psuedo-private eye in order to find Kate's killer, and De Palma was forced into a somewhat similar situation, not to find his mother's killer but rather working on her request to catch his father in the act of infidelity.

So when I started the movie, I expected the film to focus on that relationship. Little did I know that most people who have seen the movie probably paid most attention to the fact that not only is Michael Caine the killer, but he's also a a transsexual. Yeah, I didn't see that one coming either. In fact I didn't even know Michael Caine was in the damn movie before I watched it.

But apparently, his character, a therapist named Dr. Richard Elliot, takes the phrase "physician, heal thyself" to a whole new level. His inner conflict over his desire to become a woman drove him to multiple personalities, and the female personality, Bobbi, becomes so angry over his inability to give in to that desire that she kills anyone who engages his male sexual urges.

Caine's character drew a bit of backlash from the gay and transgender community, who chastised the movie for propagating negative stereotypes of gay and I'm going to go ahead and call shenanigans here, however. We don't blame Hannibal Lecter's European descent for his being a cannibal, do we? Just because the Jaws was a shark isn't necessarily why he eats people. Ok, bad example. The point is that true equality means that homosexuals and transsexuals have just as much chance to be fucked up as the rest of us. (Note:  Since I originally wrote this post a few years ago, I've amended my line of thinking.  In a culture where transsexuals/homosexuals are still depicted as abnormal, the depiction of a transsexual as mentally ill only further entrenches an incorrect stereotype, particularly since there are no depictions of healthy transsexuals in the movie.  To take the stance of "equality means everyone can be fucked up" ignores the fact that transsexuals are too often depicted as "fucked up."  I considered removing this paragraph entirely, but I figured it would be better to address the flawed thesis rather than ignore it).

Odd tangent on social relations aside, Dressed to Kill works as an entertaining murder mystery mainly because it takes such a ridiculous concept so seriously. This is a movie where a bored, lonely housewife is slashed to death by a pre-op transsexual, only to have her death investigated by her vengeful son working with the hooker who has been falsely accused of the murder. Oh, and it also has Dennis Franz before his transformation into a troll was complete.

Aw, that hair is just hanging on for dear life.

Even with all of this crazy shit going on, the movie never winks at the camera or slips into camp. It treats this bizarre sequence of events seriously enough that I found myself taking it seriously (most of the time). De Palma pulls this off by making his characters either likeable enough (Kate and Peter) or at least interesting enough (Dr. Richards) to become invested in them. That's usually the element that will make or break a horror movie, and Dressed to Kill passed that test. Plus, if nothing else, it adds an extra twist to the Batman movies when you picture Alfred wearing four-inch pumps and a black cocktail dress while Bruce Wayne goes out to fight crime.

Get To Know A Horror Classic: Masque Of The Red Death

Masque of the Red Death (1964)

Starring: Vincent Price, no one else of consequence

Director: Roger Corman

Before last night I'd never watched a Vincent Price movie (I'm assuming Edward Scissorhands doesn't really count) nor had I ever seen a Roger Corman movie. So, I figured what better way to start off than with a movie from both men, an adaptation of Edgar Alan Poe's "Masque of the Red Death."

In Poe's version, the hedonistic Prince Prospero holes himself and one thousand of his courtesans in his palace to ride out the Red Plague, a disease that, over the course of about 30 minutes, kills its victim and leaves their face a deep, blood red (hence the name). Anyone familiar with Poe's work can probably guess that the plan doesn't go particularly as planned.

I was a little apprehensive about how Corman's take would stand up to the original story. I'd heard that Corman's modus operendi is to shoot a movie as quickly and as cheaply as possible, so my hopes weren't too high that I'd be in store for anything more than a campy laugh. And the trailer doesn't do much to quell those fears.

On one hand, I wasn't surprised to find that Corman takes quite a few liberties with the script. While Poe's version of the story is very single-minded in telling the story of Prospero's party and the lead up to the court's inevitable destruction at the hands of the Red Death, Corman's version pads the tale by creating an antihero out of Prince Prospero, a Satan worshipper, peasant-torturer, and all around prick. Corman also adds a hero in Gino, the young peasant trying to rescue Francesca, another peasant kidnapped by Prospero. Oh, and for some reason there is a dwarf named Hop Toad who has a completely separate subplot going on with Alfredo, a less-powerful but no less douchey member of Prospero's court who slaps Hop Toad's lady friend around just to prove how douchey he is.

On the other hand, I think Corman was very faithful and effective in producing the same sense of unease the Poe creates in the original story. Poe always preached the need to produce a singular effect in a lot of his work, but I always thought a lot of his work was too busy trying to sound smart to truly create its intended effect. "Masque," however, is perfect because it is succinct, with every word adding only to the effect of giving the reader a a sense of impending doom.

Even with all of it's added subplot, Corman's version accomplishes the same effect. For every atrocity that Prospero commits or every selfish excess played out by members of his court, you know their all getting closer and closer to much-needed retribution. The main difference in the movie is that the audience is likely cheering on said retribution a bit more than they would be in Poe's version. Especially in the case of that douche Alfredo.

One area that did disappoint me was how Corman handles the seven colored rooms in Prospero's palace. In the short story, Poe describes seven rooms, each one designated with a color: blue, purple, green, orange, white, violet, and black. Unlike the other rooms that had windows colored in accordance with the rooms's tint, the window's in the black room were colored crimson red (I wonder what the symbology is there?). I always pictured these rooms as large, almost sublime works of architecture that overwhelm you at first glance But I think Corman's shoestring budget really hurts him in depicting these rooms.

For one thing, there are only four rooms. Green, orange, and violet get the shaft entirely. And the rooms that are depicted are small, half-assed versions of what Poe describes in his story. I'm guessing a few stage hands just took a morning to spray paint 4 stock rooms one color and called it a day. This may not have been as big a deal if not for the fact that the rooms are part of what creates that sense of impending doom.

Cheap sets aside, I was actually pleasantly surprised by Corman's version of Masque. It had a little bit too much melodrama to really ever scare me out of my seat, it did effectively give me the creeps by going down some roads that were darker than I figured a Vincent Price vehicle would be willing to go. It's a good watch for the halloween season, and a great companion piece to Poe's original.

Oh, and because I can't think of Vincent Price without thinking of his "guest spot" on the Simpsons, here it is!