Bloody Disgusting posted the trailer for the upcoming Western-themed horror film The Burrowers, which despite looking pretty damned awesome, seems incredibly similar to The Descent in terms of style. This is not a bad thing. The Descent sought to frighten the viewer by utilizing basic human fears – isolation, darkness, sub-humanoid monsters living underground – and it worked. Much of what you see in the trailer for The Burrowers plays on much of the same ideas yet employs the backdrop of the Dakotas in the late-1800s.

This I love, as there are not enough period-piece horror films to wet my appetite for truly good horror. A post made roughly a month ago talks of the idea I have for a horror film set during the Salem Witch Trials, an event and point in time that just begs to be used in a horror film. My idea of course has zombies, but hey, old habits die hard. They are, of course, nothing more than the catalyst for the events that occur in the film, and are in fact forgotten by the end of the film.

Enough of that, for now.

Upcoming articles: An academic approach toward torture porn; why horror fans are an embarrassment; and horror vs. terror.

The trailer for The Burrowers can be found here. Enjoy.

A friend of mine has graciously decided to contribute an article discussing the perceived differences between a horror film and a thriller film. Hopefully within the next day or two I’ll be able to contribute my side of the story. Enjoy.

Horror vs. Thriller – A Look at What Scares Us
by Nick Hoyt

I was having a discussion with Brad a few days ago, and we came upon a subject that I have been mentally masturbating about for years now. The idea that a horror film and a thriller can be one in the same, but that one cannot be the other. Of course I immediately disagreed with him saying that there is a definite moment that sets these genres apart, but is there truly a point at which we know the difference?

This idea stems from what horror and thriller both mean to us. We differ on our opinions of what the genres are, and I find that for me there is a fine line between horror and thriller. But I do believe that there can be a definitive line drawn. This line in the modern genre is defined by the unseen versus the seen. Modern horror is defined by how much we see of the killer on screen, and how often he is there to strike fear into our hearts. This effect though is becoming old hat because now this is what we expect from the genre. Movies like the Friday the Thirteenth series, the Halloween series, See No Evil, etc, have one element that ties them together. This is that they all show you the killer, and make it obvious what that killer’s goals and motives are. This is horrifying because you now know that they are out to kill and that’s it. So the question now arises, What do you expect from them when they are on screen? This question is easily answered by bloody, bloody death, dismemberment, faces being plowed into fryers, knives being stabbed through victims, you name it, it happens. And on top of this element of knowing what is coming there is something new added the unstoppable death machine. Characters like Jason, Freddy, and Michael Myers are the “unstoppable death machines” you can put round after round into them and they keep coming which adds to their on-screen time, and to their fear factor. It’s not enough that they kill for the sheer joy of it, but they have to be unstoppable to be truly feared.

Now a thriller is a much more in depth look at the psychology of film, and how thought can be easily used against us. Of course visuals are a great medium, but the idea of the unseen being there to pounce at any moment is one of the most terrifying thoughts you can have. You live alone in your apartment, you hear a noise. It’s just a noise nothing more, but your mind elaborates upon it; could it be a burglar? Possibly that serial killer I heard about on the news last night? Or could it be my cat jumping to get to his food of course the answer is probably this, but you cannot be sure until you get off your ass and check it out. This is how a thriller as a film works, instead of seeing through the eyes of killer you follow the victim around a corner to their death. This is much more psychological and terrifying. A great example of this is Jaws, of course this example was going to come up it is one of the greatest thrillers of all time. The first kill in Jaws is one of silence and stealth, two of the most terrifying things that come to mind. If someone or something can sneak up on you and kill you with your knowing you never really did stand a chance. At least with the unstoppable death machines you have a chance because you see them coming and have a slight chance to stop them. You may not know your fate like the audience does, but at least you got to put up a fight before you went.

This situation begs for the question to be asked: When is a thriller a horror movie, and when is a horror movie a thriller? The answer to this is that a horror movie can be a thriller, but a thriller is not a horror movie. Since thrillers can be classified into many different genres movies like Basic Instinct is obviously not a horror film, but is a thriller as well as Falling Down. But movies like Jaws and The Exorcist that are both horror and thrillers have a different edge than one of a single genre. Of course the true problem is not that the genres are different, they need to be for a good variety of film to be made, but that is not the defining problem. The problem is that the archetypal horror flick – and I use flick for good reason – has become standard, and the psychological horror thriller has been put on the back burner while sub-par gorefests rule the land. I have no qualms with the sub-par gorefests, but they are being made too often and grossing too much to be ignored. Let’s roll the clock back and take a look at horror from the 70’s to 80’s. These films were being made, but they were mostly low budget poor grossing cult films that a small audience would watch. These include films like Cannibal Holocaust, Zombie, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Evil Dead and of course many more. These were all low budget, low profit, cult films and that side of the genre stayed that way for years. Now the cult market has sprung up as being low budget high profit, and they won’t stop being made until the profits dwindle. If a movie like Saw can be made for 10 million dollars, and profit in the hundreds of millions who would stop making them?! I know that I wouldn’t until I had completely exhausted my options. As fans we need to give an outcry for better, well-thought out horror films so that we can enjoy being truly terrified instead of being frightened by mere camera tricks.

…has solidified himself as a complete fuckwit for casting Paris Hilton in Repo! The Genetic Opera. Not only do we get to witness her atrocious acting abilities, but he subjects us to her horrible singing. Gotta give him props for getting Sarah Brightman to perform, though.

Ooh, he’s also apparently directing the remake of Cronenberg’s Scanners.

Yeah, that will give him more credibility.

Warning: Might contain spoilers

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane had a bumpy ride before it finally saw the light of day. The Weinstein Company was all set to release it in 2007, but the critical and box office failure of Grindhouse prompted them to sell the film to Senator Entertainment US and as such it received a more limited release, though it gained acclaim at the Toronto International Film Festival. Despite this, it is apparently good enough to have subsequent films being touted as “the next All the Boys Love Mandy Lane;” since I am a sucker for hype, I felt I would be doing myself a disservice as a horror fan to not see the film as soon as humanly possible. Armed with my laptop, a lack of power due to a tropical storm unleashing all holy hell upon us, and a comfy futon, I caved and watched this supposedly clever little sleeper hit. What followed was an hour and a half of confusion and, ultimately, disappointment.

Mandy Lane is a plain Jane turned uber-babe over the course of a summer, and naturally all the guys at her school want to “get” with her (to borrow a line from the film and the 80s). This includes her best friend Emmet, who inadvertently causes the death of a popular jock at a pool party one evening by daring him to jump off the roof of the house. He subsequently smacks his head on the concrete, and fifteen years of sports trivia, along with half his brain, comes oozing out. Nine months later, sweetheart Mandy Lane has a new group of friends, and Emmet is but a distant memory (I’m assuming this is because he basically killed a guy, but I could be wrong). Attending a getaway at a friend’s ranch that serves as nothing more than an attempt for the males of the group to get into her pants, Mandy Lane and her new friends have no idea what’s in store during their drug and alcohol fueled weekend.

The acting is typical of slasher-fare, showcasing the characters’ skills at being loathsome pricks and drug-addled sluts, though in the end it doesn’t matter anyways as they all serve as pretty much nothing but coffin fodder. The eponymous Mandy Lane bothered me throughout the entire film. However, her relatively uncharacteristic approach to a group of drug and alcohol fueled teenagers and their eventual slayings came to light at the end of the film, thus redeeming her. The nerdy Emmet was comparable to Ducky from Pretty in Pink, though only insofar as they both play the hopelessly-in-love nerdy best friend. Of the cast, I’d say the strongest part was Garth, played by Anson Mount, who managed to inject a bit of stoic humor into the role of the ranch hand tasked with keeping an eye on the ill-fated group of teenagers. The supposed twist at the end is sullied by the beginning of the film (much like Haute Tension), ruining any chance of the film being deemed intelligent, despite the review of one critic.

Though I do have serious misgivings about the film as a whole, the final five minutes served as a last minute attempt at retribution, throwing at the audience a series of one-liners that finally killed off Mandy’s relatively stoic attitude and made her seem as a big a bitch as the rest of the females in the film. When I spoke to my friend concerning this film, he criticized me for not taking into account its budget, which checks in at a weak $750,000. I agreed, and figured that with a greater budget he might have been able to craft a more solid horror film, complete with bloodier deaths, better actors, and everything else that gets brushed aside when the money doesn’t flow as readily as one would like. I don’t think, however, that the problems stem from financial concerns (though I could be wrong. I know next to nothing about the film-making process), but primarily from a weak script and an overabundance of cliches.

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has an identity crisis. It’s a teen flick without enough humor or tits and ass, and it’s a slasher flick without enough blood or violence. Any attempt at reviving a once thriving sub-genre has been given its last rites by a film that tried too hard to be edgy when it was just dull and too smart when it was just predictable. It’s one redeeming quality is the ending, yet it is not enough to save the film from the myriad of cliches that riddle the hour of worthless exposition and half hour of barely-there violence and gore. Levine set out to make a modern slasher flick that stood out on its own, supported by a strong cast and a smart script, but he ultimately failed in his attempt to do so. The slasher film has become played out represented by nothing more than big-budget remakes and small independents that fall dangerously short in their attempt at reviving a genre that died so long ago, and this film does not stand out from the crowd.

A couple of weeks ago I got the bright idea to interview the creator of Bloody Disgusting and all-around horror guru Brad Miska (AKA Mr. Disgusting). While the vast majority of successful news sites conduct interviews with all manner of folk in the horror industry, the fans themselves are neglected (though one can argue the directors themselves ARE the fans, that’s beside the point), and I figured posing a couple of questions to him regarding horror and his love for the genre would offer some good insight into the mind of one of the biggest horror fans on the internet. It’s brief and to the point, but then, so is life.

First off, for those not in the know, how did this site come to be, and did you ever imagine it would become the powerhouse it has?

Back in Decemberish of 2000 my buddy Tom asked me if he built a horror website if I would do the content. He just wanted to learn web design and I wanted to talk about horror movies, especially since the other sites out there at the time weren’t doing much. I knew it would get big, he didn’t. We launched in January of 2001 and the rest is history.

Is this a full-time gig for you? Have you finally lived every horror fan’s dream?

It’s turning into a full time gig, although I still need to find side work at the moment. It’s tough turning this into a real job, especially with the way the internet is going…

With the advent of special effects and the like, has your criteria for evaluating horror films changed over the years, or has it remained fairly consistent?

Special effects don’t always ruin a movie, although good ol practical effects are missed dearly.

I’m personally a huge fan of French horror films (and French cinema in general), and feel that they’re dominating the genre at the moment with films such as Martyrs, Inside, and my favorite, Ils. Do you think any one country is ahead of the pack as far as quality horror films go, both past and present?

Not really, the second one country gains a niche, every other person copies them and it gets old – fast. Look at Japanese horror, which now blows. It will happen with French cinema soon enough, although I can never get sick of the amount of gore they use.

Horror films have changed over time, relying less on suspense and more on gore to frighten the viewer. The so-called “torture-porn” subgenre and its success is certainly a testament to this. What do you think makes a horror film a truly frightening experience?

I don’t believe “torture-porn” even exists. SAW, HOSTEL and CAPTIVITY? What else was there? It has been blown out of proportion. A good movie has good characters, a suspenseful movie has good characters that are in peril, and blood is just a bonus, although it can make a movie “bearable”.

Do you think movies like Saw and Hostel have debased the genre, and in effect contributing to the lack of respect it tends to get from the mainstream film community?

No, I think movies like LOST BOYS 2, REST STOP 2, JOY RIDE 2 and other crappy direct to video franchises are what’s killing our genre. If the studios rely on home video sales, knowing that everything on DVD/Blu-ray is crappy doesn’t help the consumer purchase anything.

Who’s your favorite horror director? Favorite film of theirs?

I don’t have a favorite horror director at the moment, but I have favorite films. A lot of my favorite directors have come to disappoint me as of late and I lost my love for them. John Carpenter, Sam Raimi, Wes Craven and other have continually disappointed me as of late. If we were talking historically, Craven Carpenter, James Cameron and Raimi.

Any horror films you wish you could just erase from your memory and existence altogether?

Recently REST STOP II, BLOOD & CHOCOLATE, HELL RIDE, HOUSE OF THE DEAD, AvP, AvP II and many, many more.

Finally, a friend of mine posed this question to me the other day, and when I couldn’t give him a satisfactory answer, he tore me a new one. Why do you love horror films so much?

I found an answer in a rant a few years ago: http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/article/129

So there you have it. Many thanks to Mr. Disgusting for taking the time to answer these questions, and keep up the good work!

I possess what can only be described as a raging huge mega-boner over French horror films, as they have consistently ranked among some of the most well-executed, terrifying, and beautiful films to represent the severely under-appreciated genre, so when I heard that a French film crept into the line-up at the 2007 HorrorFest, I shit myself in excitement. Of course, as this was originally an “8 Films to Die For” release (it was pulled from the line-up due to the MPAA being whiny ass faces and rating it NC-17), my expectations weren’t too high, as Wicked Little Things was the only film I had seen from that year, and that movie made me so angry I punched a kitten.*

Frontier(s) follows a simple premise: a group of amateur thieves flee Paris after riots break out and get held up at a small inn owned by less than reputable characters. Their plans of a quiet night away from authorities changes course when their hosts reveal themselves to be neo-Nazi with both a taste for human flesh and the theatrical. What follows is a brilliantly crafted thriller that transcends your stereotypical gore-fest into a horror film that will go down in the annals of history as that one French horror film of 2007/8 that wasn’t À l’intérieur.

This film contains a number of homages to classic and contemporary horror films, used against them in the guise of unoriginality. All Movie lists its primary influence as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, a claim given credence toward the end of the film with the dinner scene, which features the twisted cannibalistic Von Geisler family discussing Yasmina’s new role as the “brood mare” to their Master Race. Though glaring in its influence, it remains one of the most tense scenes I have ever seen, due in no small part to the phenomenal soundtrack that accompanies it and the stellar and incredibly disturbing portrayal of Le Von Geisler, the twisted leader and father of the pack, by French actor Jean-Pierre Jorris.

Another scene features an Achilles tendon snipped by a pair of shears, itself reminiscent of Hostel and no doubt appropriate, as the film displays many characteristics of torture porn. Though a good, solid portion of the film features scenes such as this, I would be hesitant to lump it into this category as it was entirely secondary to the story and only served to illuminate the perversity and sadistic nature of the Von Geisler family. Additionally, the scenes are brief, and no more twisted than anything found in Hostel and its ilk, which makes me wonder why the film was rated NC-17 in the first place. It could have been the allusions of underage rape, or it could have been the thematic elements (Nazis are always a touchy subject, especially when they eat human flesh). Whatever the case may be, in the end the scenes of torture and gore aren’t entirely necessary, and I felt they some of them could be eliminated, or at the very least toned down. It does remain a testament to the film, though, that after viewing the film over a month ago, the acting, story, cinematography, and incredibly bad ass fucking score come to mind well before the blood and guts and various grotesqueries.

It pains me to see a movie I love so much be so critically derided, but I guess it comes with the territory. The influx of films that fall under the umbrella of torture porn seems to make ANY portrayal of torture and violence anathema, and the few reviews present on sites such as MetaCritic reflect this. Its perceived unoriginality serves as major fodder for these reviews as well, as much of what is presented is gleaned from other films (see above) and typical horror film tropes. While this does detract from the film in one way or another, I don’t think it deserves immediate dismissal as a result, as I personally believe any idea, no matter how unoriginal or outlandish it may be, can be done well. This goes double for horror films, where the employment of various techniques can take the focus off a bad script and scare the shit out you. In the end, however, the only reviews that matter come from the real horror fans, and this film has received rave reviews across the board from those rare individuals who are sick and twisted enough to love horror more than anything in the world. Like myself.

My love of this film might seem hypocritical of me, what with my unabashed and often overtly discussed disdain of torture porn (remember: they are to be enjoyed, but not appreciated), but one only has to view Frontier(s) to understand where I’m coming from. While my cynicism prevents me from taking a leap of faith and saying that horror movies are on the rebound (some really good flicks have started coming out and are actually receiving attention), it does not prevent me from saying that the French are now the undisputed kings of horror. It is a superb film, yet not without its flaws, but they’re so minor that they don’t take away from the viewing experience. Highly recommended.

*It was an ugly kitten, don’t worry.

Mr. Disgusting over at Bloody-Disgusting reported a week and a half ago that Lars von Trier secured financing for his horror film AntiChrist. Filming is set to commence in Cologne, Germany, and is centered on “a couple mourning the loss of their child who retreat to a cabin in the woods, where they soon encounter strange, terrifying occurrences.” Despite possessing a seemingly formulaic premise, Lars von Trier has been putting out great films at a consistent rate (I mean, did you see Dancer in the Dark? Bjork deserved a fuckin’ Oscar for her performance), and as such will most likely be a breath of fresh air in the horror industry.

Lars von Trier was part of the Dogme 95 collective, a style of avant-garde film-making in which the goal is “to purify filmmaking by refusing expensive and spectacular special effects, postproduction modifications and other gimmicks.” The goal behind the once vibrant Dogme 95 collective was to focus on the story and the actors’ performances, a seemingly essential though often overlooked aspect of most modern horror films. The torture porn sub-genre is an ideal example of this, eschewing any semblance of plot and storytelling for graphic images of torture and obscene violence. Though most of the Dogme 95 Manifesto can be ignored and a great horror film still be produced, it’s the underlying goal of the collective that matters, and I can only hope that von Trier keeps this in mind when making his film.

Now to the meat of the article. Dr. Kim Paffenroth (of Gospel of the Living Dead and my new personal hero) sums up my thoughts on torture porn better than I ever could by stating, “that even if staged in the bloodiest way possible, the play’s (King Lear) effect would not rely on the scene; instead, the scene’s bloodiness would be justified by the overall power of the play.” All the violence, gore, and extreme sadism should be used not as the driving force of the film, but merely secondary to the plot yet still relevant. He cites other examples of uber-violent literature, such as Oedipus Rex, where the titular character, upon discovering that he killed his father and diddled his mother, gouges his own eyes out in graphic detail. To provide a more modern example, the French horror film Frontier(s), written and directed by Xavier Gans, can at first glance be included under the umbrella of torture porn, though it is distinct from these films in a number of ways. While incredibly violent and depicting graphic scenes of torture, its employment is relatively sparse when compared to its contemporaries, and instead focuses more on not only the struggle for survival by the female protagonist, but also the motives behind the twisted family holding her captive.

Eli Roth has tried to defend the excessive sadism of his films by attempting to draw parallels between their content and current events (Roth himself drew parallels between his own Hostel and the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib). Attempting any sort of exegetical analysis of a woman having her eyeball drilled out by a hick American businessman seems like a bit of a stretch, Mr. Roth. I suppose if one tried really, really hard, they could form some sort of a connection between the psychological aspects of his film’s antagonists to the perpetrators of the events that occurred at Abu Ghraib, but it would be tenuous and open to severe interpretation.

Don Kaye of MSN Movies wrote a piece on torture porn (and actually references Ils, a film I feel doesn’t get the recognition it deserves), that apparently got under the skin of Eli Roth, who composed a rebuttal to Kaye which can be found here. He cites several examples of critics who praised Hostel II for it’s supposed anti-violence message, though I don’t see how graphic depictions of violence and torture, especially when it’s the driving force behind the movie, can be given a positive spin. In the end, however so much can be said regarding torture porn, but unfortunately for Eli Roth and others (Hostel helped to coin the term “torture porn,” so he often receives the brunt of the attacks) the negative usually outweighs the positive.

Reginald Williams at Blog Critics Magazine wrote a small piece on how “torture porn” is a misnomer, but unfortunately failed to do any real research to substantiate his incredibly narrow-minded claims. Breaking the term down into its two components, he of course agrees with the employment of the word torture, but balks at the liberal use of the word porn. The basis of his argument is that since there is no sexual stimulation or penetration in these horror films, then how could the term “porn” apply? Here’s where his research fails him. Though the etymology of the word has its roots in the sex business (from the Greek πορνογραφία), it has since evolved to encompass anything that might be considered obscene and containing no artistic merit, something that is obviously lost on Mr. Williams. Just as the sex and the potential for arousal gets people to view the porn we all know and love, it is the torture, violence and all manner of grotesqueries that entice people to watch the film, if only for that slight possibility of being frightened or disgusted. I mean, it certainly isn’t the supposed feminist undertones Eli Roth claims inhabit his films, though I guess I can see how a woman hanging nude over a bath tub and sliced apart by a scythe-wielding Elizabeth Bathory rip-off can be treated as a form of female empowerment.

Taking all of this into account, what ramifications do the popularity of these films have on the industry? Does it debase the genre as a whole, or does it simply serve to illuminate how fucked up people are in their desire and willingness to see pointless depictions of violence and torture? I’m not going to lie. I enjoyed Saw when it came out, just as I enjoyed Hostel when it came out. But over the past few years my taste in horror movies has matured, and looking back I can only compare them to a Michael Bay movie: good for two hours of escaping reality, but afterwards they’re forgotten and you go on with your life.

[digg=http://digg.com/movies/What_s_the_deal_with_torture_porn]

Sorry for the lack of content over the past few days. I’ve been in the process of moving, so between that and work, I’ve had zero free time to sit down and write anything substantial. An interview with the creator of Bloody-Disgusting is forthcoming, as are some reviews and more articles.

Stay tuned.