Month of King: The Dead Zone

MIKE:  Hey, Max is something wrong?

MAX:  Yeah, man.  I've got a really bad head ache today.  This really hurts!

MIKE:  Is it a migraine?

MAX:  No...I think I am getting psychic visions of catastrophe in the future again...you know...from that dark place I go to....where I get the psychic visions.  I can't remember what it's called.

MIKE:  You mean The Dead Zone?

MIKE:  ...I'm going to go get a drink.  Want me to bring you back water or something.

MAX:  You don't get it!  THE ICE......IS GONNA BREAK!

MIKE:  It's an ice machine, Max.  Of COURSE the ice is going to break.

MIKE:  ...Paid damn good money for it

MAX:  As he was a bachelor and in nobody's debt, nobody troubled their head anymore about him.

MIKE:  I'm coming right back! Christ, quit being so melodramatic.  I'm going to grab you an Adderall too.

MIKE:  To finish off our month long tribute to Stephen King we're taking a look at one of our favorite, and often forgotten adaptation, The Dead Zone (1983).  This film, directed by David Cronenberg, and starring the great Christopher Walken, is quite possibly one of the best book-to-film adaptations of King's earlier works.  Walken plays the role of Johnny Smith, a man who has a promising future (a girlfriend that he plans to marry, and a career as an English literary teacher), until an unfortunate accident turns his world inside out and robs him of the next five years of his life.  When he wakes up from his coma Johnny is granted a gift (or a curse from his point of view) to read other people's thoughts and see into the future whenever he touches someone. The Dead Zone is a very suspenseful film, masterfully directed by Cronenberg, and well played out by an excellent cast.

MAX:  I really enjoyed re-watching The Dead Zone, and I think it's because this film is actually a very powerful drama.  Don't get me wrong, there are supernatural and horror elements to be found everywhere in this story, but I think that this tale, somewhat along the lines of King adaptations like Shawshank Redemption and Stand By Me, ultimately revolves around the lives of characters that we can deeply relate to.  Walken, as Johnny, when we're initially introduced to him, is a really likeable small-town English teacher.  The kind that we all wish we were lucky enough to have.  He recites Poe's "The Raven" out loud to his students, and urges them to read Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving because, "It's about a school teacher who is chased by a headless demon!"  (Nerdy side note: I found this ironic, seeing as Walken would later go on to portray the headless horseman himself in Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow, AMAZING movie..) Anyhow, Johnny is clearly in love with his fellow teacher, Sarah (Brooke Adams), and while their romance might seem a bit on the cheesy side, we still want things to work out for them.  I will add something here that I think is significant too.  The reason we want things to work out for this couple from the very beginning, is because we know that things are NOT going to work out.  In classic moments of suspense that only Cronenberg can deliver, we see Johnny receiving premonitions of his own doom.  First there is the ride on the rickety wooden roller coaster, where his head is literally reeling with an undefined sense of dread.  Then there's the kiss goodnight, where Johnny, still stunned from earlier, ventures out into the stormy night unknowing of the danger that lurks before him.  When that toppled milk truck comes careening at Johnny out of the fog, it appears to him like a space ship, and that's exactly how it collides with him too, immediately obliterating his life as he previously knew it.  Not to mention any life with Sarah.

MIKE:  Sarah and Johnny's relationship is a wholesome-ideological relationship that is often preached about from pulpits.  What I mean is, Walken's character won't even consider spending the night with Sarah, because he feels that intercourse is best experienced when shared when you're married.  It's a noble, albeit a bit corny, stance to take (I'm sorry to say, to our female readers who might want to tap this ass, that I do not share that same philosophy).  Still, I think this dynamic between Johnny and Sarah is what really makes us viewers pang at the thought that their relationship is not going to work out.  When Johnny wakes from his coma and his mother tells him that Sarah has turned her back on him, I couldn't help but feel daggers piercing my own heart when I saw Johnny's anguished face.  Cronenberg really puts the viewer into the hearts and minds of these characters, and when the visions (nightmares to Johnny) start to happen, Cronenberg's craftsmanship has us strapped in for the wild, terrifying ride.

MAX:  Yes, this is a very interesting point you raise.  Walken's character Johnny is clearly of the old-school, and that might have been part of the reason that Sarah couldn't wait for five years.  I mean it's almost painful in a way, if Johnny hadn't of walked away from her that night, not only would he probably not have been struck with the milk truck, he would have gotten laid.  I also think that Johnny's mother's choice of words is very interesting when she tells him that, "she turned her back on you." That's a very harsh way to put it to someone who's just woken up from a five-year coma.  Maybe it's appropriate however, given that this is certainly the way that Johnny feels.  In his state, how could he not feel that way about it?  One minute he was set to be married and the next he wakes up to find himself alone.  When Sarah visits him, he even likens the situation to his favorite literary character Ichabod Crane, saying "As he was a bachelor and in nobody's debt, nobody troubled their head anymore about him."  That's probably my favorite zinger he throws at Sarah.  But I know you have another one Mike.

MIKE:  Ha-ha-ha!  Sarah: "You lost weight."  Johnny: "Call it a coma diet - lose weight while you sleep."  That is one of my favorite lines.  However, I don't think his mother's response was very appropriate.  It might have been appropriate for her character, and given her Christian background and Johnny's moralistic view on sex before marriage, I think it's why she said what she did, but like you had said, "That's a very harsh way to put it."  I think Johnny's morals is very relevant to this story and worth talking about, because once his new powers have developed he is, at first, very reluctant in using them to help people - that is until, what I think, is his upbringing overriding any selfish feelings or trepidations he might have.

MAX:  Yes.  Once he comes to terms with the way his life is going to be, it becomes easier for him to use his powers to help others.  He might have trouble accepting his ability as a "blessing", as he mentions in that famous scene with the sheriff.  But once he intercedes and helps the local police to stop the town’s serial killer, I think he starts to feel better about what he's able to do for his community.  Speaking of that serial killer, what a scene that is when Johnny and the sheriff go charging into that house?  That's one place in the script where I feel this movie briefly flirts with straight-on horror.  There are so many shades of Misery and Carrie in the mother who answers the door.  There's the eerie green light on the staircase, the peeling cowboy themed wallpaper, and let's not forget the epic fall on the scissors.

MIKE:  Fall on the scissors?  You might want to look at that again, because the serial killer clearly thrusts his own head onto the splayed blades.  What I love about this movie is the subtle use of make-up.  Sure, when the killer's body is discovered, twitching in the tub, there's a lot of blood covering the bathroom, but I think it works for that particular scene.  It jars the viewer who has, up to this point, been relatively safe in a Bob Ross New England painting.  The use of special effects and make-up are works of art.  Yes, I'm calling the craftsmanship of the bruises, blistering lips, gunshot wounds, scissors in mouth, and bloody bandages art!  You know why?  They looked realistic.  The special effects in this film, alone are argument enough, at least for me, that CGI is completely overrated and unnecessary.  I promise not to rant on this in every movie we watch, but The Dead Zone is practically flawless in its aesthetic direction, and I feel that young movie watchers/makers (hell, some of the old people too) need to pay special attention to the details that this movie so masterfully uses.

MAX:  Absolutely.  There are so many moments in this film that needed no computer enhancement in order to make them effective.  Like when Johnny finds himself immersed in the room full of fire.  Everything that burns in that little girl's room looks real and that's because it's really burning....the kind of hands on special effects that appear throughout this film, paired with the beautiful New England backdrops for a set, create a feeling of realism to all these events that’s irreplaceable.  In my opinion, even a movie like The Mist (which I love) can't completely replicate it.

MIKE:  Again, I won't rant about my dislike of the use of CGI with every film we review, but at least our viewers know my stance (I do love The Mist too).  Anyway, The Dead Zone is a triumph in creating the perfect blend of on-the-edge-of-your-seat, unnerving suspense, and that lull feeling one gets in the eye of a storm - just when you think it's over here comes the next jaw-dropping shocker!  I feel that the credit should go to Stephen King's skillful story-telling, but credit is also due to Cronenberg's style of directing: The Fly (86), The Brood (79), and Scanners (81) are just a couple more films that have benefited from his care for a well told story.  Too often horror films rely on a concept or gore effects to carry it through, and forego developed characters, meaningful plot, and a satisfying ending (you know, an ending where the villain/monster DOESN'T come back from the dead).  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good slasher as much as anyone else, but the modern market is flooded with those rehashed themes, and I think it's important for the horror fan out there to discover and appreciate the films that are more than just blood-n-guts.

MAX:  Cronenberg certainly has the market cornered where psychological horror is concerned, and this effort is no exception.  A lot of the strengths of this movie lie in the performances like you said, as well as a cast of dynamic characters whom we can really love---and hate.  And speaking of the hateable character, it's worth mentioning that Martin Sheen pulls off one hell of a role in this film (a politician as we've seen him play before, although this time much different than that paternal president we're used to on episodes the West Wing).  Sheen's character Greg Stillson is a presidential candidate but a real scum bag too.  Not just the usual bribe taking corruption stuff either.  When Johnny shakes his hand, he gets a direct vision that Stillson, if elected, will actually take the country straight into some kind of nuclear war.  Sheen plays this Stillson character with a brilliant menacing arrogance.  He's such a despicable little Hitler in training, we really want to tear him limb from limb.  By the time Johnny decides that he has to do something with this premonition he's received in his "dead zone" and take a stand, we are just about ready to fire the assassin’s bullet for him.

MIKE:  Martin Sheen's character is awesome!  When I watch this movie I wonder how a character like Greg Stillson would hold up in today's political climate.  It's funny that he is referred to as the state's "third party candidate," because he is the equivalent to the more modern movement of the Tea Party.  Sometimes I think I should run for some sort of office, but use all of Greg Stillson's lines from the movie for my speeches.  Politics and Stillson aside, Stillson's right-hand man, Sonny, is a force to reckon with.  He comes across as a mafia gun-for-hire, but the performance delivered by Geza Kovacs made the character even more menacing than just a hired thug.  What did you think, Max?

MAX:  Yeah, I think the two of them together make for a thoroughly dislikeable duo.  I also caught myself thinking about the Tea Party while we watched their campaign.  I think the interesting point of contemplation for me is the same question that Johnny asks his doctor.  If I knew that I could save the world from certain demise by taking out a politician who is to be a future dictator, would I do it?  I'm not going to answer that question, just in case the State Department happens to be reading this.

MIKE:  I don't know what you're talking about, Max.  I love my government *holds a little American flag out and waves it around*

MAX:  That is very patriotic of you, Mike.  I would never belittle you for being patriotic.  That would be un-patriotic of me.
MAX:  Seriously, though I don't want the Feds in the balcony...

MIKE:  Or in the dungeon...just saying.


MIKE:  Well this brings us to a close for the night (barring a federal investigation that might otherwise shut us down.  I mean, ha-ha-ha-ha, why would the feds bother little ol' us?).  The Dead Zone is a work of art: the acting, directing, make-up, and score are skillfully interwoven to create this breath taking masterpiece.  If you are a Stephen King fan, enjoy a well thought out horror story, and want to go on a thrilling ride that guarantees seat gripping suspense, then I cannot stress how much you NEED to see this movie.  I am giving The Dead Zone two Bloody Nubs up!

MAX:  I must concur with my fellow screamer's assessment.  This film possesses great re-watchability in all of the previously mentioned categories.  Another aspect that I think we nearly neglected to mention is that this is a love story.  Sarah never does really "turn her back" on Johnny, which is what makes the outcome of this film all the more tragic.  The Dead Zone is one of the few in the suspense/horror genre that is likely to choke you up as well, and that's always a nice surprise.  Two Bloody Nubs up from me too, as we send off our magnificent month of King.

Month of King: Thinner

MAX:  Hey, how's it going, Mike?

MIKE:  Bad 

MAX:  Uh-oh. Why bad?

MIKE:  Because there are a bunch of filthy, thieving, gypsies across the street from our theater. 

MAX:  Well, I don't know about all that. I think gypsies bring a lot of fun with them, don't you?

MIKE:  Fun? Are you joking? The bring disease, crime, and prostitution. What kind of fun is that? 

MAX:  Actually, it sounds like the kind of fun we had on our trip to New Orleans, remember?

MIKE:  Oh, yeah.  That was fun.  I guess gypsies aren't that bad after all. 

MAX:  Agreed. Once we're done watching this movie, let’s go across the street and join them!

MIKE:  Sweet! Hey, do you think if I give that cute gypsy girl a quarter she'll lift her skirt? 

MAX:  Dude I think she heard you say that...

MIKE:  What do you mean?  She's standing across the street.  She can't hear me. 

MAX:  No...she totally heard you....

MAX:  Thinner (1996) is a movie that is truly very close to my heart. As a matter of fact, this was actually the first horror movie I can remember renting from the video store in grade school, as a result of many battles with my parents, who still felt in the fifth grade that I was too young for R rated horror movies. This movie, based on the novel by Stephen King (as Richard Bachman), may not seem that scary by today's standards, but as an eleven year old, I'll tell you, it really scared the living piss out me. There were many nights (one particularly memorable during a lightning storm in North Carolina) where I lay awake in bed, in fear that the old gypsy man with the cancerous hole in his face was coming to get me.  Now, I know that probably sounds ridiculous, and I'd be the first to say so. In fact, Michael Constantine, the actor who played the old gypsy, Tadzu Lempke, is actually the same guy who plays the Windex spraying dad in My Big Fat Greek Wedding.  All the same, I think this movie still holds up.  It's probably not the movie that anyone thinks of when they think Stephen King, but I think it is a damn good (and under-rated) adaptation of his work. For one thing, the use of special effects and make up in this movie are fantastic. The story, a meditation on blame and revenge, is also one that I think, will resonate with viewers, the way it continues to resonate with me. 

MIKE:  The theme of blame and revenge is what stuck with me after viewing this movie.  Now, I've only seen Thinner one other time, so I am not sentimentally attached to this film like my cohort is, and I don't lose sleep over the creepy old gypsy man Tadzu.   However, the idea that no one can accept their part of the blame is another issue.  Billy Halleck (Robert Burke) is a man with everything to lose (especially some weight), because he has what most people are looking to get out of this life: wealth, a steady job, a cute little family, and some prominence in the community.  It's funny to me how he feels like the victim, and that the curse placed upon him doesn't justify the means.  As a protagonist for the film, Billy is a hard guy to relate to; you want to see him suffer, if only because of his blatant arrogance. 

MAX:  The main way in which Billy feels that he is not (at least entirely) responsible for the accident, is that at the moment when his car hits the old gypsy woman (Susanne Lempke, the daughter of super creepy 106 year old Tadzu) he was receiving a blow job from his wife, Heidi.  In Billy's mind, Heidi is at least part responsible for why he wasn't watching the road. Kind of plays into his egotism, I'd tend to agree with you, Mike.  Still, all the same, it was an unfortunate ACCIDENT, and I guess that's why Billy feels a little miffed when he starts losing pound after pound of his gelatinous fat....all on account of the curse he receives from old man Lempke.  That moment when the old gyp reaches out and touches Billy across the face is a chilling scene, in my opinion. At that moment, I kind of do feel for Billy.  If only because he would like to forget this terrible accident and put it behind him, he's almost scott free, he's been acquitted of any potential charges and then BOOM. He's cursed. And we know as well as he does that his troubles are only just beginning. 

MIKE:  I see what you're saying, but we learn that the only reason why Billy was acquitted in the first place is because the judge and police chief co-conspire to get him off (not a single point on his license, even).  Billy has clout in the town (the movie starts off with him getting a mob boss off murder charges, so I'm sure that added to his status), and that is the only reason why he walks away from this unscathed.  The film does indicate that Billy wasn't "in" on the whole situation, but he couldn't have been THAT naive to not have expected any less.  The judge clearly has a problem with the gypsies being in town (if you can imagine a right-wing conservative speech about immigrants ruining America, then you have a good idea as to how the judge viewed the gypsies), and so did the police chief.  Tadzu might be a creepy, spiteful, old man, but he deserved some sort of justice, and for Billy to completely deny any responsibility for his actions, to me, means he got what he deserved.  Hey, Billy wasn't putting up too much of a fight when his wife went down on him in the car...I wouldn't have either, but I would have felt some sort of remorse for what had happened.  I think that's what makes it hard for me to feel sorry for him.  He only feels sorry for himself.

MAX:  Yes, I would tend to agree that the old man, Tadzu deserved "some sort of justice" as you put it.  I think that's exactly what this film plays on so cleverly: the idea of justice, and how that's meted out. The gypsies have their own code of justice that they invoke because they realize that the townies that inhabit Billy's lily white world will never treat them with any sort of civility. "Gypsy justice" is the term Lempke uses to describe what he's done to Chief Duncan Hubley and Judge Carey Rossington, by turning them into an elephant man and a human lizard, respectively.  For Billy, the punishment seems even more fitting, since he goes from being a rich fat pig to a poor shuddering skeleton within weeks. Of course, Billy isn't about to go down without a fight (as you said, he's unable to accept his own fate in this). He seeks his own form of vindication and justice in Richie "The Hammer" Ginelli (Joe Mantegna) a mafia gangster whose idea of justice is essentially a favor for a favor. He owes Billy big time, for keeping him out of prison, so he does everything within his power to help Billy settle the score. 

MIKE:  I loved watching Joe Mantegna in this film (I always get a kick seeing him work outside of The Simpsons).  But the REAL star, or should I say "supporting star," was Leda Rossington (Elizabeth Franz).  She was good...better than good...she was scary!  When Billy goes to Rossington's house to speak to the judge, and Leda is there, drunk off her ass, and completely hysterical, the crazier she got the more frightened I became of her.  Hell, for a moment there I thought she was going to try to kill Billy for what had happened to her husband; I think she should have tried.  The cast aside (for the most part I thought they all did a good job) what I struggled with was some of the dialogue.  At times it felt forced and unnatural, and at other times it became a bit too repetitive: "White man from town," being one that started off as kind of fun, but then got a bit too silly for my taste.

MAX:  Ditto on Elizabeth Franz's performance. Her crazed rant at Billy is another one of the scariest moments in the film. The fact that she can make us feel that fearful by just 'acting' is really a credit to her ability. Joe Mantegna is amazing in this movie, too. Even when he delivers cheesy lines like, "He was my mook," I think he is 100% believable and hilarious at the same time. Some of the dialogue does suffer at certain points of the movie. I'd agree that the "white man from town" business is dragged out just a bit too long.  For some reason the acting between Billy and his wife Heidi never seems quite believable enough to me, and I don't know if that's the acting or the writing. In either case, all of this is redeemed for me in the above performances we mentioned, as well as the outstanding use of special effects.  I love Billy's body suits (both thin and fat) and the makeup on Michael Constantine as Tadzu, is impeccable. 

MIKE:  The special effects are great, and the dialogue in the film doesn't really hinder it as much as I might have made it sound: it is clunky at times, but when it works it really flows well with the rest of the film.  My favorite special effect is the pie.  Yeah, Billy's transformation is cool, but there's just something about the way the pie pulsed, as though it were alive, that made me want to puke a little.

MAX:  Absolutely. The pulsating pie is the best! I love that fucking pie. 

MIKE:  Yeah, you do.

MAX:  Interestingly, the pie holds a lot real value in this story.  First of all it's an appropriate object in which to transfer Billy's curse, because it's food, and we all know how much Billy likes food. But there's another layer to this idea of the cursed pie, in that Billy must feed it to someone he believes is more deserving of his fate.  Billy immediately resolves to give it to his wife Heidi, seeing as he feels she's the one who's really responsible. Billy is also convinced that Heidi has been having an affair with his physician Dr. Mikey, which obviously fuels his vengeful intentions, although this suspicion of his is never completely confirmed. Anyway, the point is, Lempke urges Billy to eat his own pie, so he can, in effect, "die clean". At first this notion seems absurd to Billy, but once his daughter eats a piece of the cursed pie, his opinion changes pretty quick.  By finally eating his own pie, Billy is taking at least some accountability for his role in this mess.  However, it's really the cost of vengeance, the way he's harmed his own daughter, that drives him over the edge. 

MIKE:  Except we don't see him eat the pie.  Dr. Mikey makes an appearance at the door (just dropping by for a doctor's visit so early in the morn'?), which stops Billy from eating the pie.  We could ASSUME that he will have a slice along with Dr. Mikey, but the look in his eyes and on his face, when he realizes that his revenge will be complete, suggested to me that he might take this as a clean slate and start from scratch (get it?  You know, like making a pie from, “scratch.”  Get it?  I'm so witty).

MAX:  Yeah...you would be...and this may be a flaw in the film...but it's pretty clearly explained in the book that Billy plans to finish the pie with Dr. Mikey.  He's going down but he's taking the doctor with him, because guilty or not, he just really hates that guy. 

MIKE:  Then I guess that is a flaw on both myself and the film (see, I owe to my mistakes).  I never read the book (It's on my list), and because Billy displays such malice towards his family at times (not sure if this is a result of the curse, but that was my impression), I wasn't sold on the idea that he would have a slice too.  It makes sense that he would go down in a blaze of glory, but I can't also help think that he would wait for Dr. Mikey to die (just to be sure, after all, he is a meticulous lawyer), and by then decide to start his life over again.

MAX:  Yeah,  it's an interesting point to contemplate, especially because Billy doesn't really ever seem to learn his lesson...not until it's too late anyway...and even then, he's still thinking about getting even. Anyway, the witching hour is upon us and we tired screamers here in the balcony are ready to weigh in with our bloody nubs. As I've mentioned, I think Thinner completely rules. The fact that I can still be so excited about this movie after so much time is just further evidence to me of how much I love this genre. I would encourage any fans of King to check this movie out. For a movie that didn't do so well in the theaters, it packs a much harder punch than you'd think.  Two Bloody Nubs up and a blood filled pie to go, please. 

MIKE:  I'll forego the pie and take the BJ, please.  Thinner is an enjoyable movie that takes you on one hell of a ride.  I'll have to take Max's word that the film is a good adaptation of the book and move it up my Must Read list.  The special effects and interesting characters make Thinner re-watchable, and though some of you might agree that the dialogue stumbles in places, I feel that overall, you'll have a good time.  I'm giving Thinner two Bloody Nubs up!

Month of King: Pet Sematary

MAX:  Hey Mike.

MIKE:  Uh'yuh. 

MAX:  Hey...uh...what is that?

MIKE:  What?  This plastic bag I'm holding?  Oh, just that cat I had found a while back.  Remember?   

MAX:  Oh yeah I remember him.  What happened?

MIKE:  Ran out into a busy intersection?  Ate some poison?   Who knows?  I'm digging a hole for him in this old Indian burial ground that our elderly neighbor showed us a while ago.  He said it can bring the dead back.  Would be pretty cool having a zombie kitty running around, don'cha think? 

MAX:  Yeah, I guess so. But don't you remember the other thing our elderly neighbor told us, Mike? Sometimes dead is better...

MIKE:  That's why I killed him. 

MAX:  What?! You killed our elderly neighbor?

MIKE:  Uh'yuh. 

MIKE:  For the month of September in honor of Stephen King's birthday (Sept, 21st), Max and I are reviewing our favorite movies that have been adapted from King's extensive body of work.  To kick things off we're going to talk about Pet Sematary (1989), one of the scariest films that continue to send chills down our spines whenever we re-watch it.  The movie follows the Creed family who has recently moved to the outskirts of a college town in Maine, and is almost immediately beset with hardship and nightmares.  From the opening credits, as the camera slowly passes by grave stones and makeshift markers of the pet cemetery (spelled Sematary, as seen on the entry sign),  the film succeeds in creating an atmosphere that promises to  lead you down a dark, twisted, road full of terrors beyond your wildest imagination.

MAX:  One way in which I think Pet Sematary definitely succeeds is that, as you said, Mike, the film creates such a strong atmosphere. This movie was actually shot on location in Bangor, Maine, which gives it the exact same small New England town feeling that we get at the beginning of King's book. The setting is very idyllic but right from the get-go, as little Ellie Creed swings on her tire swing, we realize there is something foul in the air. Through her POV, we see her looking toward the twisty path that leads from her backyard and into the pet cemetery. Then the next thing we know, the rope breaks and her tire swing goes plummeting. Ellie is trapped under the tire swing and while her screams distract her parents, Louis and Rachel, Ellie's little brother Gauge goes running towards the busy road. Even though the old neighbor Jud Crandall scoops up Gauge before he can be hit by the oncoming Ornico truck, this scene creates a lot of tense foreshadowing, and we get the idea that maybe the Creeds aren't going to be so happy in this new home after all. It seems like there's some unforeseen force at work that tried to draw Gauge out into the street. And the suggestion of paranormal powers at work is present at every turn of this amazing story. 

MIKE:  Jud, who is played by none other than Herman Munster, Fred Gwynne, is my favorite character in the movie.  Gwynne's delivery as an old New Englander full of wisdom and stories, brings such vitality to the role that it makes you wish you could sit down with him for spell, have a few beers, and just listen to him tell you tales (both good and scary) about the town where he has lived all his life.  When Jud takes the Creed family down to the cemetery, and begins to tell Ellie about the beauty of the place, and that it doesn't have to be scary, rather a restful, hopeful, type of place to visit, it really establishes a contrast of the light and darkness that seems to permeate throughout the movie.  In saying this, Gwynne disarms us viewers to the real nightmare that’s calling out to the Creed family beyond the hallow that separates the cemetery from the "sour ground."

MAX:  Fred Gwynne really is so wonderful in the role of Jud. He humanizes that character in a way that's so personable, I want to move in next door to him. His fantastic delivery of the line, "the soil of a man's heart is stonier" becomes a very eerie refrain throughout the film, in the mind of our lead character, Louis. As the family breadwinner, Louis is the doctor at the local university hospital.  On his first day at work, a student by the name Victor Pascow is hit by a truck and killed. Before he dies, Pascow delivers the same line about a man's heart that Louis hears later from Jud. Pascow (the only "good" supernatural force the Creeds will encounter) is already trying to warn Louis of the danger that faces his family in the space beyond the pet cemetery where "the soil is sour."  Unfortunately, Jud cannot heed this same warning, and upon the death of Ellie's cat, Church, wastes no time introducing Louis to this wondrous place which has always fascinated him. 

MIKE:  The make-up done on the Pascow ghost is great: I love seeing ghosts as decomposing corpses and still scarred from whatever tragic accident befell them.  That's why An American Werewolf in London is one of my all-time favorite films: the way the lead character is constantly haunted by the ghosts of those he killed and maimed as a werewolf are some of the best scenes I've seen in any horror film.  When you see Pascow in all of his mutilated glory, trying to warn Louis of the dangers of the ancient Indian burial ground, I mean, it's unsettling seeing him there, yet he represents the forces of good trying to save the Creed family.  It's this contradicting imagery that makes Pascow such an interesting character.  He appears to Ellie in dreams (though we don't see this), and she's usually crying or terrified by the end of them, but I am not so sure that it's because of the way Pascow looks, rather it's the message that he delivers to her.  In a way, I almost wish we could have seen one of these dreams, just to better understand this and not necessarily just speculate on the point.

MAX:  Yeah, I think it's interesting that they chose to show Pascow as a live presence in the minds of both Louis and Rachel, when it's clearly Ellie who receives his messages the most clearly. Of course if Pascow is the figure of goodness and guidance in this feature (however mangled he might be) then Rachel's deceased sister Zelda is surely his evil antithesis. In a story that is essentially a meditation on death and grief, Zelda represents the most horrific aspect of this idea. Watching this movie alone in the dark, I actually thought of fast forwarding Zelda's first appearance because it scares me so bad. Locked away in her room like a dirty secret, we see through Rachel's flashback the image of her sister rotting and choking to death with spinal meningitis. Rachel, merely a girl at the time, was alone in the house and unable to help as her sister (who was mentally ill at this point) passed away in front of her very eyes. This guilt and fear that Rachel carries related to Zelda is as real and literal as Church, the cat, whose wandered back from the dead after his brief stay in the Indian burial ground. The menace of Zelda's shunned memory is about as literal as the way Church stinks of bad soil, or his eyes, which appear to glow with evil. 

MAX (continued):  The way Church sits perched like a demon on Rachel while she sleeps illustrates more of the foreshadowing I mentioned. He and all the forces in that place beyond the hallow are making a play for death in this family. Rachel thinks she's endured the worst in her sister's ghastly demise. But as Zelda knowingly cackles beyond the grave, there are worse things yet to come for the Creeds.

MIKE:  I think it was just a coincidence of lighting that made the cat's eyes "glow with evil."  My sister's dog’s eyes, at certain angles, glow with evil.  Hmmm.  Come to think of it, I did see her digging around an ancient Indian burial mound the other day, and a few hours later something had come up out of the ground.  Hmmm. 

MIKE (continued):  Anyway, Zelda is just another great example of the stunning special effects and make-up done for this film.  There is a lot of foreshadowing in this film, but the real climax of the drama doesn't start with dreams, it starts with a quiet little picnic with friends and family: a sunny day with Jud and the Creed family on the side of the house; Louis is showing Gauge how to fly a kite, while Ellie impatiently waits her turn "He dropped it! That little shithead."; the adults laugh in surprise to Ellie's outburst, and while the family is distracted Gauge chases after the renegade kite, leading him into the dangerous road that runs in front of the house; a trucker, blasting "Sheena is a Punk Rocker," from the cab of his truck, is barreling down the back road, and doesn't even notice the little boy standing in the middle of it, kite string in hand, until it is too late.  We see a bloody, torn, shoe and the anguished look of total despair from a shock stricken Louis.  That scene catapults us from just a feeling of dread to a real immersion of the horror that follows with Gauge's return from the dead.

MAX:  I remember reading something Stephen King had written in which he recalled an actual incident where his son nearly ran into a busy street.  This incident did not end in tragedy as King realized what was happening and rescued his son in time, but the experience itself sparked the "what if?" that set his writer's mind in motion. From this grain of imagination we get the real pathos of, a Pet Sematary portrait of a father's grief that is so real, it nearly transcends the supernatural element of this story. After all, if it was within their power, what parent wouldn't raise his or her child from the dead? Even with the prior knowledge of the burial ground that Louis has, he still feels compelled to try. He knows that nothing buried there comes back the way it was in life. In the end, that doesn't matter to him. He would rather have a raging possessed corpse for a son than no son at all. How many parents, if put in this fantastical position, wouldn't do the same?

MIKE:  Well, he seems to know that Guage may not come back as he once was, and even goes so far as to make plans to put his son back in his proper burial ground if things should go awry.  With that said, I don't think it's fair to say that he would accept a raging possessed corpse for a son; what Louis hopes for is that his son's spirit, being so young and pure, would surely return to his grief stricken family, and everything would be all right...hopefully.  Even in his perpetual state of grievance (maybe that has something to do with the actor’s inability to express a wide range of emotion) he still has the sense to know that Gauge might not come back as his son.  Would I do what Louis did if I were in the same situation?  I don't know.  I would like to think that my knowledge of all things horror and occult related would kick in, and I'd adhere to the advice of my elderly neighbor, and NOT put my dead child in sour ground.  The soil to a man's heart might be stonier, but I'm not stupid.

MAX:  Well, ok Mr. occult scholar. I'll rephrase my thesis, in that case. Even with the chance that he may have to re-destroy his child, Louis is willing to go ahead and take the risk to bring him back. Why does he do this? Out of "love". Perhaps not the wisest of emotions, but certainly the emotion which flies constantly in the face of our better judgment. If I was in Louis's place I would for sure dig up my boy and bury him in the Mic Mac grounds, because I am stupid, and I've got heart. And I enjoy making impulsive and bad decisions! So you can go to your grave with that. Here's to your bones, bitch. 

MIKE:  Fear is the greatest and oldest of emotions, as H.P. Lovecraft had once pointed out; not Louis or you (very figuratively, we might add, since you're not the "loving dad" type) are acting out of love, rather your judgment is being clouded by the fear of what your life would be like without your child.  It's fear that makes the brightest hearts act upon the most terrible and darkest impulses.

MAX:  Nice. I like that Lovecraft is the inspiration for your love vs. fear debate. Better than quoting Dr. Phil. I think I could concede your point on that one, except that I think it is still necessary to act out of fear sometimes, if only to prove how pathetic and human we really are.  In any case, moving on, I certainly agree that Dale Midkiff did not display a wide enough range of emotion as Louis Creed. It's not really clear how he's feeling as he moves through the end of this movie, because he's playing it rather dead pan, just like he did throughout the whole film.  In fact, sometimes he plays it worse than dead pan and acts like a mopey bitch. Particularly when he's hanging out with Jud. I mean he looks like such a dud. Jud wouldn't hang out with this dud! I have to admit, when Crandal exits the picture and we're left only with Louis in his lone hour, I'm a little bit zoned out. Not completely because the special effects makeup on Gauge is still amazing and there's still plenty of ghoulish goings on in Jud's house…I guess I'm just saying…that guy who played Louis was a little bit lame. 

MIKE:  I’ll completely agree with you.  I think Fred Gwynne is the only reason why I overlook Midkiff's emotionless acting, and that's because Gwynne commands the scene; he isn't overbearing, but Jud is just the best overall character in the film and Gwynne plays him perfectly.

MAX:  Agreed. In the end, it's Fred Gwynne who brings this picture to where it needs to be. All the same, I think there were a number of fun surprises at the end of this film, regardless of Midkiff's bad acting. Not to mention a kick-ass end credits score by the Ramones, the best of which has ever been composed for a horror flick, in my opinion. 

MIKE:  Another dawn approaches, so it's time for us to turn in for the day.  But before we go here are our Bloody Nubs of approval:  I love Pet Sematary.  I will watch this movie over and over again, and every time it gives me the creeps.  I know Zelda is going to cackle and crawl towards the camera, spit dribbling from her mouth, eyes wild with malice; that imagery will give me nightmares for days to come, but I can't seem to help myself.  I'm glad we kicked off our Stephen King tribute with this film, because it is quite possibly the best adaptation of his work that has ever seen a darken theater.  I give Pet Sematary two enthusiastic Bloody Nubs up.

MAX:  I also love Pet Sematary. This is a movie that is very difficult for me to watch alone in the dark, for Zelda related reasons which Mike mentioned (Those scenes really make me think I'm going to pee myself.) All the same, I cannot stop repeatedly watching this movie, because in spite of how scary it is at certain points, it makes me feel good to watch it. Knowing that I'm going to see Fred Gwynne say "uh’yuh" and start going on in that funny dialect of his, always puts a great big smile on my face. There's only a real short list of horror films that make me this "smiley". Creepshow and The Fog would be two of those. I rank this movie up there with those particular classics. It's that good. Two Bloody Nubs all the way up.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark? "Don't Worry, We Won't Be."

Mike:  Ah, it's good to be back in the balcony, sitting in the dark, watching movies.  I missed it the three weeks we've been away.

Max:  Yeah it's great to be back, dude. Siked.

Mike:  I know! We've got great things planned for the coming months.  Of course, we had plenty of time to mull it over...didn't we, Max?

 

Max:  Yes. We were kind of locked in the belfry. 

 

Mike:  Yeah...kind of.  Funny how that happened.

Max:  I don't know what you mean.

Mike:  Sure you don't.  Just like you didn't know that the keys to the door were in your pants pocket the WHOLE TIME!  TWO WEEKS we were locked up there.

Max:  I have a lot of things in my pockets, dude: credit cards, candy corns, keys, children's teeth....

Mike:  Do you think our fans missed us?

*crickets chirp*

Mike:  Anyway, we're back and things are going to get a whole lot more awesome around here.  Starting with a review of a movie IN THEATERS RIGHT NOW!!!

Max:  That’s right creeps! Be sure to stay tuned for the rest of the month as we honor Stephen King’s birthday!  Throughout September, we constant readers of the balcony will be examining some of our favorite screen adaptations of his work.

Mike:  So let’s get this corpse and ghoul show on the road, and roll our current feature!

Max:  Don't Be Afraid of the Dark is a modern gothic horror film that brings a new twist to an old (and scary) idea: nightmare creatures that prey upon children. Directed by Troy Nixey and written and produced by  Guillermo Del Toro, director of Hellboy, Blade II, and the recent magical realist horror classic Pan's Labyrinth, this film (currently in theaters) really should have audiences jumping in their seats and nibbling their nails in response to an endless onslaught of scares. I say "should" because, in my opinion, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark did not succeed at this objective. As a matter of fact, the title of this film is quite appropriate, since there is absolutely nothing to be afraid of. Despite the involvement of the masterful Del Toro, a writer whose imagination definitely excels in the realm of childhood fantasy, this element of the story never comes across all the way. Would you tend to agree with that, Mike? I know we both thought the movie started out quite strong, but over the course of the narrative it seems to lose that feeling of wonder and suspense, no?

Mike:  I completely agree.  The beginning is very strong, especially the whole Victorian, dark woods, carriage thundering down a dirt road, camera shot that swoops in on this ominous looking mansion.  Right away, I had this huge smile on my face, and just knew that I was going to love this film.  When you see Mr. Blackwood for the first time, gums oozing blood from where he pulled his own teeth, and then pinning down the house maid to break her teeth out with a mallet and chisel, my jaw was hanging down by my chest (actually, it was sealed shut and my hands were covering it, because who wants to have their teeth torn from their mouth?).  Then you hear the voices of the creatures coming from the fire stove, and the pleas from Mr. Blackwood's son echoing up from the pit that is hidden inside the stove.  I was shaking a bit.  All of this was great, and though I am not going to say the introduction to the modern era in which the movie really takes place is where the film starts to fall apart, but, in honestly, that's exactly what happens.  Though the acting of Guy Pierce, Katie Holmes, Baily Madison, and the rest of the cast were really good, the story begins to lose that nightmarish atmosphere, and then disappears completely once we see the monsters in their entirety.

Max:  Exactly. The voices that echo from the basement pit are super eerie.  I also thought the fact that the basement was intentionally hidden from the rest of the house was really fun. The way Sally (Bailey Madison) discovers it by accident while playing was illustrative of that childhood sense of discovery.  This theme is present in a lot of Del Toro's other work, like The Orphanage, for example, which he also produced. However, unlike The Orphanage (which ruled), Don't Be Afraid of the Dark doesn't hold its momentum. I think the reason for that, is like you said, they show us the little basement monsters in their entirety, and we see the tiny creatures very early on in the film. This completely ruins the suspense as to what they are and what they look like. It hurts the power of suggestion.  Whatever happened to leaving a little bit to the imagination of the audience? Do we really need to immediately see the creatures in order to know how horrific they are?  Maybe smaller glimpses would have sufficed.

Mike:  Yes, smaller glimpses would have heightened the suspense.  The most gripping scenes were the ones where you just saw their eyes or their hands coming out of the darkness, but once you see the creatures wholly, they become less terrifying.  I suppose, if I were a small child and I watched this movie today, I would have pissed in my pants, but since the movie is rated 'R' and is geared towards adults, I found the reveal of the monsters (as early as a 4th of the way through the movie) to be quite disappointing.  The creatures looked more menacing in the sketches and interpretations of the little girl and the old drawings that Mr. Blackwood had done.  The artwork had a very dark-fairy tale feel that I think would have worked well if Jim Henson (R.I.P) had done this movie in the early to mid-eighties.

Max:  Yup. Great point about the drawings. I kept thinking to myself the whole time I was watching this movie, why the hell are the girls drawings of the monsters scaring me so much more than the monsters themselves?! This was massively disappointing. Particularly considering that the creatures were supposed to be rabid tooth-fairies inspired by the great mystic author Arthur Machen. In my opinion, the creatures that Machen wrote about were some real abyssic beings, monsters that had dwelled in darkness for generations, the kind of things that Lovecraft would later insist were "too terrible to describe".  If Del Toro and company wanted to play with beings from this particular realm of eternal blackness, why then, would they turn to such crappy CGI as a representation? I know that CGI is the "in" thing right now, but that doesn't mean that it should be the thing where these kinds of creatures are concerned. Jim Henson’s style puppets or animatronics would have really helped out in this case.

Mike:  CGI isn't "in,” it's the industry standard.  I'm willing to give credit to the innovativeness of CGI, and admit that it has done some pretty cool things when it is used appropriately.  However, I really feel that the horror genre as a whole would benefit more if CGI was used less to none at all.  Del Toro did an amazing job with CGI and puppetry in Pan's Labyrinth, and I think that if the same sort of care was applied to this film--a mix of both wouldn't have been bad, in my opinion--then the movie would have succeeded in creating monsters that correlate within the established dark atmosphere.  With that said, it's not just the CGI that gets under my skin it's also the one dimensional characters in the film that drag this movie down.  Again, I say that the acting was really good, but good acting can't save shallow characters and poorly tossed in plot points.  The dad, Alex, played by Guy Pierce, is the typical unyielding nay-sayer who has no time for his daughter or her fanciful nightmares (no matter how real they seem to her), and would rather brush off all of the craziness going on around him just so he can concentrate on saving his career.  I mean, he doesn't even begin to at least question the events going on.  There's more to this, but I think I'll let you handle it, and spare our readers from my long tirade.

Max:  True. As much as all the acting was quite good, there are, as you mentioned, some issues with the way the characters are written, as well as with the script as a whole. Katie Holmes brings a lot to the table as Alex’s girlfriend, Kim. She seems legitimately sympathetic to Sally's fear and belief in the creatures and she does her part to follow up on Sally's story.  But why on earth does Kim need to have a long bedside exchange with the injured groundskeeper Mr. Harris (who is not dying, just injured).  Nothing is revealed in this conversation of theirs, even though we know that Harris knows everything about the creatures, he was just attacked by them for fucks sake. Instead Harris is vague to the point of cliché, and tells Kim to visit the library and ask for lot number such and such where the story will be revealed. Cut to the library and Katie Holmes asking for said lot number. This is all just very redundant to me, and I think if the script was a little tighter, this information could have been obtained in the span of one scene. Say, from Harris, on his hospital bed.

Mike:  I also have a qualm with how willing Sally is to go deeper and deeper into the darkness, and into these extremely creepy places to play with these voices that call to her.  As a child, I would have investigated the voices calling to me, but as soon as they lead me down the stairs to a dark, dank basement, I would have high-tailed it out of there faster than a dog with its ass on fire.  I know that I have to allow myself, for the sake of the film, to believe that she just has a really relaxed and genuine child's curiosity, but I still have to ask, to what extent is this believable?

Max:  Agreed. I think that the situation with Sally courting the creepy-ass voice is just flat out unbelievable. I would actually be willing to overlook that, if it weren't for the rest of the movie continuing to disappoint.

Mike:  Don't Be Afraid of the Dark has a great concept: the tooth fairies are terrifying, vicious, little monsters that feast on the bones of children's teeth.  It has Arthur Machen lore and aesthetically appealing Victorian-gothic setting.  Unfortunately, my film viewing experiences have taught me that big ideas, within a film context, are usually poorly executed.  There are some gems out there, but more often than not the concepts are misshapen and uncared for.

Max:  Very good point. That being said, I think it's time for us to weigh in with our bloody nubs. As Mike has pointed out, this film did have a great foundation and concept. Based on the first few minutes I expected great things. Instead, I thought Don't Be Afraid of the Dark delivered a lot of anti-suspense, leading up to a giant anti-climax. I find it strange that I enjoyed Insidious more than I enjoyed this movie, but amazingly, I did. This was a major let down and I'm pointing both of my nubs in that direction as well.

Mike:  The first few minutes of Don't Be Afraid of the Dark are worth watching, and might even send chilling tingles down your spine.  I think that you'll agree that the concept of the film is solid and well worth investigating similar tales found in literary folk-lore.  But the first few minutes are the ONLY few minutes I can really recommend you watching.  The rest of the movie is a disappointment, and I won't even go into the ending and the out-of-context conclusion that we are left to digest.  I'm not giving up on Del Toro (I do like a lot of his films), but I am saddened by this latest writing endeavor of his.  I'm giving this movie two nubs down, as well.

Max:  Yeah, that ending, WTF? No context whatsoever.

Max:  Oh well...back to the belfry.