The Splatter Pattern: Big & Little Chunks (April 2007)

So, we've just left a midnight screening of Todd Browning's classic Freaks, and we head to the closest Denney's to talk horror until the sun rises. My second vanilla shake pushes me over the edge and there's no coming back until I sleep it off. So, I'm going to take a deep breath and just let it flow...

There you are. I know, five years ago I was in the same spot. Feverish passion has carried you to this point. You're at the start of your chosen career as a filmmaker, screenwriter, or novelist. Your dreams of being published or screened teeter on the brink of realization. It's just a matter of time before your book will have a killer cover and be available online. Regional film festivals await your ultra low budget zombie effort. Screenwriting competitions await your script and entrance fees.

And then the unthinkable happens. Lightening strikes. Your film has created buzz at local fests and distribution companies are circling. Your novel has a noted small market press interested. Or your script has garnered interest from agency representation or producers with studio deals. It looks like something is really going to happen. Money could be coming your way.

But are you really ready? Are you ready to take full advantage of that break when it comes your way? Experience is the best teacher, but ask the creative team behind The Blair Witch Project if they really got a good deal from Artisan. I mean, they did become multi-millionaires, right? And they were able to use part of their financial windfall from Blair Witch to do another project, right? And part of their deal gave them a first look with Artisan? And they had paint creative involvement in any and all sequels, right? And were they ready for their blinding, searing, and mind blowing fifteen minutes of fame? I really don't know. I don't know any of the trio personally, nor am I a friend of a friend to any of them. I do know that the sheer notoriety and box office success of The Blair Witch Project represents the Holy Grail of low budget, independent horror film making. But when I think about those kinds of lottery successes, I wonder if the people involved were ready for the fame and fortune they so often dreamt about. When time is a factor and important decisions have to be made, it's much easier to see the pitfalls looking from the outside. It shouldn't be hard to imagine creative novices with little to no business background relying on their family lawyer (who specializes in divorces) to protect their interests. Talk about a potential idea for a horror film. Yikes.

Lord knows I've learned a few things in the past handful of years that a college course couldn't have taught me. And I'm here to tell you from personal experience that mistakes originating from bad contractual decisions can be long lasting and devastating. So just be sure to be ready when success pops up unexpected. At least an entertainment attorney' name handy. Hopeful they've been referred from someone you trust because they will become your guide, babysitter and safety net. And like with any new venture, having an experienced mentor can make the learning curve not so sharp a turn. Finding a helpful veteran might not be as hard as you might think. You might simply try asking. It could make a world of difference for you and your first legit project. Congratulations on your book, script, or film. Now take care of business.

*           *          *

So what direction are horror movies taking? It would seem that ghosts have supplanted zombies and serial killers in dominating the field. I think the zombie sub-genre has been played out over the past few years, but it's not stopping folks from continuing to try their hand at the subject. And there's always room for another wacko with a clever way with death. I don't know about you all, but I'm kinda ready for something new. I think I've had my fill of the undead, Hannibal Lector wannabes, and pale, stringy haired, jittery moving girls. But I don't think Hollywood is listening to me.

Superior Japanese supernatural horror seems to have lit a fire under filmmakers to develop ghost project after ghost project. Let's see, in the past few years there's been some good notables like What Lies Beneath, The Others, and The Devil's Backbone. Hardly seems worth it to go all the way back to The Sixth Sense. More recently it's been remakes and so-so or failed attempts with alluring previews like Darkness, The Return, The Messengers, White Noise, Darkness Falls, etc. As a fan, I can't say I've enjoyed many supernatural films beyond the likes of A Tale of Two Sisters and the list of Japanese wonders I've watched. I've seen mixed success with the Americanized Japanese horror remakes, but Hollywood seldom seems to know when enough is enough. Other than cash on the barrel head, was there really any reason to remake the likes of The Grudge, The Ring, Dark Water, and Pulse? Unfortunately, remakes are the laziest and least apologetic of box office trends, and the search for the next great franchise consumes almost everyone's focus.

I don't apologize for not spending my hard earned cash on remakes of guilty pleasures like The Hitcher and Amityville Horror. As for franchises, just how many Grudges and Saws and Final Destinations do you think there'll be? I didn't see Saw III and probably won't even watch it on video. Two is enough for me. I also won't bother to see a Hostel sequel either. I mean, damn, someone took the surprisingly fun Ginger Snaps and pumped out a couple more flicks. And hey, I'm a damn loyal, cash paying, true blood fan of the genre, but I won't continue to reward greed over originality. I'd rather drive an hour to see Shaun of the Dead than hit the multiplex for a two hour waste like the Chainsaw prequel.

And I fully realize the sequel/franchise thing is nothing new. Back in the day it was all about a gazillion Halloween, Friday the 13th, and Nightmare on Elm Street sequels, but I didn't pay to see anything past the first sequel. After that, I just waited to rent any additional sequels. Now I'm to a point where I don't even bother renting. I just wait until they appear on cable.

I'm still trying to figure out the sudden craze to remake classic horror films. I can understand remaking not-so-great flicks (What about a Basket Case remake? Or Frankenhooker?), but why the sudden surge in re-imagining great stuff like The Hills Have Eyes, When A Stranger Calls, The Toolbox Murders, and Dawn of the Dead? And I admit to having periodic lapses in judgment, like with Black Christmas. I had never even seen the original, but the Black Christmas remake was terrible on practically every level except the cast of pretty actresses. Considering I'm old enough to have seen all of the fore-mentioned classics fresh on the silver screen back in the day, I can't say any of the remakes/re-imaginings are even close to equal to the originals. And please, don't get me started on the shot-for-shot Psycho remake years back. I should have picketed outside the local theater opening night. I've heard recent rumors of a Last House on the Left remake too. How could they possible think in this day and age and sensibility to top one of the great expressions of rage on film? Hopefully the rumors are just that. And what about the rumor of a 28 Days Later sequel? *shaking my head* Perhaps the saddest thing is that remaking a flick like The Hills have Eyes isn't enough. There have to be sequels to the remakes. It's just crazy. It saddens and tears me apart that pure financial gain would motivate someone to consider it. Oh wait, I'm sorry. I must have forgotten we were talking about Hollywood. My bad. Thank goodness for independent film makers. Somehow they seem to sell out less.

And since we're on the topic of financial gain, let's talk about horror movies and box office success, shall we? In the past few years, despite the glut and popularity of theatrical horror releases, scary movies haven't exactly blazed a trail to Fort Knox. Of course, a horror movie's success is measured on a different scale than other movies. Studios big and small understand that a 5, 10, 15 million dollar splatter flick can generate 20 or 30 million and turn a profit with a minimum of advertising. That 20 or 30 million dollar box office hardly pays for Johnny Depp's salary in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, but a decent profit is a decent profit. Hey, that equation kept Paulie Shore knee deep in craft service for years, right? But I do find it interesting that in the year of our lord 2002, only a handful of horror movies cracked the box office top 50. We're talking The Ring, the horror/action hybrid Blade II, and if you call them horror films, Red Dragon and Signs. It's America - call them thrillers if you'd like.

2003 wasn't much different. A horror film didn't crack the top 25, but efforts like Freddy vs. Jason, the Texas Chainsaw remake, and the God awful Gothika filled in the bottom 25. Wait, I'll be right back. The mere mention of Gothika has loosened my bowels, and you know I'm in trouble if I'm seriously considering using a Denney's late night restroom to ease my discomfort. Just another reason to hate Gothika I guess.

In 2004 the disappointment that was Van Helsing led the way, followed by near career suicide of The Village, then the Grudge, Alien vs. Predator, and Hellboy. It pains me to mention number 50, the rancid The Stepford Wives, another remake of semi-classic thriller Paramount decided to dishonor.

2005 was a big year for horror with the War of the Worlds remake. Wait, did I say horror or horrible? Never mind...the King Kong re-do cracked the top 10, but I have to be honest and admit that I didn't see it at the theaters or rent it. I'm to big a fan of the original and even the mid 70's Jeff Bridges/Jessica Lange version to give Peter Jackson even more of my money after the Hobbit series hooked into my bank account. Saw II made serious bank, along with The Ring Two, Constantine, the excellent Exorcism of Emily Rose, The Amityville Horror, Red Eye, and White Noise.

And what of last year? Well, The Devil Wears Prada was not a horror movie, though I'd love to see Meryl Streep creep me out in the future. Unfortunately, on the money front, it was a down year. Saw III raked it in, but it was the delightful Monster House surprising audiences and accountants alike. Underworld: Evolution also made the list. (Please excuse my yawn.) The Descent and Slither gave me hope going into 2007.

When I look through the all-time box office list, and it's current enough to have last year's Pirate's sequel listed at #6, I am staggered by both the money figures and the amount of sequels. Then other details begin to catch my attention...

Steven Spielberg is all over the all-time list, but back in the day, didn't he start his career with a nifty little road thriller called Duel? And Sam Raimi, he of the classic ultra low budget Evil Dead, now reins as king of the Spiderman franchise? And what of Peter Jackson, the fantasy mastermind behind the Hobbit trilogy and the King Kong remake? Anyone remember Dead Alive, one of the great zombie flicks of all-time? Kung fu priest don't get any cooler, man. But the point is, loving what you do, completing what you start, and getting your projects out there where people can see and appreciate them can lead to big success from simple horror beginnings. And the list of actors and actresses who started their careers in horror is practically endless. So why not you? Why not you? Why not?

Take care of your business, don't give up, get a little lucky, and it could be you. I look forward to enjoying what you have to share with the world.

The Splatter Pattern (April 2006)

Well happy holidays horror fans. Did you miss me? I missed you.

Funny thing - I had started working on a topic for this article when an idea suddenly burst into my mind like the gut buster in Alien.

And I would like to promise in future articles to not always sound like such an unhappy horror camper, but I just can't ignore something that has bothered me for quite a while.

Is it just me or have the films of Dark Castle Entertainment pretty much stunk to high heaven?

Okay, just in case there are a few readers unfamiliar with Dark Castle, here's da poop: it's the genre specialty production company created in the late 1990's by Joel Silver and Robert Zemeckis, they of Lethal Weapon and Forrest Gump fame. I mean, not only are these two major Hollywood heavy hitters, but both were executive producers on the Tales from the Crypt series, so you figure they both have a sincere affection for entertainment that goes bump in the night. I also believe the family of William Castle, the deceased director and showman, is also involved in this venture. Now, I acknowledge neither Silver or Zemeckis are known as forces to be reckoned with in horror, but come on, with combined resumes that read like a who's who of whoop-ass popcorn munchers - we're talking Back to the Future, Die Hard, Predator - I have to admit I had dreams of a return to the horror renaissance of the late 70s/early 80s. I was genuinely thrilled when I heard about the creation of Dark Castle. So far they have managed to bless the world with The House on Haunted Hill, Thirteen Ghosts, Ghost Ship, Gothika, and House of Wax. Wow - can you hear the cheers of the adoring horror crowds around the globe? Funny - I can't, but that might just be an earwax build-up problem.

So it really was too good to be true. You have a production company with major studio backing (Warners) with a mandate to provide horror fans with some good old-fashion chills and thrills. Amen bruthas and sistas! I've been saved! And that's the way I felt until The House on Haunted Hill came out in the year of our Prince, 1999...

The House on Haunted Hill is a remake of an oldie but cheesy goodie from the late 1950's. William Castle directed, with legend Vincent Price playing a millionaire offering $10,000 smackos to a group of strangers to stay the night in a creepy mansion with a bad history and some serious Ghostbusters-type problems. I guess the film might be a little dated, 'cause geez man, you can't even get a kid to take on a paper route for ten grand nowadays. Anyway, it's a black and white flick from the days of no profanity, skin or gore but still manages to be fun even today. Who knew, right? But the Dark Castle remake, directed by William Malone (now best known for Feardotcom or possibly Showtime's horror mini-movie series Masters of Horror), lacks the overall fun of the original film despite a promising amusement ride opening sequence. Geoffrey Rush is a fine actor, but come one, there's only one Vincent Price. The rest of the cast is well stocked and easy on the eyes with the likes of Famke Janssen, Taye Diggs, Ali Larter and Bridgette Wilson. Unfortunately, despite millennium spit and polish and modern digital effects, the story falls flat. There are a few moments that give the audience hope of better things but the film never seems to be able to hold what little momentum it establishes from time to time.

Strike One.

Two years later, another remake sprang from Dark Castle's creative womb. Funny thing - their sophomore venture's source material was also two years more recent. The 1960 Saturday matinee 13 Ghosts was re-envisioned, again with solid casting and effects fit for the turn of the century. Tony Shalhoub, Matthew Lillard, Shannon Elizabeth & F. Murray Abraham run around a freaky see-through maze of a home that also has a specially constructed holding tank for ghosts in its basement. Gee, who thought property taxes were the only scary thing about inheriting a new home, right? Much like The House on Haunted Hill, there are a few nice scenes, including a nasty little visit to the bathroom by Shannon Elizabeth's character that could have been a classic but by the time the end credits roll it's hard to remember the few good smatterings amongst all the disposable dribble. And if I see just one more movie with a Black servant/nanny acting totally ignorant for the sake of entertainment, I may have to become a cinematic terrorist. Allah/Hitchcock forbids such foolishness from filmmaking infidels. The least they could have done was have Ms. American Pie shed some clothing but noooooooooooooooooooooooo, we get screwed out of that simple pleasure too. I suppose 4 credited writers was a tip-off to impending disaster, even with James Gunn among them. And director Steve Beck - who is he again? I'm betting he's a really nice guy but his credits at the time didn't exactly jump up and scream he was the next Carpenter or Argento. Hey, I'm glad when some new blood is given a shot at the big-time...well, at least until the lights come on and I'm leading a Braveheart-like charge toward the theater box-office for a refund.

Strike Two.

Well, shut my mouth. Steve Beck did such a great job with Thirteen Ghosts that he was brought back to direct Dark Castle's 2001 Ghost Ship. Okay, okay - I know better than to lay the blame of a less than successful production at the feet of the director but I'm not sure why they brought him back. Was it just that Ghost was in both titles? *shrug* Hell, I have no friggin' idea and that explanation sounds as good as any. And I have to admit, having just watched Ghost Ship mere days ago as a refresher, it's not half bad.

Psych.

Okay, it's not horrible but it's not particularly good either. More good money is thrown after bad, and the formula established by the first two films continued to be followed, with the exception that Ghost Ship was not a remake. Hey, it means less corpses rolling around in their graves, right? Once again, at least on paper, a potentially great cast was assembled. This time we're talking Gabriel Byrne, Julianna Margulies, Ron Eldard, Desmond Harrington, Isaiah Washington & Karl Urban. They play a salvage crew called in to investigate a mysterious vessel (The Ghost Ship! Were you surprised? Liar) and possibly land the fortune of their lives. Of course, the creepy luxury liner is just waiting for several stupid, greedy and drunken people to come aboard. Bloody mayhem inevitably ensues, some of it even providing so-so entertainment. Ms. ER is too much a sea going Ripley for me, and most of the cast is wasted in clichéd roles. In fact, the young female ghost in the movie kinda reminds me of a slightly older Newt from Aliens. A little blonde haired savior she is, if you can get past the fact that you're not going insane talking and listening to a ghost. Whatever.

There was just one credited writer. Hmmmmmm. Four writers, a single writer...guess Dark Castle still hadn't quite gotten the right number of writers down yet. *heavy sigh*

Strike Three.

How many strikes it that? Oh yeah three. But unfortunately the rules of baseball do not apply to Dark Castle. Au contraire.

So a couple of years later they give us horror fans a break, skipping their normal Halloween opening weekend, only to completely ruin our Thanksgiving with one of the worst major horror/thriller flicks every made. Gothika - the Halle Berry resume filler of 2003. A bigger turkey had never been served to horror fans. Thankfully video stores weren't closed for the holidays because rioting might have taken place if Gothika had been the only horror entertainment available. I'm not sure which was more mystifying: how this absolute stinker made 60 million dollars, or how they could have Halle Berry in a shower scene that wouldn't even give a convict a stiffie. That's just a damn shame. And I have to take my hat off to the Dark Castle crew because they must have the best photographers in Hollywood taking incredibly incriminating photos to gather yet another nice cast. How else could they have gotten Berry, just seconds (okay, a couple of years) after grabbing a best actress Oscar, Charles Dutton, Robert Downey Jr. and Penelope Cruz? I might just wake up tomorrow on an earth ruled by apes. Shit. People - does anyone out there remember when having William Shatner starring in a horror flick was kick-ass casting?

Anyway, Ms. Catwoman/Storm/Jinx stars as a psychiatrist who ends up in the booby hatch with no memory of murdering her husband. And guess what - weird shit is happening and she has to escape and prove her innocence, but not before taking an extremely unsexy shower. Geez, it might as well have been Liza Minnelli or Bea Arthur under the water. Sorry, I just can't get over how Halle Berry getting wet COULD NOT be sexy. Simply unbelievable. Gothika turns out to display the personalities of 4 or 5 different movies, which doesn't say much for the mental health of the writer, director, or the producers. My guess is that everyone creatively involved was very happy, including the janitor who dumped trash cans overflowing with a virtual rainbow of revision pages. Ever hit a skunk with your car? That's what it felt like when I emerged from the theater after watching Gothika.

Okay…how many strikes is that? Oh yeah.

Strike Four.

So this leads us up to Dark Castle's latest foray into horror. *play scary music here* Despite generally poor response from audiences, 2005's re-imagining of the quasi-classic, 3-D eye poker House of Wax was, and is, at least to me, the closest thing to them getting it right. Bordering on mean spirited in its attempt to scare, shock & thrill, Dark Castle takes yet another Vincent Price vehicle and completely remolds it for the modern young male driven audience, complete with Paris Hilton casting. (I must admit, I cheered for her death. I mean, her character's death. Freudian slip.) With only young up and comers Elisha Cuthbert and Chad Michael Murray to carry the proceedings, House of Wax manages some nice tension, a few great deaths and a setting ripe for horror disaster fun. Heck, I even thought the theatrical poster was kick-ass. Expanding on the corpse covered museum of the previous House of Wax films, the filmmakers took the idea to a whole 'nother level, creating an entire town of creepy wax recreations...they are just statues, right? Anyway, with madmen running loose and young folks trapped within the deadly township, things get wonderfully icky. I'm not exactly sure what was missing that kept House of Wax from being more successful, but for the most part the elements were in place. I do know worse movies have made much more money. Like Gothika, for crying out loud.

Strike Five? Hardly.

I'm hoping House of Wax serves as the turning point for Dark Castle, though I do wish they would focus more on original material than remakes. Their development roster seems to be running about half and half. Possible productions on the horizon include remakes of Macabre, I Saw What You Did, and Bad Ronald. Next on their slate is The Reaping, which I know absolutely nothing about. I think I'll just wait and be surprised.

Despite the overall results, I still applaud Dark Castle for at least trying to give horror fans something to cheer for. Perhaps House of Wax is the beginning of an upward swing, though I have to admit after Gothika I had my torch lit and pitch fork in hand and was ready to storm the castle, per se. I can only hope for better days and films from them.

I think the biggest lesson I take from Dark Castle and its brief history is that bigger budgets, name casts and studio backing do not a better horror film make. Bigger is simply not better in most cases. Too much money seems to corrupt a good horror idea faster than a drunken night with Tonya Harding. I do think it's safe to say the future of horror doesn't lie with the Dark Castles, the Lions Gates, or the Screen Gems. The best of horror yet to come is going to emerge from the independent low budget world where passion and imagination consistently win out over big bucks and studio interference. So while I'll continue to support the studios' genre specialty divisions, I'm putting my faith in the little guys with the original stories and maxed out credit cards. And the better the horror young bloods do, the happier we'll all be. Even the horror fans of Dark Castle.

The Splatter Pattern (October 2005)

Now, I'm feeling a bit perturbed, and I don't mean from the weird rash I've developed. I'm bummed because I'm a horror movie fan. Scratch that - I'm a horror movie junkie. And more particularly a low budget, drive-in double feature sort of horror movie junkie. Of course, just being that kind of fan puts me in a bad spot because the drive-in experience, like the middle class, is almost extinct. But that's how I was brought up to be a fan. Raised by a horror loving mother who introduced me to the likes of black and white Bette Davis and Joan Crawford shockers before sealing my cinematic tastes with 70's classic fare like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Last House On The Left I'm feeling a bit put off because it has been quite a long drought since the last scary, drive-in-esque horror film. So the question is: where is this generation's Chainsaw Massacre?

And don't be a smartass and think you're being funny mentioning that butt-ugly Chainsaw bastard, the New Generation, with Renee Zellweger & Matthew McConaughey. I'm not sure I could ever spit enough to get that foul taste out of my mouth. Ugh - still tastes like severely under-cooked chicken.

And don't get me wrong - there have been some pretty nifty lower budgeted horror flicks in the past few years, but none that have left a major imprint on my personal history of classic horror films. And I want to make it clear that I have nothing against being totally grossed out or simply entertained, which is the case in many recent satisfying flicks. Now, before a particular title bursts from your lips like projectile vomit, I have to tell you, I thought The Blair Witch Project was a shakily shot, headache conjuring marketing bonanza. It was also one of the most unlikely fluke smashes in film history. But call me crazy folks - piles of rocks or dangling stick figures just do not scare me. I have no friggin' idea why some people were so frightened by the movie. Now, I'll admit I was a little freaked when they decided to follow the creek to get out of the woods and ended up back where they started from, but I also remember when it finally ended I didn't even know what the hell happened. Like Ricky, I had to ask Lucy to 'splain it to me, shit. So I'm barely counting that movie, even though I know people who were totally freaked out by it. I also know just as many that think Blair Witch sucked the peel right off a banana. Truthfully, I've been more scared driving past an IRS office building.

So what's the big hairy deal about making a frightening film? Why is it so damned difficult? And I do understand the act of frightening an audience is by far the toughest goal in film. Make people laugh? Pretty easy even in a bad movie. Make people cry? Not really tough at all. But making people afraid? Hmmmmmmmmmm, I suppose someone needs to make a horror flick about clowns or dolls or needles or some of the other primal things people generally are squeamish about. Back in the day, those kind of elements were exploited. I know you all remember Tobe Hooper's 1982 Poltergeist and the classic scene with the stuffed clown dragging the boy under his bed? Geez Louise, I just got the shivers thinking about it. And let us not forget Dolls, Stuart Gordon's late 80's ode to freak out. That film still gets under my skin. When I think about the movie and remember all those little plastic eyes following the characters as they moved through rooms...yikes. Unfortunately that kind of primal fear hasn't been touched on nearly as much in recent films, and you'll notice with Poltergeist and Dolls, one was a bigger studio flick and the other was a much smaller independent flick. Now, one wonderful exception to the lack of primal fear is Open Water with its abandoned at sea/surrounded by sharks premise. And yeah, I know some people thought the movie sucked, but hey, it worked my nerves like a cheese grater and made me squint throughout.

Maybe we're all just too damn jaded to be really scared by movies anymore. Have we been callused by the media to the point where grim day-to-day reality makes Hannibal Lector seem more like your suck-ass high school gym teacher than a terrifying cannibal serial killer? If you live in Los Angeles like me, the possibility of getting carjacked or shot on the freeway or eaten by a cougar on a bike path or swallowed up in a mudslide are much more legit fears. And that all makes perfect sense for why audiences are so hard to scare, except for the fact people go to good horror flicks wanting to be scared. Can you say The Sixth Sense? I always argue The Sixth Sense is really a love story, but I'll tell you what: I'll never make a play tent in my room ever again. Count on that.

And frightening people isn't just a money thing either, because making people jump and dump their popcorn doesn't have to cost big bucks. I have a theory that, generally speaking, the more money a horror production has, the less creativity makes it on the screen. Can you say Dark Castle Entertainment? They haven't made a decent horror flick in almost half a dozen attempts, much less something scary. Lord knows they have plenty of money, so what's the problem? That's a topic for another column.

I think as Americans our imagination for terror is as good as our foreign brothers and sisters, even though it seems from my personal viewing Asian and European horror films have easily matched and surpassed our own boo flicks over the past 5+ years. Hollywood is in love with Asian remakes, but that shouldn't be getting in the way of developing American talent serving up generous portions of fingernail gnawing, squinty-eyed, sliding down in the theater seat terror. Foreign horror-meisters are certainly not waiting on us to open the pearly gates to horror heaven. It was indeed the rascally Japanese who invented the latest horror villain icon: the creepy, stringy haired killer girl that crawls like a broke legged roach dripping wet from your television screen to literally scare you to death. Bitch doesn't even use a machete or anything.

And fuck you if you think Jason or Freddy Krueger or the Geico gecko is scarier than the chick from Ringu.

And let's not even go there about the Japanese Fatal Attraction femme fatale from Audition.

Psssssssssssssssssssssssssssssst.

*Whispering* Hey, come here...a little closer...

Wanna know the scariest, most intense American made horror film I've seen in years? You probably won't believe me, but I swear to God…it was an incomplete rough cut of House of a 1,000 Corpses. I lied my way into a test screening and was T-O-T-A-L-L-Y blown away despite the temp music, missing transitional scenes, etc. It was so fucking wicked Stacey Snider, the queen bitch of Universal, wet her pants when she finally got around to looking at it and decided it was too much for Universal and decided to let Rob Zombie shop it around Hollywood. By the time Lion's Gate put it out a year + later, it was a different, much inferior film. In its rawer, unpolished version, the tone was dark and unrelenting, forcing me to shrink down into my seat throughout the movie. And despite its mediocre ending, by the time the lights came up, my nerves were shot to hell from several jumps and flinches. THAT'S what I'm talking about - a nightmare roller coaster ride through cinematic hell. This fresh wave of filmmakers is more than capable of delivering the goods.

Like I said, American horror talent has done some great work. Among the best of the past few years include Eli Roth's Cabin Fever, Lucky McKee's micro-gem May, Ginger Snaps, Frailty, Brad Anderson's Session 9 & The Machinist and Open Water. (Don't even try to tell me during the total "black out" night scene you didn't freak out a little) These films have done their part to keep the pulse of horror strong and steady, but I'm looking for someone to step up in their next project and take me to the promised land.

So let's talk about some of the future contenders and their films. How 'bout Eli Roth and his Cabin Fever; a millennium drive-in movie centered on a group of friends and a nasty flesh eating disease? Cabin Fever serves up generous portions of belly laughs, bloody gross-outs, germ paranoia, and T & A. Despite an intense moment or two, it wasn't scary, nor was it meant to be. The film put Roth on the map, so we can only wait & see what his next step will be.

Lucky McKee's May was as creepy as hell, and a real guilty pleasure to watch, but not really intense or scary. But I think his feel for setting and maintaining an unnerving tone is something McKee can use to his advantage in his next effort, The Woods. I know I have my fingers crossed.

I kinda waver about Brad Anderson's Session 9. Set in an enormous, abandoned mental institution, the story revolves around an environmental clean up crew and how their surroundings begin to prey upon their individual fears and weaknesses. The first time I saw it I was a bit disappointed, but having seen it a couple of times since, I've grown to appreciate it more and more. It certainly has good creep factor, but I didn't find it scary. Now I do think Anderson did a much better job in his follow-up, last year's The Machinist. A brooding nightmare of a film that keeps the audience off balance and on edge throughout, Anderson takes a serious step forward as a director to watch on the scary horror front.

Bill Paxton's Frailty (Yep, the very same Bill Paxton who chased tornados in Twister but also rode shotgun with that too-cool vampire crew in the under appreciated Near Dark) has all the ingredients to be a very frightening movie, but Mr. Paxton took the story in a different direction than other scarier alternatives. The premise is wonderful in its simplicity: a man suddenly believes he has been spoken to by God and has been chosen to slay the demons among us. God fearing father that he is, he eventually takes his two boys along on his missions, preparing them for the day they may take over his duties. But while his youngest son falls under the righteous spell of doing God's work, his older boy suspects his father has become insane and is caught between his love and loyalty to his father and his notions of right and wrong. The story works on several levels, and takes several entertaining twists. While Frailty isn't really scary, it's still an excellent, little seen horror gem.

Ginger Snaps? Along with Dog Soldiers it reinvigorated the left-for-dead werewolf sub-genre, featuring an attractive high school loner that bites. Entertaining and well made but not one damn boo moment to be remembered. Even Zombie's 1,000 Corpses sequel, The Devil's Rejects, while surprisingly strong and intense, is not scary. And further, I've read Rob Zombie would like to stretch his artistic wings and may not be long for making horror films. Great. Just great. We want the horror talent list to get longer, not shorter, sheesh.

Which leaves me to Open Water and Saw.

I tip my hat to the Open Water folks because anyone who makes movies or is connected to the film industry understands how difficult getting a movie made is, much less shooting one at sea…having real sharks involved is another plus, and that damn night time scene…as a whole Open Water isn't scary, but I give it an "A" for effort and intensity.

And then there's Saw. As sinister fun as it is, the story had the potential to be M-O-N-S-T-E-R scary. The flashlight scene in the photographer's apartment was pretty intense and I wish the whole movie could have maintained that energy. But despite a name cast, surprisingly poor acting and story lapses hurt the film's ability to maintain a dark, ominous tone, something our foreign born filmers don't seem to have a problem with. Like in the new French horror classic Haute Tension released as High Tension here in the states. That film, barely a blip at the American box office, really demonstrates the use of suspense in a horror film to keep an audience on edge. American writers and directors need to take note so their future work can be equally as nerve rattling between the big-time scares. I wonder if the Saw sequel will have learned its lessons and be the rare sequel that transcends its flawed but spirited original. I can only hope.

Now, over the past three years, I've seen a couple of low budget and not universally known films that point toward possible future scare masters. Anyone out there seen The Roost by Ti West? I saw it during a screening at the Los Angeles Film Festival this past summer. The Roost is a throwback with a feel similar to Friday the 13th. Its story centers on a group of friends stranded in the country, terrorized by bats whose victims are turned into bloodthirsty zombies. Now, there were certain aspects of the film I didn't like, but Mr. West displays real potential, and the film generates some decent suspense on a really low budget. Ti's passion for horror bleeds onto the screen in his impressive debut, much like Alan Rowe Kelly's I'll Bury You Tomorrow. Mr. Kelly tells the nasty story of an attractive mortuary assistant whose twisted mental and emotional state leads to many more customers than her mortuary can handle. She totes around a mighty heavy trunk too…yikes. Alan's take-no-prisoners approach to storytelling is exactly what hardcore horror fans are looking for. If he takes the same jab to the eye approach in his next film and actually aims to scare his audience, we could all be in for a hell of a treat.

*Tapping my foot impatiently*

So when AM I going to get my scary movie? Who's gonna sate my appetite not only for a great entertaining horror flick but a true, freak-me-out, bitch-say-what scary film? I need to know who is going to take the challenge and make the next great nightmare and then invite us all over for a bad nights sleep. Who's going to deliver the next Halloween, Evil Dead, or Night of the Living Dead? Will it come from someone whose work we already know or will it be a yet to be discovered talent? Since creating fear doesn't have to mean big budgets and elaborate effects, a new classic could come from anywhere. It just needs equal doses of good story, acting, execution and passion from the filmmakers, sprinkled with just the right merciless, predatory attitude needed when attempting to make paying patrons pee their pants.

Well, now that that's been cleared up, let's get to it, shall we?

I'm waiting, and I doubt I'm alone.